PDA

View Full Version : Whitlock: Two sides to sad Green story


Coogs
05-25-2007, 08:23 AM
Another pretty good take by JW...
(Sorry if repost. Didn't see it anywhere else.)

Two sides to sad Green story
By JASON WHITLOCK
Columnist
In the interest of fairness, we should spend a day examining the Trent Green fiasco from Carl Petersonís and the Chiefsí perspective.

In 2001, when Peterson gave the Rams a first-round draft pick to secure Greenís services, Trent was an unproven, 30-year-old quarterback with 39 TD passes, 19 starts and a surgically repaired knee on his resume.

Based on the recommendation of Dick Vermeil, Peterson and the Chiefs took a flier on Green and made a huge, questionable commitment to a quarterback many pegged as the next Scott Mitchell, the Dan Marino backup who cashed in with the Detroit Lions and flopped.

Peterson backed up his commitment to Green in 2003, handing him a seven-year $50 million contract that included an $11 million to $12 million signing bonus. During his six-year career in Kansas City, itís safe to assume Peterson and the Chiefs paid Green $25 million to $35 million.

During that same time span, Peterson supported Green with Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Tony Gonzalez, Willie Roaf, Will Shields, Tony Richardson and Brian Waters, offensive players who could argue they were the best at their positions.

With the exception of finding Green a true No. 1 receiver, Peterson can proudly say that he aided Green in every conceivable fashion.

So where is Greenís loyalty to the Chiefs and Peterson?

Listen, I enjoy beating up on King Carl as much as anyone. Heís been in power much too long, and heís now clearly a detriment to building a Super Bowl-caliber team. Itís apparent that any success the Chiefs have in the future (and probably in the past, too) will be in spite of Peterson, not because of Peterson.

Having said that, given all that Peterson has done for Green and his family and given Greenís poor play last season, should Green really be at OTAs causing a major distraction?

You canít turn on ESPN or the NFL Network, click on the Internet or listen to talk radio without seeing/hearing Green or one of his representatives bash Carl Peterson and Herm Edwards.

Is Green truly a victim? Or has he been studying from Vivian Stringerís playbook?

Herm ďDonít Get It TwistedĒ Edwards said something very interesting Wednesday. He respectfully tried to put the Green situation in perspective.

ďRemember, there was a season last year,Ē Donít Get It Twisted said. ďWe keep forgetting that. We played a whole football season. I evaluated this team on the season ó how they played, every player. We lose sight of that right now, but we did have a season.

ďThere are a lot of things said about a lot of people in these circles (media circles) who should be playing,Ē Herm continued. ďLetís get that straight, too, now. We get amnesia all of a sudden in the offseason. But we did play a whole football season. You (the media) evaluated this team as well as I did. Great thing about it is youíve got an opinion, but you canít make any moves. I can, and thatís what Iím trying to do. Iím trying to create competition at certain positions, and it will be fair at all positions.Ē

Let me translate all of that for you: Donít forget that Trent Green stunk last season, throwing nine interceptions and seven TDs. Donít forget that all of you in the media wanted me to play Damon Huard down the stretch, but I was loyal to Trent Green and all that heíd done for the organization the previous five years. Donít pretend like Iím not doing exactly what I should be doing, given how poorly Trent played last season. I canít promise Trent the job or even a fair competition given what we saw against Indianapolis. Iím not crazy.

Itís not pretty, but thereís a great deal of truth in what Herm tried to convey politely. Peterson and Herm have been loyal to Trent. They gave him market-value money, a good supporting cast, and they stuck with him over the objections of the media, many Chiefs fans and common sense last season.

Is it too much to ask of Trent Green to repay that loyalty by sitting quietly while Peterson tries to bilk the Dolphins out of a fourth-round draft pick or a veteran player who can help the Chiefs this year?

Does Green owe the Chiefs nothing?

Now, look, Iím on Trentís side, mostly because thereís a bigger issue at stake (Peterson needs to go), but there is a side to Carlís story. Letís be fair here. Green is acting spoiled and petulant. Heís failing to recognize that Peterson, Herm and Kansas City have been good to him, too.

As much as he says he understands the Chiefsí right to go in a younger direction at quarterback, itís obvious Green is upset by the decision. He wants to take his ball, go to south Florida and get as far away from Hermís wing-T offense as possible.

