PDA

View Full Version : JoPo: Carl has us all fooled


siberian khatru
12-19-2006, 06:54 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/16270526.htm

Let’s face it — Chiefs aren’t that good

JOE POSNANSKI
The Kansas City Star

Picture, if you will, a football team. This is not any ordinary football team. This is a team that has made the playoffs one time in the last nine years. Once. In nine years. This obviously is not a particularly good football team.

In those nine years, this team has been led by four different head coaches (three defensive guys, one offensive guy), guided by four quarterbacks (all backups from other teams) and has finished, on average, 22nd in the league in total defense.

You have pictured a team in total disarray, yes? Let us divulge that team also has been miserable away from home — a 25-46 road record over those nine years. No toughness. This team has had just one of its drafted defensive players make the Pro Bowl over that nine-year drought (and that was a fluke, he was on the bench the very next year). This team has not been to a Super Bowl in Lance Armstrong’s lifetime.

This team embarrassed itself with a Monday night meltdown on national television. This team’s defensive slapstick inspired the commissioner to joke about them during his annual state of the NFL speech. This team had one coach quit suddenly and go into broadcasting, one coach resign to spend time with his grandkids and a third coach dismissed rather coldly and then brought back to be defensive coordinator.

Close your eyes. You are picturing one of the NFL dregs, right? The Detroit Lions? The Arizona Cardinals? The Houston Texans?

Of course, you know by now — you’ve known all along — that we are talking about the Kansas City Chiefs. And yet, somehow the Chiefs have avoided being considered one of those NFL dregs. Every home game sells out. People all over town wear red to work every Friday. Every July, no matter how many years since the team has tasted playoff success, Chiefs fans hope again.

How is this possible? You have entered the Chiefs zone.

•••

It’s strange. We all lived through every one of those Chiefs failures the last nine years. I was there for every one of them. And yet, until they were all piled up one after another like dominoes, I did not quite realize exactly how bad it has been. One playoff in nine years? Four coaches? Four backup quarterbacks? That bad a road record?

If the idea of the NFL is to make the playoffs — and I suspect most of us would say that’s the idea — the Chiefs are right there with the Lions, Cardinals and Browns.

But it doesn’t feel that way, does it? I suspect this has a lot to do with Chiefs president/CEO/general manager Carl Peterson. I know many people believe that he is somehow content with losing (as long as the stadium is filled), but I have never bought that. I think he wants very much to win. He has done everything he knows to win.

The truth of course is that under Peterson, the Chiefs haven’t won. In the early years, they couldn’t quite win playoff games. And over the last nine years, they haven’t even won enough to make the playoffs. Why not? I think the answer is more complicated than “he isn’t trying” or “he doesn’t care.” My quick explanation is that the hardest thing to do in football is a build a team with the right balance between offense and defense, and Peterson has never found that balance. Good teams can beat you more than one way. The Chiefs, under Peterson, have not had that variety.

But what Peterson has done — I think better than anyone in sports — is convince everyone that his mediocre teams are actually good and promising. How? He has kept the Chiefs from having one of those comical 3-13 seasons. He has always found players with star quality — Derrick Thomas to Joe Montana to Marcus Allen to Tony Gonzalez to Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson. And the Chiefs have just missed the playoffs enough times to keep everybody coming back for more.

I’ll bet if you asked big NFL fans to name the four teams that have made the playoffs just once since 1998, everybody would get Detroit. Most would pick Arizona. Most would pick Cincinnati (though the Bengals look on pace to make the playoffs this year and get out of this league of losers).

And I suspect very few would name Kansas City. They seem better than that.

This year’s team is a perfect example. These Chiefs were once 7-4 and two touchdowns ahead of Cleveland. They looked to be a playoff team for sure. They looked to be a team on the rise. Everybody in town was excited. Truth was, they were playing over their heads. They have lost three straight, and really they were not too competitive the last two.

Monday, someone asked me this simple question: If you had a choice to build for the future, would you take this year’s Chiefs team or the 4-11-1 team from 1988 that Marty Schottenheimer inherited?

The obvious answer is that you would take this year’s team. That was my thought.

But look again: That 1988 team had three defensive Pro Bowlers — Dino Hackett, Albert Lewis and Deron Cherry. Defensive end Neil Smith was about to emerge, cornerback Kevin Ross had Pro Bowl years ahead, and the Chiefs had a high draft pick (which Peterson used to take Derrick Thomas). That team also had a powerful running back (Christian Okoye), a solid offensive line, two productive wide receivers and a veteran quarterback (Steve DeBerg). There were some pieces there. And the Chiefs won.

Now, look at this year’s team. They will likely have no defensive Pro Bowlers this season. It’s way too early to predict that any of the young defenders will emerge the way Smith, Ross and others did. The Chiefs will have a mediocre draft pick, so they probably will not get a franchise player like Thomas. They do have the great running back, but the offensive line — especially at tackle — struggles. Hall of Famer Will Shields may retire. Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury, and he will be 37 before next season. The Chiefs do have the fabulous Tony Gonzalez, assuming they re-sign him. Otherwise, their receiving corps is shaky and aging fast.

The point is, this Chiefs team really isn’t very good. But, like always, they had people around town (at least for a while) believing they were good. Heck, I believed it, too. This is what the Chiefs do well. They get everyone to believe. Trouble is, they’re going to miss the playoffs again. And they do that well too. Too well.

Chiefnj
12-19-2006, 07:02 AM
He's not a real fan.

TrickyNicky
12-19-2006, 07:04 AM
Wow. Hit all the points that have been made on the Planet the last few weeks.

Kind of makes you feel sick when it's all laid out in front of you... Detroit and Arizona... :Lin:

Braincase
12-19-2006, 07:05 AM
Truth.

wolfpack0735
12-19-2006, 07:10 AM
i dont think he could have said it any better. sad but true. :hmmm:

KC Jones
12-19-2006, 07:11 AM
Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury

I don't know about that. Trent doesn't look the same since his protection became a big steaming pile of shit. He has always struggled with accuracy, but because of his leadership qualities, game management, Priest Holmes, and the O-line buying him major time he has been able to maximize his potential. Now he's missing two of those elements.

