PDA

View Full Version : Carl Peterson is on list of Best GMs


Arrowhead Pride
03-05-2007, 10:45 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2788149

Number 16 in all of sports.

crazycoffey
03-05-2007, 10:46 AM
I actually agree, though I know many on here will slam me for it......


we could be a lot worse than having CP for the time we have. Even with that said, I wonder how much longer he'll be here and who will replace him.

ChiefButthurt
03-05-2007, 10:48 AM
Pffft, the record doesn't reflect the opinion.

The Bad Guy
03-05-2007, 10:49 AM
I actually agree, though I know many on here will slam me for it......


we could be a lot worse than having CP for the time we have. Even with that said, I wonder how much longer he'll be here and who will replace him.

Worse off how?

The 90s don't mean dick anymore considering it's 2007.

This team hasn't won a playoff game in going on 14 years.

14 years.

How can we be worse off? We have an aging team, no cap room, key positions that need to be addressed like DT, WR, LB, QB.

How could we possibly be worse off?

jidar
03-05-2007, 10:49 AM
It's a Forbes list, that means the primary thing they're considering is making the franchise money. I doubt many people on here would disagree that Carl knows how to rake in the dough.

htismaqe
03-05-2007, 10:50 AM
I don't think this is surprising to those of us who are willing to accept the cold, hard reality of the business.

Being a successful GM/President/CEO is, unfortunately, tied to the health of the business, not whether or not the team is winning.

Dartgod
03-05-2007, 10:51 AM
Worse off how?

The 90s don't mean dick anymore considering it's 2007.

This team hasn't won a playoff game in going on 14 years.

14 years.

How can we be worse off? We have an aging team, no cap room, key positions that need to be addressed like DT, WR, LB, QB.

How could we possibly be worse off?

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0903/092203millenmatt.jpg

Kerberos
03-05-2007, 10:52 AM
Worse off how?

The 90s don't mean dick anymore considering it's 2007.

This team hasn't won a playoff game in going on 14 years.

14 years.

How can we be worse off? We have an aging team, no cap room, key positions that need to be addressed like DT, WR, LB, QB.

How could we possibly be worse off?


We could have Matt Millen?

What is the lesser of THOSE two evils?

Skip Towne
03-05-2007, 10:52 AM
It's a Forbes list, that means the primary thing they're considering is making the franchise money. I doubt many people on here would disagree that Carl knows how to rake in the dough.
Exactly right. Carl has kept the seats full without winning jack shit. He has done a wonderful job. Not many GM's could do that.

Mile High Mania
03-05-2007, 10:53 AM
McHale is #1... Jerry Jones (while I don't like the team) is #13. The list is a joke.

L.A. Chieffan
03-05-2007, 10:54 AM
It's a Forbes list, that means the primary thing they're considering is making the franchise money. I doubt many people on here would disagree that Carl knows how to rake in the dough.
Exactly. When it comes down to franchise revenue in comparison to actual perormance and results King Carl should be at the top of the list. ALL HAIL!

Kerberos
03-05-2007, 10:54 AM
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0903/092203millenmatt.jpg

DAMMIT you stole my thunder by a stinking minute or LESS!

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

BigRedChief
03-05-2007, 10:56 AM
What have we done since Marty left? Who should get the majority of the credit for the success on the football field for those years? Marty or King Carl?

Best GM means football genius not financial genius.

HemiEd
03-05-2007, 10:59 AM
Worse off how?

The 90s don't mean dick anymore considering it's 2007.

This team hasn't won a playoff game in going on 14 years.

14 years.

How can we be worse off? We have an aging team, no cap room, key positions that need to be addressed like DT, WR, LB, QB.

How could we possibly be worse off?

Go back and visit 72-85, the team was far worse off.

Otter
03-05-2007, 11:00 AM
What have we done since Marty left? Who should get the majority of the credit for the success on the football field for those years? Marty or King Carl?

Best GM means football genius not financial genius.

Not to Forbes it doesn't.

$$$

King_Chief_Fan
03-05-2007, 11:00 AM
Exactly right. Carl has kept the seats full without winning jack shit. He has done a wonderful job. Not many GM's could do that.

that says more to how stupid Chiefs fans are than anything else.
Year after year, ticket prices and parking charges have increased far more than the quality of the product.