Peterson is so unlikable that Green has almost unanimous support from his teammates and the local media.

ďItís overrated,Ē Brian Waters said Thursday of loyalty in pro football. ďIíll be honest with you. This is a business. You can be loyal to a point, but after that point you have to do whatís best for you, because thatís what theyíre (the teams) going to do.

ďÖ. Trent Green is one of the best football players to ever play in this uniform. You want the best situation for him.Ē

Waters is a football player. I can understand his sentiment. As a fan, I want whatever gets Peterson fired. As a journalist, as much as it pains me today, Iím obligated to tell you both sides of the story.

Coogs
05-25-2007, 08:26 AM
One question. I have heard Green is due a roster bonus June 1st. Is this true? And if so, how much is it?

OK, that was two questions. :D

StcChief
05-25-2007, 08:26 AM
ďItís overrated,Ē Brian Waters said Thursday of loyalty in pro football. ďIíll be honest with you. This is a business. You can be loyal to a point, but after that point you have to do whatís best for you, because thatís what theyíre (the teams) going to do.
We learned that in IT industry a LONG TIME AGO.

Can we stop beating this dead horse.

jwhit
05-25-2007, 08:27 AM
this is a very good column.

NewChief
05-25-2007, 08:39 AM
this is a very good column.

Hahahaha. Tooting your own horn. You're funny.


I think Trent's loyalty to the Chiefs went out the window the moment their loyalty to him left. Herm and Carl made it clear they wanted to get rid of him. That was the breakup. Now Herm and Carl are reconsidering because they didn't get the offers they wanted for him or because maybe they just decided they want to keep him around as a safety plan. They're trying to woo him back and want him to keep his mouth shut. Only Trent considers the breakup official and final, so he's acting as such. Sorry Carl and Herm, but you shouldn't have made it so clear to Trent, the media, fans, and general public that you were done with him if you wanted Trent to remain loyal to you.

morphius
05-25-2007, 08:40 AM
this is a very good column.
If you were going to give both sides, why did you leave out Green's refusal to go talk to Cleveland, when they were very interested in him? While I like Trent a lot, that was a terrible move.

Coogs
05-25-2007, 08:40 AM
I've come up with another question. Are there any FA's left out there that could/would be able to help the Chiefs if Green gets traded?

DaFace
05-25-2007, 08:43 AM
this is a very good column.

ROFL Actually, it is. It's nothing we haven't heard, but at least SOMEONE in the real media is taking the Chiefs' side finally.

Cochise
05-25-2007, 08:46 AM
It's a good column.

I'm not mad at either side. They are all doing their jobs. Carl's job is to hold out for all he can get. Green's job is to put pressure on Carl to ship him off so he can get on with his life. Miami's job is to try to get Green for little or nothing.

They're all playing a card game. I doubt there is as much animosity among the players as most people think. I think that all three sides know this is just business.

One of them will eventually blink. Either Miami will decide they can't afford to start Cleo Lemon until Green is ready to go, or Carl will decide it isn't worth it to pay Green's salary all year. (By the way, if I owned a business and someone spent $7 million just to avoid having to look like they got out-negotiated, I'd fire
him)

Someone will eventually relent and we'll all wonder why it took so long. But like everybody on the inside knows, it's just business.

Buehler445
05-25-2007, 08:47 AM
I agree with a Whitlock column? Blasphemy. Really though, I do. He brought up some good points about what the Chiefs have done for him. Nice article.

Cave Johnson
05-25-2007, 08:49 AM
I've come up with another question. Are there any FA's left out there that could/would be able to help the Chiefs if Green gets traded?

Not at the QB position, and I'm pretty sure the market is dried up (at least in terms of younger talent) at all other positions as well.

jidar
05-25-2007, 08:53 AM
pretty good

ChiTown
05-25-2007, 08:56 AM
It's a good column.

I'm not mad at either side. They are all doing their jobs. Carl's job is to hold out for all he can get. Green's job is to put pressure on Carl to ship him off so he can get on with his life. Miami's job is to try to get Green for little or nothing.

They're all playing a card game. I doubt there is as much animosity among the players as most people think. I think that all three sides know this is just business.