...and please don't think I'm trying to hang any blame on LJ - but I do think Priest was a better receiving threat and better at pass protection.

scott free
12-19-2006, 07:16 AM
Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury

I don't know about that. Trent doesn't look the same since his protection became a big steaming pile of shit. He has always struggled with accuracy, but because of his leadership qualities, game management, Priest Holmes, and the O-line buying him major time he has been able to maximize his potential. Now he's missing two of those elements.

...and please don't think I'm trying to hang any blame on LJ - but I do think Priest was a better receiving threat and better at pass protection.

I agree with everything except the accuracy part, accuracy is Trents strongest suit.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 07:29 AM
JoPo is just now getting this?

stevieray
12-19-2006, 07:31 AM
hard to disagree with this article.

Bob Dole
12-19-2006, 07:32 AM
I agree with everything except the accuracy part, accuracy is Trents strongest suit.

Since when?

kc rush
12-19-2006, 07:32 AM
You know its bad when Mr. Sunshine, Puppies & Hugs points out the negatives.

scott free
12-19-2006, 07:37 AM
Since when?

'01 - 56.6%

'02 - 61.1%

'03 - 63.1%

'04 - 66.4%

'05 - 62.5%

'06 - 62.1%

siberian khatru
12-19-2006, 07:41 AM
You know its bad when Mr. Sunshine, Puppies & Hugs points out the negatives.

Yep, this is the JoPo version of a bitch-slap.

I thought it was dead-on.

BigRedChief
12-19-2006, 07:43 AM
Yep, this is the JoPo version of a bitch-slap.

I thought it was dead-on.
Well you know when JOPO turned on the Royals GM he was out 3 months later? :hmmm:

siberian khatru
12-19-2006, 07:46 AM
Well you know when JOPO turned on the Royals GM he was out 3 months later? :hmmm:

Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." He decided to quit.

Maybe JoPo is KC's Walter Cronkite. If a team has lost JoPo ...

FAX
12-19-2006, 07:46 AM
Waita justa danga minute, here, Luigi.

A 13 and 3 team isn't good? A 10 and 6 team isn't good? We've had good teams in the last 9 years. Two of them to be exact.

FAX

Kerberos
12-19-2006, 07:48 AM
I agree with everything except the accuracy part, accuracy is Trents strongest suit.


I'm inclined to go with KCJones on this one.

Trents accuracy has never been DEAD ON ... he is no Payton Mangina.

He has lost his nerve in the pocket due to suspect protection that has led to the decline of his quick release. Top that with our receivers inability to make separation quickly it makes Trent hold the ball longer.

It was Trents quick release and receivers actually catching the ball that made a lot of plays in the past.

If anything the quick release he was always good for has been hampered by rushing LBackers and protection that sucks. I don't know that we miss Willie Roaf as much as we miss T-Rich and Priest blocking behind the rest.

Just IMO.


Waita justa danga minute, here, Luigi.

A 13 and 3 team isn't good? A 10 and 6 team isn't good? We've had good teams in the last 9 years. Two of them to be exact.

FAX


Our 13-3 team in 2003 had one of the most PUD schedules the first 9 games in the NFL. Look at the Bears schedule this year.... I think you will see that had they actually had to play MORE good teams (above .500) that thier record may not be as good as it is now. We were an above average team with pud schedule IMO.

.

dirk digler
12-19-2006, 07:53 AM
Great article by JoPo we definitely need to clean house and I hope Clark will do this now that he is in charge.

scott free
12-19-2006, 07:59 AM
His percentages here were nothing to scoff at. The STL system he was supposed to run demands great accuracy as well.

Skip Towne
12-19-2006, 08:16 AM
"Defensive slapstick". :LOL:

hawkchief
12-19-2006, 08:17 AM
The only line JoPo forgot was "fool me for 18 years, shame on me".

I tired of Peterson's transparent act 3 years ago, quit buying season tickets and thusly quit being a "real fan". More people need to do the same and Clark will get the message that Carl has overstayed his welcome (by about a decade).

stevieray
12-19-2006, 08:18 AM
The only line JoPo forgot was "fool me for 18 years, shame on me".

I tired of Peterson's transparent act 3 years ago, quit buying season tickets and thusly quit being a "real fan". More people need to do the same and Clark will get the message that Carl has overstayed his welcome (by about a decade).

Do you think people will do that, considering Lamar passed and the stadium is getting rennovated?

tomahawk kid
12-19-2006, 08:20 AM
Do you think people will do that, considering Lamar passed and the stadium is getting rennovated?

I'd say its definitely increased the odds.

stevieray
12-19-2006, 08:22 AM
I'd say its definitely increased the odds.

why?

InChiefsHell
12-19-2006, 08:22 AM
This article is amazing. I think I'm going to puke.

If I could, I'd Rep JoPo for saying all of this...

King_Chief_Fan
12-19-2006, 08:23 AM
He paints the picture that Chiefs fans are ignorant rubes who likes a constant kick in the nuts.

tomahawk kid
12-19-2006, 08:30 AM
why?

I can't give you a specific reason.

When I read the Clark Hunt's interview in this weekend's paper, I got the impression that he wants to bring some new folks into the organization.

I'd say that Lamar's passing, coupled with my perception based on the KC Star article, contributes to my thought of Carl moving on.

I could be totally out in left field though....or wishful thinking.

FringeNC
12-19-2006, 08:32 AM
Tough times ahead. We have a below-average GM and a below-average head coach. The previous five years you had Vermeil and Saunders in charge of the offense -- that's why it didn't suck. Now you have Carl and Herm in charge of it. There's no brain power at Arrowhead anymore on either side of the ball. Herm and Carl are not complete morons, but they're hardly difference makers, either.

StcChief
12-19-2006, 08:33 AM
If it works to have ClarkHunt DUMP or Demote Carl Peterson it will be worth it.