When it comes down to it, Carl is genious compared to us idiots that keep attending games and spending thier hard earned dollars.

crazycoffey
03-05-2007, 11:01 AM
Worse off how?

The 90s don't mean dick anymore considering it's 2007.

This team hasn't won a playoff game in going on 14 years.

14 years.

How can we be worse off? We have an aging team, no cap room, key positions that need to be addressed like DT, WR, LB, QB.

How could we possibly be worse off?



I already said I knew people would disagree, so I'm not going to start a big discussion with you, it's not worth my time. i will offer up more on my opinion in this one post and then that's all.

the obvious answer was already shown, Matt M would be worse, but I personally think there are more than just him.

By the way, it's a sport, there are so many intangibles, too many to count or list, but GM doesn't play a position on the field. Year after year, he's addressed many of our position needs and almost every year fielded us a good team to cheer for and have faith in. Those players have been outplayed in some cases and complete let downs in others, but bottom line he's done a good job keeping us competitive in our division and keeping a team we could cheer for. Money wise, player wise, franshise wise, he seems to balance needs of the community, the fans, the business all together pretty darn good. No one can be right all the time. Not you, not me and not CP, or any other GM.

Skip Towne
03-05-2007, 11:02 AM
What have we done since Marty left? Who should get the majority of the credit for the success on the football field for those years? Marty or King Carl?

Best GM means football genius not financial genius.
I'd like to replace Carl with Marty.

Kerberos
03-05-2007, 11:04 AM
I already said I knew people would disagree, so I'm not going to start a big discussion with you, it's not worth my time. i will offer up more on my opinion in this one post and then that's all.

the obvious answer was already shown, Matt M would be worse, but I personally think there are more than just him.

By the way, it's a sport, there are so many intangibles, too many to count or list, but GM doesn't play a position on the field. Year after year, he's addressed many of our position needs and almost every year fielded us a good team to cheer for and have faith in. Those players have been outplayed in some cases and complete let downs in others, but bottom line he's done a good job keeping us competitive in our division and keeping a team we could cheer for. Money wise, player wise, franshise wise, he seems to balance needs of the community, the fans, the business all together pretty darn good. No one can be right all the time. Not you, not me and not CP, or any other GM.


Is that YOU CrazyGretz?

.

The Bad Guy
03-05-2007, 11:06 AM
Go back and visit 72-85, the team was far worse off.

Again, I don't care about those days. The guy has had 18 years here and hasn't done anything significant in 14 years.

The ability to get better than back then is far more advanced with the salary cap, sophicated scouting and technology. Teams go from 4-12 to the playoffs much more frequently now.

I understand the business aspect of the report because Carl is a great businessman. A good GM, he isn't.

Yes, we could have Matt Millen. You're right, it could be worse, but Carl Peterson is in the bottom-tier of NFL Gms if it was based on field production alone.

ChiefsCountry
03-05-2007, 11:08 AM
Peterson's problem is he lets the coachs make too many decisions regarding personal. When he overrides them he normally makes good football moves.

L.A. Chieffan
03-05-2007, 11:08 AM
coffey, whether you want to blame Carl or the HC, there have been a lot of mistakes made when it comes to drafts and personnel. Ultimately somebody needs to be accountable for these gaffes and lack of post-season successes. The buck stops at Carl.

The Bad Guy
03-05-2007, 11:09 AM
I already said I knew people would disagree, so I'm not going to start a big discussion with you, it's not worth my time. i will offer up more on my opinion in this one post and then that's all.

the obvious answer was already shown, Matt M would be worse, but I personally think there are more than just him.

By the way, it's a sport, there are so many intangibles, too many to count or list, but GM doesn't play a position on the field. Year after year, he's addressed many of our position needs and almost every year fielded us a good team to cheer for and have faith in. Those players have been outplayed in some cases and complete let downs in others, but bottom line he's done a good job keeping us competitive in our division and keeping a team we could cheer for. Money wise, player wise, franshise wise, he seems to balance needs of the community, the fans, the business all together pretty darn good. No one can be right all the time. Not you, not me and not CP, or any other GM.

Money wise? Yes, he does a great job.

Player wise? Not even close. The guy doesn't fill our needs year after year. We haven't had a receiver or DT worth a shit in here in almost 5 years.