One of them will eventually blink. Either Miami will decide they can't afford to start Cleo Lemon until Green is ready to go, or Carl will decide it isn't worth it to pay Green's salary all year. (By the way, if I owned a business and someone spent $7 million just to avoid having to look like they got out-negotiated, I'd fire
him)

Someone will eventually relent and we'll all wonder why it took so long. But like everybody on the inside knows, it's just business.

:clap:

Spot on, and my sentiments exactly.

keg in kc
05-25-2007, 09:01 AM
They're all playing a card game. I doubt there is as much animosity among the players as most people think. I think that all three sides know this is just business. I agree with that. And I think it's only a distraction in the minds of the fans and media. It's business, and I doubt it has any meaningful impact on team chemistry one way or the other.

htismaqe
05-25-2007, 09:17 AM
Now, look, Iím on Trentís side, mostly because thereís a bigger issue at stake (Peterson needs to go),

EVERY issue with the Chiefs boil down to this.

Half the fan base, and 90% of the media talking heads in Kansas City would try to tell us the sky is RED simply because Carl Peterson espouses that it's blue.

BigRedChief
05-25-2007, 09:18 AM
Big Sexy, You need to go on a full blown run King Carl out of town on a rail rant. I agree this Trent Green situation is not all King Carl's fault but underneath it all, when you get down to brass tacks.........King Carl is not helping the Chiefs reach a Super Bowl.

Clark is his fathers son. He won't pull the trigger. Do you think if fans stayed away from Arrowhead on Sunday's it would make a difference?

the Talking Can
05-25-2007, 09:22 AM
so Whitlock spent some time on the planet, realized he was wrong, and wrote a half-hearted apologia....

by the way, "wanting Carl to go" has nothing to do with this issue..we all want Carl to go, but we have no power to make it happen....that is a completely separate issue from the Green trade...

Whitlock is at least honest enough to admit that he only blames Carl because he doesn't like him....because just based on the facts, Carl is not the guilty party this time...

chagrin
05-25-2007, 09:28 AM
this is a very good column.

Except for this statement:

"With the exception of finding Green a true No. 1 receiver, Peterson can proudly say that he aided Green in every conceivable fashion."

that cracks me up, a #1 WR would have been helpful

siberian khatru
05-25-2007, 09:36 AM
so Whitlock spent some time on the planet, realized he was wrong, and wrote a half-hearted apologia....



EXACTLY what I thought when I first read the column.

htismaqe
05-25-2007, 09:39 AM
Except for this statement:

"With the exception of finding Green a true No. 1 receiver, Peterson can proudly say that he aided Green in every conceivable fashion."

that cracks me up, a #1 WR would have been helpful

He built Green one of the best offensive lines in the HISTORY OF FOOTBALL. Damn Carl for not giving it his all.

morphius
05-25-2007, 09:40 AM
Because Green wants to play GM and try and dictate exactly where he wants to go and on his terms.

Plus, hes a limited QB and wants to play in only one type of system with a coach hes comfortable with.
But it is still a very important piece of the puzzle. There were other teams interested and by ignoring them completely he made it harder to get anywhere near what he is worth.

It is pretty obvious that all parties have screwed the pooch on this one.

BigRedChief
05-25-2007, 09:42 AM
He built Green one of the best offensive lines in the HISTORY OF FOOTBALL. Damn Carl for not giving it his all.
No chit. Green had too many tools to work with. The defense suffered because of the concentration of talent on the offensive side of the ball.

chiefsfan1963
05-25-2007, 09:50 AM
as I said when the story first broke as much as it pains me CP is doing everything right in this situation. If Miami wants Green now they gotta pay. It's not personal Trent it's business. You've banked $25-$30MM + here and no one feels sorry for you. You've had your best run here, and you owe all this to the Chief's organization. 99.9% on this board won't get a whiff of what you made in your career here. If anything you should have a candid talk with your buddy Cam to give up at least a 4th for you. Your frustration is misdirected. Get a grip and sit the f**k down!

Tuckdaddy
05-25-2007, 09:58 AM
Where's Miami in all this. Given the picks and players that have been traded this off season a fourth for Trent is justifiable and not crazy at all. They are to blame but Trent wants to kill the the Chiefs for this?

crazycoffey
05-25-2007, 10:13 AM
this is a very good column.


For you, it ain't too bad [/tongue in cheek]







:p

crazycoffey
05-25-2007, 10:20 AM
It's a good column.