DMAC
12-19-2006, 08:35 AM
This article could be way shorter. Here...

The reason Chiefs fans keep coming back is because we are ALMOST good every year.

We may even say "tough times ahead"...but you know they will make a push for the playoffs next year, YOU KNOW THEY WILL. But, they will be 8-8 or 9-7.

The end.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 08:36 AM
Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

siberian khatru
12-19-2006, 08:38 AM
Herm and Carl are not complete morons, but they're hardly difference makers, either.

I think that's fair and accurate. They're the definition of mediocrity, and it's reflected in the franchise.

Donger
12-19-2006, 08:42 AM
Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

Does he have a contract? If so, how much time remains on it?

OnTheWarpath58
12-19-2006, 08:43 AM
Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

Question for you, htismaqe....

Even if CP was to be let go, wouldn't you expect Kuharich or Thum to get the job? Or do you think the whole FO would be scrapped?

Either of those two would basically be Carl D. Peterson Jr., IMO.

CupidStunt
12-19-2006, 08:44 AM
Sh*t hits home, really.

Shame. Cardinals of the AFC.

Ouch.

Cochise
12-19-2006, 08:47 AM
Good, sensible analysis. Good to see someone not parroting the usual "Carl doesn't care about winning" tripe. It's ludicrous to say such a thing. He's tried to win. He's just failed, and nobody has ever held him accountable.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 08:48 AM
Does he have a contract? If so, how much time remains on it?

He's got 3 years remaining on a 4-year deal.

Lzen
12-19-2006, 08:49 AM
I can't believe anyone would say that Trent isn't accurate. I'll admit that this year he hasn't been very accurate, especially on those passes out to the flats. But most years he's been with the Chiefs, he's been one of the most accurate QBs in the league. If you couldn't see that, you must be blind. Sure, he's not Peyton Manning. But Peyton Manning's don't come around that often.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 08:49 AM
Question for you, htismaqe....

Even if CP was to be let go, wouldn't you expect Kuharich or Thum to get the job? Or do you think the whole FO would be scrapped?

Either of those two would basically be Carl D. Peterson Jr., IMO.

I think Clark is just like his dad. Lamar cleaned house ONCE in the franchise's history, and it took a decade of averaging 4 or 5 wins a season to get him to do it. Beyond that, the guy that oversaw the whole mess (Jack Steadman) was not only retained by the team, but he's in the RING OF FAME.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Carl get extended AGAIN, if that's what Carl wants. And if he decides to move on, a guy like Thum will take over.

Short Leash Hootie
12-19-2006, 08:51 AM
I can't believe anyone would say that Trent isn't accurate. I'll admit that this year he hasn't been very accurate, especially on those passes out to the flats. But most years he's been with the Chiefs, he's been one of the most accurate QBs in the league. If you couldn't see that, you must be blind. Sure, he's not Peyton Manning. But Peyton Manning's don't come around that often.
hahahaha

Bob Dole
12-19-2006, 08:51 AM
Funny how Dawes already had a response to this article posted at 1:48:56am.

RUFUS DAWES: There’s little sense to be made of who’s mediocre, who’s terrible and who’s great. The Kansas City Star’s Joe Posnanski says, “let’s face it – Chiefs aren’t that good.” (December 19, 2006) If 7-7 today gives you a chance to make the playoffs – and it does in the NFC — are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Yo Rufus...we're not in the NFC. Never have been. Likely never will be.

Second, you could probably define "mediocre" by looking at KC's record next to the record of the team leading the AFC West.

12-2
7-7

See the difference?

OnTheWarpath58
12-19-2006, 08:56 AM
Funny how Dawes already had a response to this article posted at 1:48:56am.



Yo Rufus...we're not in the NFC. Never have been. Likely never will be.

Second, you could probably define "mediocre" by looking at KC's record next to the record of the team leading the AFC West.

12-2
7-7

See the difference?

This line kills me......

are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Who gives a flying **** about other teams?

All I know is that the team I root for is 7-7. And honestly, they're lucky not to be 5-9 or 4-10.

Donger
12-19-2006, 08:59 AM
He's got 3 years remaining on a 4-year deal.

Well, that little nugget of information made me vurp.

CupidStunt
12-19-2006, 08:59 AM
It says that the other teams suck.

Truth be told, they do. The NFL just isn't very good this year.

Donger
12-19-2006, 09:00 AM
Who gives a flying **** about other teams?

I do. Since the Chiefs have to compete with them and all, in order to get to the playoffs.

Or not.

OnTheWarpath58
12-19-2006, 09:08 AM
I do. Since the Chiefs have to compete with them and all, in order to get to the playoffs.

Or not.

C'mon, Donger. You know the point Rufass was trying to make is that since everyone else is mediocre, it's OK for the Chiefs to be mediocre.

So what it the NFC has 6 teams at 6-8? We play in the AFC. It has nothing to do with us. He's just another apologist who says "well if the Chiefs played in the NFC they'd be in the playoffs"

But they don't. Tough.

Donger
12-19-2006, 09:11 AM
C'mon, Donger. You know the point Rufass was trying to make is that since everyone else is mediocre, it's OK for the Chiefs to be mediocre.

So what it the NFC has 6 teams at 6-8? We play in the AFC. It has nothing to do with us. He's just another apologist who says "well if the Chiefs played in the NFC they'd be in the playoffs"

But they don't. Tough.

Heh. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying.

Yes, I agree.

kc rush
12-19-2006, 09:25 AM
If 7-7 today gives you a chance to make the playoffs – and it does in the NFC — are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Uh, it says that they are mediocre teams playing in a bad division.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 10:06 AM
While it will most likely not happen, I hope Clark gets rid of everyone, from Carl to the scouts to the janitors. This organizations needs a thorough colon cleansing.

Thig Lyfe
12-19-2006, 10:08 AM
Damn. Good column.

Well you know when JOPO turned on the Royals GM he was out 3 months later? :hmmm:

Let's hope he still has the powah.