Keeping us competetive is the definition of mediocrity. I want more than that already. I want playoff wins.

When Carl Peterson's Chiefs start winning those, then I will be on his bandwagon, but 14 years is far too long for any GM to be without a playoff win. Most GMs don't last 10 years, let alone 14, without it.

CosmicPal
03-05-2007, 11:09 AM
General managers were graded on two things: performance vs. the performance of their predecessor, and payroll relative to the league median when compared to their predecessor. Because winning is more important than payroll, Forbes.com double-weighted winning percentage to penalize a GM who cut costs but also hurt his team's winning percentage

CosmicPal
03-05-2007, 11:12 AM
Money wise? Yes, he does a great job.

Player wise? Not even close. The guy doesn't fill our needs year after year. We haven't had a receiver or DT worth a shit in here in almost 5 years.

Keeping us competetive is the definition of mediocrity. I want more than that already. I want playoff wins.

When Carl Peterson's Chiefs start winning those, then I will be on his bandwagon, but 14 years is far too long for any GM to be without a playoff win. Most GMs don't last 10 years, let alone 14, without it.

Peterson didn't miss 4 fuggen field goals in playoff game at home.

Peterson didn't screw up the clock when we were at the 35 yd line and threatening to win the playoff game vs. Denver.

B*tch all you want, but the fact is- he's not the best, but he's certainly not the worst.

jlscorpio
03-05-2007, 11:13 AM
McHale is #1?!?!?! Please tell me you're ****ing dry-shaving me!!! He makes carl look like Red Aurbach. He's mortgaged that pathetic franchise on KG's gargantuan contract not once but twice. He's traded more draft picks than most GM's have taken. The entire state of Minnesota wants him dead. UN-****ING-BELIEVABLE!!!

crazycoffey
03-05-2007, 11:15 AM
Is that YOU CrazyGretz?

.

ROFL


No, that is not who I am. Jeez :p


ROFL

Brock
03-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Peterson didn't miss 4 fuggen field goals in playoff game at home.

Peterson didn't screw up the clock when we were at the 35 yd line and threatening to win the playoff game vs. Denver.

B*tch all you want, but the fact is- he's not the best, but he's certainly not the worst.

Exactly, he's a middle of the pack GM.

Mile High Mania
03-05-2007, 11:19 AM
The funny thing is that the list says he's the 6th best GM in the NFL... I'm not sure I'd say he's top 10.

jlscorpio
03-05-2007, 11:20 AM
or top 31, thanks Millen

crazycoffey
03-05-2007, 11:20 AM
You know what is funny about this board. This;

Poster one: "I have this opinion ______"
Poster two: "but this is mine _____"
one: "cool but I'm not changing mine"
two: "but to validate my opinion, since I posted after you, you have to change your mind!"
one: "but I won't, because you're stupid"
two: "well you're gay, NTTAWWT"
enter poster three: "your both wrong and here's why_____"

one: "cool but I'm not changing mine"
two: "but to validate my opinion, since I posted after you, you have to change your mind!"
one: "but I won't, because you're stupid"
two: "well you're gay, NTTAWWT"
enter poster three: "your both wrong and here's why_____"

one: "cool but I'm not changing mine"
two: "but to validate my opinion, since I posted after you, you have to change your mind!"
one: "but I won't, because you're stupid"
two: "well you're gay, NTTAWWT"
enter poster three: "your both wrong and here's why_____"

repeat a few more times and change subjects once or twice and there we go.

CoMoChief
03-05-2007, 11:24 AM
The fact that he turned this team around from being pure dogshit in the 70's and 80's is an accomlishment in itself. We've never had one of those really terrible seasons under. However we have been nothing more than mediocre and chokers when it counts the most. This list should take a look at his draft record.

CoMoChief
03-05-2007, 11:25 AM
No way is Carl better than Scott Pioli.

Mr. Laz
03-05-2007, 11:56 AM
this list is written by a financial magazine

Carl is great at making cash


if you take winning out of the equation, Carl is one of the best.

Ultra Peanut
03-05-2007, 12:39 PM
You're all classless and deranged.