I'm not mad at either side. They are all doing their jobs. Carl's job is to hold out for all he can get. Green's job is to put pressure on Carl to ship him off so he can get on with his life. Miami's job is to try to get Green for little or nothing.

They're all playing a card game. I doubt there is as much animosity among the players as most people think. I think that all three sides know this is just business.

One of them will eventually blink. Either Miami will decide they can't afford to start Cleo Lemon until Green is ready to go, or Carl will decide it isn't worth it to pay Green's salary all year. (By the way, if I owned a business and someone spent $7 million just to avoid having to look like they got out-negotiated, I'd fire
him)

Someone will eventually relent and we'll all wonder why it took so long. But like everybody on the inside knows, it's just business.


I agree with your sentiments, except the bolded part. Because I can hardly put myself into the mindset of someone responsible for millions and millions of salary money.

In the grand scheme, 7 mil is not so far out of a price to pay (respectfully compared to the salary cap, and not my salary....) for two rounds difference. 6th to a fourth, the potential caliber difference between players could be great..... AND we get to keep an experienced backup or maybe even our starting QB.

Count Alex's Losses
05-25-2007, 10:29 AM
It's nothing we haven't heard.

Indeed.

http://chiefs.scout.com/2/646541.html

htismaqe
05-25-2007, 10:33 AM
I agree with your sentiments, except the bolded part. Because I can hardly put myself into the mindset of someone responsible for millions and millions of salary money.

In the grand scheme, 7 mil is not so far out of a price to pay (respectfully compared to the salary cap, and not my salary....) for two rounds difference. 6th to a fourth, the potential caliber difference between players could be great..... AND we get to keep an experienced backup or maybe even our starting QB.

Exactly.

I've been involved in large contracts where we specifically conceded a short term loss in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for future revenue considerations.

Hydrae
05-25-2007, 10:41 AM
Except for this statement:

"With the exception of finding Green a true No. 1 receiver, Peterson can proudly say that he aided Green in every conceivable fashion."

that cracks me up, a #1 WR would have been helpful


Yes it would have. Answer me this though, which of these players would you have let go to get that receiver:

Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Tony Gonzalez, Willie Roaf, Will Shields, Tony Richardson and Brian Waters

crazycoffey
05-25-2007, 10:48 AM
Exactly.

I've been involved in large contracts where we specifically conceded a short term loss in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for future revenue considerations.



What I don't get is why this horse hasn't died yet, it has taken a worse beating than Rodney King, Jesus Christ, and the muslim girl that dated out of her religion; all combined.

I don't negotiate large contracts and what htismaqe has said is entirely in my realm of understanding, and has been all along, I still fail to reckonize Carl Fing Trent in any shape or form of the meaning.

Trent should be a pro and be ready to wear red and gold, Miami offered a 7 to our 2nd, then carl went to middle ground and said 4, miami said 6.

When my wife and I moved to St. Louis, we had a house picked out that we really liked. The asking price was 190 and we offered 165 as is (with the exception of something major) and they countered with 188. We said F you and bought a different house, from someone who really wanted to sell.

Sorry, I'm just sooooo damn irritated that Miami is painted the good guys in all this. By the media is one thing, but even by many "Chiefs" fans here, whatever.

Inspector
05-25-2007, 10:57 AM
It's a good column.

I'm not mad at either side. They are all doing their jobs. Carl's job is to hold out for all he can get. Green's job is to put pressure on Carl to ship him off so he can get on with his life. Miami's job is to try to get Green for little or nothing.

They're all playing a card game. I doubt there is as much animosity among the players as most people think. I think that all three sides know this is just business.

One of them will eventually blink. Either Miami will decide they can't afford to start Cleo Lemon until Green is ready to go, or Carl will decide it isn't worth it to pay Green's salary all year. (By the way, if I owned a business and someone spent $7 million just to avoid having to look like they got out-negotiated, I'd fire
him)

Someone will eventually relent and we'll all wonder why it took so long. But like everybody on the inside knows, it's just business.


Yep.

Oh and good article Jason.