(Although, in that case as well as this, he was a little slow on the uptake. No matter, though, as when he finally got it, he got it good, and articulated it wonderfully)

FAX
12-19-2006, 10:14 AM
While it will most likely not happen, I hope Clark gets rid of everyone, from Carl to the scouts to the janitors. This organizations needs a thorough colon cleansing.

This would be a great time to do it, Mr. Vanilla Thunder. The Mighty Clark asserts his authority after assumption of the undivided throne.

Thing is, if it doesn't happen soon, it probably won't until Carl's contract expires.

FAX

Bob Dole
12-19-2006, 10:18 AM
While it will most likely not happen, I hope Clark gets rid of everyone, from Carl to the scouts to the janitors. This organizations needs a thorough colon cleansing.

The offices have looked pretty clean the few times Bob Dole has been in there. He could probably leave the janitorial staff alone.

Bob Dole
12-19-2006, 10:20 AM
Since the Miracle at the Meadowlands came up in another thread...

KC needs a Morris Spielberg.

FAX
12-19-2006, 10:25 AM
Since the Miracle at the Meadowlands came up in another thread...

KC needs a Morris Spielberg.

Yep. Unfortunately there is only one Morris Spielberg.

Unless you count Morrie Spielberg, the hairlipped greengrocer.

FAX

Wile_E_Coyote
12-19-2006, 10:28 AM
chicken or egg? The second favorite topic on one of the Chiefs most popular fan sites, poop

Deberg_1990
12-19-2006, 10:31 AM
But what Peterson has done — I think better than anyone in sports — is convince everyone that his mediocre teams are actually good and promising. How? He has kept the Chiefs from having one of those comical 3-13 seasons. He has always found players with star quality — Derrick Thomas to Joe Montana to Marcus Allen to Tony Gonzalez to Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson. And the Chiefs have just missed the playoffs enough times to keep everybody coming back for more.



Great job JoPo. You just summed up everything ive been saying the past couple of weeks, but did it better than i ever could. I think i just found my new signature...

Time for this bum to be shown the door....

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 10:32 AM
The offices have looked pretty clean the few times Bob Dole has been in there. He could probably leave the janitorial staff alone.

They shall stay on then.

Should Clark give the janitorial staff free colon cleansings for their great work?

Mr. Laz
12-19-2006, 10:33 AM
This organizations needs a thorough colon cleansing.
this town needs an enema...

http://www.tias.com/stores/stricklersports/pictures/7196a.jpg

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 10:41 AM
this town needs an enema...

http://www.tias.com/stores/stricklersports/pictures/7196a.jpg

Now that would be SWEET if the Joker were our next GM.

FAX
12-19-2006, 10:50 AM
Now that would be SWEET if the Joker were our next GM.

You mean, we don't, Mr. Vanilla Thunder?

"Now comes the part where I relieve you, the little people, of the burden of your failed and useless lives. But remember, as my plastic surgeon always said: if you gotta go, go with a smile."

FAX

Mr. Laz
12-19-2006, 10:57 AM
You mean, we don't, Mr. Vanilla Thunder?

glad somebody got it, Mr. Fax.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 11:01 AM
This would be a great time to do it, Mr. Vanilla Thunder. The Mighty Clark asserts his authority after assumption of the undivided throne.

Thing is, if it doesn't happen soon, it probably won't until Carl's contract expires.

FAX

The problem is that the Mighty Clark has been filthy rich his entire life. When you have his kind of money $1,000 here and $100,000 there is like pocket change.

I can't think of a single thing the fans can do that would hit him DEEP ENOUGH in the pocketbook to actually make him want to change things.

Which means we're basically at his mercy.

DJJasonp
12-19-2006, 11:04 AM
The problem is that the Mighty Clark has been filthy rich his entire life. When you have his kind of money $1,000 here and $100,000 there is like pocket change.

I can't think of a single thing the fans can do that would hit him DEEP ENOUGH in the pocketbook to actually make him want to change things.

Which means we're basically at his mercy.


And if we did hit him hard enough to tick him off....he'd move the team.

SNR
12-19-2006, 11:05 AM
They shall stay on then.

Should Clark give the janitorial staff free colon cleansings for their great work?Let's put the janitorial staff at GM. They won't ask for as much money, they probably follow the NFL and its workings pretty well, and if the Chiefs did win a Super Bowl, it would be the NFL's greatest story ever told. "Toilet Bowl to Super Bowl- The Super Bowl Kansas City Chiefs"

Plus they don't have that far to go to be better than Carl. One playoff berth in 9 years. I think they could do it just fine.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 11:13 AM
And if we did hit him hard enough to tick him off....he'd move the team.

Not for 25 years, he won't.

The $ amount of the penalties in the new lease definitely register on his rader.

Calcountry
12-19-2006, 11:13 AM
Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury

I don't know about that. Trent doesn't look the same since his protection became a big steaming pile of shit. He has always struggled with accuracy, but because of his leadership qualities, game management, Priest Holmes, and the O-line buying him major time he has been able to maximize his potential. Now he's missing two of those elements.

...and please don't think I'm trying to hang any blame on LJ - but I do think Priest was a better receiving threat and better at pass protection.People need to stop making excuses for Green. Excuses are what got us Gunther back as DC.

Calcountry
12-19-2006, 11:14 AM
I'm inclined to go with KCJones on this one.

Trents accuracy has never been DEAD ON ... he is no Payton Mangina.

He has lost his nerve in the pocket due to suspect protection that has led to the decline of his quick release. Top that with our receivers inability to make separation quickly it makes Trent hold the ball longer.

It was Trents quick release and receivers actually catching the ball that made a lot of plays in the past.

If anything the quick release he was always good for has been hampered by rushing LBackers and protection that sucks. I don't know that we miss Willie Roaf as much as we miss T-Rich and Priest blocking behind the rest.

Just IMO.





Our 13-3 team in 2003 had one of the most PUD schedules the first 9 games in the NFL. Look at the Bears schedule this year.... I think you will see that had they actually had to play MORE good teams (above .500) that thier record may not be as good as it is now. We were an above average team with pud schedule IMO.