Mecca
03-05-2007, 12:45 PM
McHale is #1?!?!?! Please tell me you're ****ing dry-shaving me!!! He makes carl look like Red Aurbach. He's mortgaged that pathetic franchise on KG's gargantuan contract not once but twice. He's traded more draft picks than most GM's have taken. The entire state of Minnesota wants him dead. UN-****ING-BELIEVABLE!!!

No team in the NBA would let Kevin Garnett walk.......call that a mistake all you want, it's one every other team in the league would have made.

DJ's left nut
03-05-2007, 01:20 PM
Billy King and Kevin McHale are 1 and 3.

So the guy that crippled his team by tampering with Joe Smith of all people, and the guy that traded for Chris Webber, angering his star and city icon who he was then forced to give away....these are the top GMs in all of sports? Lest we forget that they both had guys that were easily at the top of their sport and yet failed to get them even 1 modestly talented running mate.

Those two guys are possible the worst 2 GMs in the HISTORY of organized sport. Isiah Thomas can give them a run. Others that can compete for this honor are Cam Bonifay when he was in PIT, Naimoli when he was in TB, Bavasi currently in Seattle and whoever is the GM for the Boston Bruins.

What a BS list.

Tribal Warfare
03-05-2007, 01:21 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2788149

Number 16 in all of sports.


big whoop in SI they had him rated near the bottom with ranking of the 25th best in the league

Direckshun
03-05-2007, 01:22 PM
Kevin McHale is a joke.

That whole list follows suit.

Jenson71
03-05-2007, 01:23 PM
You're all classless and deranged.

Cool, but I'm not changing.

Kerberos
03-05-2007, 01:39 PM
Cool, but I'm not changing.


"but to validate my opinion, since I posted after you, you have to change your mind!"

:p

crazycoffey
03-05-2007, 01:49 PM
Cool, but I'm not changing.


"but to validate my opinion, since I posted after you, you have to change your mind!"

:p


:clap: I'm not on ingore; Yeaaaaah, yeaaaaah!!!!!

http://re3.mm-a3.yimg.com/image/2719807525 (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMikZdOxF_G8BKGqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjdmNoOTVjBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1jbhmmums/EXP=1173210521/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dcrank%252Byan kers%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-501%2526toggle%253D1%2526cop%253Dmss%2526ei%253DUTF-8%26w=200%26h=160%26imgurl=www.comedycentral.com%252Fimages%252Fshows%252Fcrankyankers%252Fcharacter s%252Fcy_specialed_m4.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.comedycentral.com%252Fshows%252Fcrank_yanker s%252Fcast_characters%252Fcharacters%252Fspecial_ed.jhtml%26size=10.4kB%26name=cy_specialed_m4.jpg%2 6p=crank%2Byankers%26type=jpeg%26no=2%26tt=612%26oid=9ac38b64bba32c32%26ei=UTF-8)

oldandslow
03-05-2007, 01:52 PM
Their methodology leaves a lot to desire.

For example, look at the Payroll Containment metric.

Walt Jocketty is a 70, Minaya is a 109 and Epstein is a 94 (for this score, higher is better). Beane's score is a 91.

So using their metric, Minaya is the best and Walt is the worst (of these four).

Minaya's payroll was the most in the NL ($101 MM). Boston's ($120 MM) was second in the AL (second to the Evil Empire), and $19 MM more than Minaya.

Beane's payroll was $62 MM, versus $120 MM for Boston. Beane's score was 91; Epstein's was 94. And Oakland was 7 games better than Boston.

When you read the article, it bases the payroll metric based on the predecessor salaries. For Jocketty, that means what the brewery was doing back in 1994, a strike year. For Minaya, it means spending versus what was done in 2004 (all amounts per bbref.com).

It's called comparing apples and oranges. Any system that gives Theo Epstein a better score on salary than Billy Beane is one with significant flaws.

FringeNC
03-05-2007, 02:48 PM
So Carl is good just because Jack Steadman was so bad?

As much as many of us want to view Carl as one of the worst GMs in the league, he probably isn't. Given our lack of playoff wins, and his inability to plug holes on D when we had the best offense in the league (and on the cheap, even!), it's hard to make a case that he is anything other than average at best.

Ari Chi3fs
03-05-2007, 03:30 PM
No way is Carl better than Scott Pioli.

my sentiments exactly.