StcChief
05-25-2007, 11:02 AM
Yes it would have. Answer me this though, which of these players would you have let go to get that receiver:

Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Tony Gonzalez, Willie Roaf, Will Shields, Tony Richardson and Brian Waters

That is too easy Tony Richardson. I doubt you could get #1 WR value for a FB ec even though TRich is one of the best

Hydrae
05-25-2007, 11:12 AM
That is too easy Tony Richardson. I doubt you could get #1 WR value for a FB ec even though TRich is one of the best


I figured that would be the response. It is an interesting argument as to just how much we missed T-Rich this last year. Not his rushing and receiving abilities but his ability to keep rushers off the QB and picking up the blitzers. I am certainly not an expert coach or anything but I think there were a lot of little areas we missed him in this last year and certainly contributed to the O-Line woahs we experienced this last year.

Personally I would rather have T-Rich and Kennison than no T-Rich but someone like Derrick Mason at WR.

FringeNC
05-25-2007, 12:22 PM
The longer this thing plays out, the more I think Carl wants Green to return. This is a distraction for the Chiefs, and is simply not worth the value of the differential in future draft picks that are in play...

It's obvious that Green and Herm don't seem like a good fit. Carl is in the middle...

So..Carl tells Green to work out a trade--knowing full well that the Chiefs have no bargaining power and that a trade will be hard to pull off--while Carl contemplates if he can really let go of Green. Green has moved out of the house, but Carl can't pull the trigger on going forward on the divorce.

Anyong Bluth
05-25-2007, 12:48 PM
I'm not saying he lifted this, but all that JW has mentioned in the article has been expressed to the tee here long ago, and I know b/c I expressed this same viewpoint on a number of occasions.

crazycoffey
05-25-2007, 01:02 PM
I'm not saying he lifted this, but all that JW has mentioned in the article has been expressed to the tee here long ago, and I know b/c I expressed this same viewpoint on a number of occasions.


he probably did, I think you should retain a lawyer, I'd probably make a great character reference.....

Anyong Bluth
05-25-2007, 01:04 PM
I am an attorney, so we've got that point covered.

crazycoffey
05-25-2007, 01:10 PM
I am an attorney, so we've got that point covered.


that might be the only point..... :D

CoMoChief
05-25-2007, 01:28 PM
Now, look, Iím on Trentís side, mostly because thereís a bigger issue at stake (Peterson needs to go),

EVERY issue with the Chiefs boil down to this.

Half the fan base, and 90% of the media talking heads in Kansas City would try to tell us the sky is RED simply because Carl Peterson espouses that it's blue.


No it's because Carl should have left when Marty left and has been around WAAAAY too long. We all know this.

We all know that Carl has been around because he puts money into Hunt's pocket. Hunt's a business man, if Carl wasn't filling the seats and putting money into Lamar's pocket then Carl wouldn't be here.

If we had multiple 3-4 win seasons like we did in the 80's Carl wouldnt be here because the stadium wouldnt be full. JoPo said it best when he said that Carl keeps us interested enough (meaning being mediocre) to where we come back for more because we always have hope that we can catch a few breaks here and there and win consistantly. Under Carl's watch the worst he's gone in a season is 6-10 IIRC. Not too bad really.

Carl should thank David Glass and the Royals organization for sucking so much. If the Royals were good, we would have another professional sports interest as opposed to what it is now, the Chiefs simply have a monopoly on the fans in Kansas City. Us as fans really have no choice. The Chiefs absolutely rule this town whether its in the media, merchandise, you name it and its because the Royals are so ****ing bad.

The bottom line is this. If everyone here wants Carl gone, stop going to games. The bad thing about that is, we all can't. We love our Chiefs. I for one fall in this category as do many here. It sucks.

dtebbe
05-25-2007, 02:49 PM
It's not too late:
http://stopwatches.com/pix/dtebbe.gif

Order today! (http://bodytronics.com/PROD/BTDCT)

:)

Mojo Rising
05-25-2007, 04:58 PM
so Whitlock spent some time on the planet, realized he was wrong, and wrote a half-hearted apologia....

by the way, "wanting Carl to go" has nothing to do with this issue..we all want Carl to go, but we have no power to make it happen....that is a completely separate issue from the Green trade...

Whitlock is at least honest enough to admit that he only blames Carl because he doesn't like him....because just based on the facts, Carl is not the guilty party this time...

I agree. BTW - Why does it seem that the few times JW has a good column it is just a summary of all the good points posted on CP?

If he had never posted here people would wonder if he was lifting his material from CP. Now that we know he is a participant it is quite obvious.