.You are not going to stand here and make a case that does anything but admit that Trent Green is in decline.

ROYC75
12-19-2006, 11:15 AM
Meh, Carl is just waiting until the time is right to win a SB, then he can retire and go out on top a winner.Just ask him, he"ll tell ya .........

BigRedChief
12-19-2006, 11:58 AM
Only four teams have a worse AFC record than KC (Oakland, Miami, Cleveland, Houston). Two of those teams beat the Chiefs.

KC has the second worst record against the AFC (3-7) behind only the Raiders.

Thats really some sad facts.

ptlyon
12-19-2006, 12:00 PM
Only four teams have a worse AFC record than KC (Oakland, Miami, Cleveland, Houston). Two of those teams beat the Chiefs.


3 come the light of Sunday morning.

Chief Chief
12-19-2006, 12:03 PM
I agree with everything except the accuracy part, accuracy is Trents strongest suit.

Yeah, those throws to Ed Reed of the Ravens and Donnie Edwards of the Chargers were right on target where none of our players were able to touch them. And, no, Trent wasn't under heavy pressure in those situations.

He can't pass accurately on the run which means DEs know exactly where to find him: 5 to 7 steps back in the pocket.

If you can, check out his passes in previous games this season. Just a few memorable ones: He's thrown to a closely-covered Dante 2 yards beyond the line of scrimmage on a 3rd and 7. He's inexcusably thrown low short-distance passes to Hall and Kris Wilson who were relatively open in the end zone in the last 3 games (both caught - big kudos to the receivers). He's also thrown way wide right to Wilson standing off in the flat (incomplete).

A few games ago, Trent said one of his picks was due to his feet being set wrong. He still has problems with his footwork. When he exaggerates the quick ducking of his head to 'sell' the run on a play-action pass, the defense instantly knows it's a fake hand-off -- the last QB that did the head duck thing was Sonny Jurgensen. Have we ever seen Trent duck his head on a real hand-off? He doesn't duck it at all!

Those 60% passing completion rates you've shown don't tell the whole story. Most of those were on teams loaded with offensive talent (thanks to his buddy Dick Vermeil). Let's see his QB ratings of the games he's played so far this season.

And let's keep an eye on his passing game these next two games and see if he's really worth the money that Dick and Carl are giving him. Based on what I've seen, Damon's done better and would make a great full-time starting QB.

InChiefsHell
12-19-2006, 12:04 PM
This line kills me......

are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Who gives a flying **** about other teams?

All I know is that the team I root for is 7-7. And honestly, they're lucky not to be 5-9 or 4-10.

ROFL Exactly! Hey Rufus, it means that some other teams are mediocre too...you incredible DOLT!

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 12:06 PM
Yeah, those throws to Ed Reed of the Ravens and Donnie Edwards of the Chargers were right on target where none of our players were able to touch them. And, no, Trent wasn't under heavy pressure in those situations.

He can't pass accurately on the run which means DEs know exactly where to find him: 5 to 7 steps back in the pocket.

If you can, check out his passes in previous games this season. Just a few memorable ones: He's thrown to a closely-covered Dante 2 yards beyond the line of scrimmage on a 3rd and 7. He's inexcusably thrown low short-distance passes to Hall and Kris Wilson who were relatively open in the end zone in the last 3 games (both caught - big kudos to the receivers). He's also thrown way wide right to Wilson standing off in the flat (incomplete).

A few games ago, Trent said one of his picks was due to his feet being set wrong. He still has problems with his footwork. When he exaggerates the quick ducking of his head to 'sell' the run on a play-action pass, the defense instantly knows it's a fake hand-off -- the last QB that did the head duck thing was Sonny Jurgensen. Have we ever seen Trent duck his head on a real hand-off? He doesn't duck it at all!

Those 60% passing completion rates you've shown don't tell the whole story. Most of those were on teams loaded with offensive talent (thanks to his buddy Dick Vermeil). Let's see his QB ratings of the games he's played so far this season.

And let's keep an eye on his passing game these next two games and see if he's really worth the money that Dick and Carl are giving him. Based on what I've seen, Damon's done better and would make a great full-time starting QB.

At least one of those passes you mentioned - the INT to Donnie Edwards - had nothing to do with Trent's accuracy.

This offense, as was the offense under Vermeil both here and in St. Louis, is predicated on "spots". The QB isn't necessarily throwing to a WR. He's throwing to a spot on the field where he expects the WR to be. It's a timing offense.

That being said, he hasn't been as accurate this season.

Chiefnj
12-19-2006, 12:10 PM
Someone posted it earlier, but the Chiefs have scored 1 TD or less (not including FG's) in 7 games this season. 3 1/2 played by Trent, 3 1/2 played by Huard. Almost all of those games came against good defenses. Both QB's suffered when playing good D's.

InChiefsHell
12-19-2006, 12:12 PM
Trent is a year older than last season. People can drop off dramatically at that age. Plus, he had his damn head almost knocked off. I would not be surprised to see that his production is suffering. I hope for his sake that he gets out after this season, before he gets hurt again next year with this "transition offense" we seem to be running.

tk13
12-19-2006, 12:16 PM
I agree that coming off a severe injury, and at Trent's age, we have to be careful to see if his production might decline.

That said, it's only been two bad games... against what are probably the best two teams in football, and maybe the best two defenses right now. I think people are throwing him under the bus WAYYYY too quickly.

klg61
12-19-2006, 12:16 PM
i am hopeing that clark has a good vision for this team. and i hope that vision doesnt include carl peterson

Bwana
12-19-2006, 12:17 PM
Sad, but true, good read. I am going to take a pass on NFL Sunday ticket next year as well. Until the management pulls its head out of its ass, it's not worth it to pay the extra money to watch ones team get spanked every week. I'll just listen to the games on the internet, or catch the ones that happen to be on TV in my area.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 12:17 PM
i am hopeing that clark has a good vision for this team. and i hope that vision doesnt include carl peterson

I have a feeling you're going to be hoping for at least 3 more years.

FringeNC
12-19-2006, 12:18 PM
I really like Trent Green as a quarterback, but I think it may be time to just gut the offense. Do we really want to lock up Gonzalez to a huge long-term deal? Shields is about to retire. We have no tackles.

Trent is signed for next year, but I think there's a big escalation in his contract. Maybe we need to start over and suggest to Trent it'd be better for him to finish his career in Washington. They need a QB, and have a lot more weapons than we do on offense.

There's not going to be any re-loading on offense, because we have no one left that is competent of pulling it off.

klg61
12-19-2006, 12:22 PM
I have a feeling you're going to be hoping for at least 3 more years.


i am sure you are right. clark will let him stay while he has a contract.

Dave Lane
12-19-2006, 12:23 PM
I think Clark is just like his dad. Lamar cleaned house ONCE in the franchise's history, and it took a decade of averaging 4 or 5 wins a season to get him to do it. Beyond that, the guy that oversaw the whole mess (Jack Steadman) was not only retained by the team, but he's in the RING OF FAME.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Carl get extended AGAIN, if that's what Carl wants. And if he decides to move on, a guy like Thum will take over.

God damn Parker you have just about broken the last of my morale!

Dave

Mr. Laz
12-19-2006, 12:24 PM
Trent Green has never been one to throw well when he has to move.... not even moving just a few steps.

he needs to plant ... step ... throw or his accuracy goes to shit.

it's always been that way

Dave Lane
12-19-2006, 12:24 PM
The saddest thing of all is what will this team be like next year. Gack it could get really ugly.

Dave

klg61
12-19-2006, 12:27 PM
it is rebuilding time. alot of the defense is in place with the exception of needing a good dt. our offense needs the rebuilding now..

Chief Chief
12-19-2006, 01:13 PM
At least one of those passes you mentioned - the INT to Donnie Edwards - had nothing to do with Trent's accuracy.

This offense, as was the offense under Vermeil both here and in St. Louis, is predicated on "spots". The QB isn't necessarily throwing to a WR. He's throwing to a spot on the field where he expects the WR to be. It's a timing offense.

That being said, he hasn't been as accurate this season.

I hear what you're saying but the QB is still responsible to look at the "spots" before releasing the throw to ensure the pass won't get picked off. Therein lies another fault of Trent: He tends to lock onto (i.e., stare at) a receiver, thereby tipping the defense of where his pass will go.

Simplex3
12-19-2006, 01:16 PM
And if we did hit him hard enough to tick him off....he'd move the team.
So? If he isn't going to try and field a quality product then f**k them. I can tolerate trying and failing, but sitting on your thumb waiting for the check to come in doesn't fly with me.

Give me the deal Cleveland got. If Clark won't try and fix it then send this pile of crap to some other city and give me a new Chiefs.

htismaqe
12-19-2006, 01:26 PM
So? If he isn't going to try and field a quality product then f**k them. I can tolerate trying and failing, but sitting on your thumb waiting for the check to come in doesn't fly with me.

Give me the deal Cleveland got. If Clark won't try and fix it then send this pile of crap to some other city and give me a new Chiefs.

The deal that Cleveland got isn't gonna happen. There won't ever be more than 32 teams in the NFL.

If we lose our team, it's likely we'll never get another. Maybe we could get the Vikings and play in the NFC North? :evil:

Simplex3
12-19-2006, 01:27 PM
The deal that Cleveland got isn't gonna happen. There won't ever be more than 32 teams in the NFL.

If we lose our team, it's likely we'll never get another. Maybe we could get the Vikings and play in the NFC North? :evil:
That would rule.

How do we get this done? Even "Timmay!!" could win in that freaking division.

Pitt Gorilla
12-19-2006, 01:45 PM
The saddest thing of all is what will this team be like next year. Gack it could get really ugly.

DaveIt needs to get "ugly." This team needs retooled with a longer term vision, and not trying to win next year.

Halfcan
12-19-2006, 01:50 PM
JoPo has been reading the Planet.

Redrum_69
12-19-2006, 01:52 PM
It needs to get "ugly." This team needs retooled with a longer term vision, and not trying to win next year.


In that case we need to score 3 points and have a blowout loss to the Raiders...if you want to get a rebuild/attention out of this season.


Or we could just win out and still have a chance for playoffs if everyone thats tied loses...and we win the next two.....

Mecca
12-19-2006, 01:59 PM
I really like Trent Green as a quarterback, but I think it may be time to just gut the offense. Do we really want to lock up Gonzalez to a huge long-term deal? Shields is about to retire. We have no tackles.

Trent is signed for next year, but I think there's a big escalation in his contract. Maybe we need to start over and suggest to Trent it'd be better for him to finish his career in Washington. They need a QB, and have a lot more weapons than we do on offense.

There's not going to be any re-loading on offense, because we have no one left that is competent of pulling it off.

Carl rebuild.....now that's a far fetched idea.

Simplex3
12-19-2006, 02:03 PM
Or we could just win out and still have a chance for playoffs if everyone thats tied loses...and we win the next two.....
The Chiefs getting in the playoffs is just like the eunuch guarding the harem. Sure you got in but you still weren't going to get any.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 02:20 PM
Like tk13 said, people are throwing Trent under a bus rather quickly.

I'm kind of up for the idea of starting Croyle though these last two games, just to get him some time. Because just like Shanahan mentioned, it's not about the playoffs, it's about Super Bowl victories. We should get a sneak peak and see what we got in Croyle.

bogie
12-19-2006, 02:29 PM
The problem is that the Mighty Clark has been filthy rich his entire life. When you have his kind of money $1,000 here and $100,000 there is like pocket change.

I can't think of a single thing the fans can do that would hit him DEEP ENOUGH in the pocketbook to actually make him want to change things.

Which means we're basically at his mercy.


vurp

Chief Henry
12-19-2006, 03:02 PM
[QUOTE=TrickyNicky]Wow. Hit all the points that have been made on the Planet the last few weeks. QUOTE]



Actually all those points have been made the last several years by many people. Jo Po is just now getting up from his keyboard and smelling the
coffee thats been stale in the Chiefs coffee pot for years.

L.A. Chieffan
12-19-2006, 04:13 PM
Tell us something we don't know Jo Po.

CHIEF4EVER
12-19-2006, 04:15 PM
In that case we need to score 3 points and have a blowout loss to the Raiders...if you want to get a rebuild/attention out of this season.


Or we could just win out and still have a chance for playoffs if everyone thats tied loses...and we win the next two.....

Then again...we could all just draw straws to see who get to tap your mom's booty first. :p

milkman
12-19-2006, 07:34 PM
In that case we need to score 3 points and have a blowout loss to the Raiders...if you want to get a rebuild/attention out of this season.


Or we could just win out and still have a chance for playoffs if everyone thats tied loses...and we win the next two.....

This playoff fantasy is like your mother.

Everyone has had her, and been disappointed, yet people come back for more.

Halfcan
12-19-2006, 07:35 PM
zing

Reerun_KC
12-19-2006, 07:40 PM
Because just like Shanahan mentioned, it's not about the playoffs, it's about Super Bowl victories. We should get a sneak peak and see what we got in Croyle.


If that was the case it the Chiefs would of never hired Herm Edwards. It is about the playoffs. Carl is only worried about doing just as much as he needs to, to get the Chiefs to the playoffs. One and done? He dont care. As long as he can raise parking, concessions and tickets the following year, he is happy and the Chiefs succeed.

Herm was a safe hire, not risky and will keep the team at or barely above .500 and a shot at the playoffs.

No team in their right mind would ever hire the fraud of a coach that Herm is if they were serious about a superbowl Period!

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2006, 09:10 PM
If that was the case it the Chiefs would of never hired Herm Edwards. It is about the playoffs. Carl is only worried about doing just as much as he needs to, to get the Chiefs to the playoffs. One and done? He dont care. As long as he can raise parking, concessions and tickets the following year, he is happy and the Chiefs succeed.

Herm was a safe hire, not risky and will keep the team at or barely above .500 and a shot at the playoffs.

No team in their right mind would ever hire the fraud of a coach that Herm is if they were serious about a superbowl Period!

Excellent points. I can't argue with that.

boogblaster
12-19-2006, 09:23 PM
So fricking true it makes me sick..but come July Ill be ready for the season to start..Dumb-fricking hommer.....

htismaqe
12-20-2006, 09:02 AM
If that was the case it the Chiefs would of never hired Herm Edwards. It is about the playoffs. Carl is only worried about doing just as much as he needs to, to get the Chiefs to the playoffs. One and done? He dont care. As long as he can raise parking, concessions and tickets the following year, he is happy and the Chiefs succeed.

Herm was a safe hire, not risky and will keep the team at or barely above .500 and a shot at the playoffs.

No team in their right mind would ever hire the fraud of a coach that Herm is if they were serious about a superbowl Period!

While I see what you're saying, Carl's not WRONG.

When your team hasn't won a playoff game in over a decade, it's NOT ABOUT SUPERBOWLS. It's about making the playoffs.

Rausch
12-20-2006, 09:19 AM
While I see what you're saying, Carl's not WRONG.

When your team hasn't won a playoff game in over a decade, it's NOT ABOUT SUPERBOWLS. It's about making the playoffs.

I'd prefer that our next HC have some super bowl experience.

At least you know he CAN do it...

htismaqe
12-20-2006, 09:21 AM
I'd prefer that our next HC have some super bowl experience.

At least you know he CAN do it...

I thought the same thing when we brought in Vermeil. I honestly don't care anymore.

I want them to bring in somebody COMPLETELY NEW. Doesn't matter if they have previous SB experience, just make sure they've never been affiliated with the Kansas City Chiefs at any point in their existence.

This applies equally to the HC AND the GM.

ptlyon
12-20-2006, 09:22 AM
I thought the same thing when we brought in Vermeil. I honestly don't care anymore.

I want them to bring in somebody COMPLETELY NEW. Doesn't matter if they have previous SB experience, just make sure they've never been affiliated with the Kansas City Chiefs at any point in their existence.

This applies equally to the HC AND the GM.

Two words: Matt Millen

Reerun_KC
12-20-2006, 09:24 AM
While I see what you're saying, Carl's not WRONG.

When your team hasn't won a playoff game in over a decade, it's NOT ABOUT SUPERBOWLS. It's about making the playoffs.


Just like the 1990's Huh,

I understand you have to make the playoffs first Hitsmaqe, but I also understand that what Carl and the fans consider success are two different things.

We consider Championship Game and Superbowls appearances a success, Carl considers .500 or better and a appearance in the playoffs as a success.

Raising parking, concessions and tickets are more successful than pushing through to one superbowl appearance or vistory and have a ton of salary problems or free agent problems, in the eyes of Carl Peterson. This is kind of like Electricity, always goes through the path of least resistance. Carl is that way, wants the easy way out to make the most money for the Chiefs.

That is why Herm was a safe hire for Carl. There will be no demands for players or trades. There wont be any conflict between the coaches and GM, all Herm has to do is keep this team around the 8-8 thru 10-6 mark with the players Carl gives him. Keep fans hopes alive and keep them coming out to Arrowhead by the 10's of thousands. That is a success for the Kansas City Chiefs organization.

htismaqe
12-20-2006, 09:39 AM
Just like the 1990's Huh,

I understand you have to make the playoffs first Hitsmaqe, but I also understand that what Carl and the fans consider success are two different things.

We consider Championship Game and Superbowls appearances a success, Carl considers .500 or better and a appearance in the playoffs as a success.

Raising parking, concessions and tickets are more successful than pushing through to one superbowl appearance or vistory and have a ton of salary problems or free agent problems, in the eyes of Carl Peterson. This is kind of like Electricity, always goes through the path of least resistance. Carl is that way, wants the easy way out to make the most money for the Chiefs.

That is why Herm was a safe hire for Carl. There will be no demands for players or trades. There wont be any conflict between the coaches and GM, all Herm has to do is keep this team around the 8-8 thru 10-6 mark with the players Carl gives him. Keep fans hopes alive and keep them coming out to Arrowhead by the 10's of thousands. That is a success for the Kansas City Chiefs organization.

Obviously, the fans DON'T consider Championship Games and Super Bowls as "success".

And if you think for one second that Carl doesn't want to win a Super Bowl, you've drank too much Drain-o.

Winning a Super Bowl will NEVER cause a franchise to lose money. EVER.

Reerun_KC
12-20-2006, 09:52 AM
Obviously, the fans DON'T consider Championship Games and Super Bowls as "success".

And if you think for one second that Carl doesn't want to win a Super Bowl, you've drank too much Drain-o.

Winning a Super Bowl will NEVER cause a franchise to lose money. EVER.


I dont drink Drain-o, I stick with Jim Beam, thanks for the offer though.


I agree. Winning the superbowl would never cause a organization to lose money. If you think that you need to back away from the crack pipe.

But do you realize the risk vs reward. I feel that is what Carl looks at. The risk is to great financially to go and make winning a superbowl a goal. I have no doubt that he wants to win the superbowl, but he will have to win it on his terms without the risk of spending or going out on the preverbal limb to get that championship.

Carl looks at the bottom line and the future of the organization's financial state or salary cap. Carl is not going to sell out the Chiefs, for a chance at superbowl immortality...

So we can love him for that or hate him for it, but that is the way it is and probably why his is going to retire a very weatlhy man thanks to all the loyal KC fans.

htismaqe
12-20-2006, 10:00 AM
I dont drink Drain-o, I stick with Jim Beam, thanks for the offer though.


I agree. Winning the superbowl would never cause a organization to lose money. If you think that you need to back away from the crack pipe.

But do you realize the risk vs reward. I feel that is what Carl looks at. The risk is to great financially to go and make winning a superbowl a goal. I have no doubt that he wants to win the superbowl, but he will have to win it on his terms without the risk of spending or going out on the preverbal limb to get that championship.

Carl looks at the bottom line and the future of the organization's financial state or salary cap. Carl is not going to sell out the Chiefs, for a chance at superbowl immortality...

So we can love him for that or hate him for it, but that is the way it is and probably why his is going to retire a very weatlhy man thanks to all the loyal KC fans.

How many recent Super Bowl teams have COMPLETELY mortgaged their future to win one - Tampa? Baltimore?

The idea that there's some kind of huge financial risk in building a Super Bowl team is ridiculous.

Carl ALREADY HAS, many times in the past, gone out on the proverbial limb. He's signed Chester McGlockton, Joe Montana, and on and on and on. The idea that he won't spend money is false.

It's not that he won't spend money, it's that he spends it on the WRONG PEOPLE. From Carlton Gray to Vonnie Holliday, Dexter McCleon to Dan Williams, Carl has willing thrown MILLIONS of dollars at guys that just aren't very good.

MichaelH
12-20-2006, 10:04 AM
The article is dead on.

Will Carl read it and will it make him reconsider his ways? Will the 2007 Chiefs take a different path?

dirk digler
12-20-2006, 10:05 AM
Carl ALREADY HAS, many times in the past, gone out on the proverbial limb. He's signed Chester McGlockton, Joe Montana, and on and on and on. The idea that he won't spend money is false.

It's not that he won't spend money, it's that he spends it on the WRONG PEOPLE. From Carlton Gray to Vonnie Holliday, Dexter McCleon to Dan Williams, Carl has willing thrown MILLIONS of dollars at guys that just aren't very good.

Yep 100% agree.

Reerun_KC
12-20-2006, 10:09 AM
How many recent Super Bowl teams have COMPLETELY mortgaged their future to win one - Tampa? Baltimore?

The idea that there's some kind of huge financial risk in building a Super Bowl team is ridiculous.

Carl ALREADY HAS, many times in the past, gone out on the proverbial limb. He's signed Chester McGlockton, Joe Montana, and on and on and on. The idea that he won't spend money is false.

It's not that he won't spend money, it's that he spends it on the WRONG PEOPLE. From Carlton Gray to Vonnie Holliday, Dexter McCleon to Dan Williams, Carl has willing thrown MILLIONS of dollars at guys that just aren't very good.


I see what you are saying.

dirk digler
12-20-2006, 10:12 AM
I see what you are saying.

And add to the fact the drafts of late haven't been very good so we are pretty much screwed.

milkman
12-20-2006, 10:14 AM
And add to the fact the drafts of late haven't been very good so we are pretty much screwed.

If we hadn't thrown away draft picks for coaches and aging vets, we might be better than we are.

milkman
12-20-2006, 10:16 AM
I don't buy into the "Carl only wants to make money" crap.

He wants to win.
He just doesn't know how to mange to make it happen.

htismaqe
12-20-2006, 10:26 AM
I don't buy into the "Carl only wants to make money" crap.

He wants to win.
He just doesn't know how to mange to make it happen.

Exactly.

Carl wants to win, he just doesn't know how.

BigRedChief
12-20-2006, 11:49 AM
Exactly.

Carl wants to win, he just doesn't know how.
What he said. :clap:

Reerun_KC
12-20-2006, 12:06 PM
Exactly.

Carl wants to win, he just doesn't know how.


I guess after 18 years of trying, this could be true huh?

Reerun_KC
12-20-2006, 12:08 PM
I thought the same thing when we brought in Vermeil. I honestly don't care anymore.

I want them to bring in somebody COMPLETELY NEW. Doesn't matter if they have previous SB experience, just make sure they've never been affiliated with the Kansas City Chiefs at any point in their existence.

This applies equally to the HC AND the GM.


You hit the nail on the head.

If there is ever an organization that needs a giant plunger to unclog, it is the Chiefs.

I want the Chiefs to have new life just as the rest of us do. And the only way that can happen is to ditch the King Carl family tree.

Believe me, the Hiring of Herm hurt me just as much as it did the rest of us.