PDA

View Full Version : Green traded to Dolphins


Pages : 1 [2]

chiefsfan1963
06-07-2007, 12:22 PM
Trent Green was one our best starting QB's ever next to Len Dawson and he was no where near a failure. Anyone that says differently has other motives why he would make such an asinine statement.

rad
06-07-2007, 12:30 PM
So you would categorize the Trent experiment as a failure because he only got you 5 years of quality production? You're wanting someone to take you 8-10 years, I assume? How many QBs are out there who have produced for one team at a high quality for 8-10 years?

About 5 or 6 have, in the range of 7 to 10 years.

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 12:47 PM
Okay. I assume you say it's not a success because the Chiefs didn't contend for the Bowl or even win a playoff game (fair criticism). Do you maintain that this is due to the fact that the team had to mortgage the defense in order to supply the proper pieces to make Trent look good for as long as he did? Do you think that having a Brady or Manning at the QB would have changed things?

It goes beyond Trent, or even beyond the Vermeil era.

We've never really tried to build a team through the draft, using young players. I'm ready to try it.

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 12:50 PM
I finally found something to disagree on with the great and powerfull Htismaqe.

how is this classified as a failure? There are failures involved with draft picks and with free agents, but there have been some darn good gems this way. Even Grbac had a few good days, Priest was someone's trash, No one wanted Dante, Eddie Kennison, Andre Rison - All trash FA's, among others.

Green = not a failure (very solid stats, the D was the weak link)
Montana = not a failure (we went to a AFC Title game under him)

I wish we could draft someone to have for 10 years, but that happens rarely anyway, and we can't be full of draft picks that stay with us their whole careers.

I'd be interested in seeing some stats comparing all the FA QBs (for now only QBs) and compare them side by side, cost to aquire, win/loss, stats for each then maybe we can say, you are right this process is a failure, or maybe we would have to say (gulp) Carl's doing alright....

I NEVER said Trent Green was a FAILURE.

But his tenure here was certainly NOT a success.

I'm also not trying to suggest that the current approach is a guarantee of success. Quite the contrary, it could fail.

But it at least has the POTENTIAL to turn out better, simply because it's a different approach.

FAX
06-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Good points, Mr. htismaqe. As usual.

I think you're right that a different approach might generate improved results. Perhaps we should attempt to field a decent offense and a decent defense at the same time.

We haven't tried that in a while.

FAX

NewChief
06-07-2007, 01:04 PM
It goes beyond Trent, or even beyond the Vermeil era.

We've never really tried to build a team through the draft, using young players. I'm ready to try it.

Gotcha, and now I completely understand and agree with where you're coming from. I thought you were focusing solely on drafting the perfect QB as the mystical piece that would heal all if you just got that magical QB who would hold together your team for 8 years. I do think that building a young team through the draft and young free agents is the way that you can become perennial contenders. It allows you to bring most of your core pieces together and hold them together for a longer time, replenishing and replacing them piecemeal as necessary while maintaining that core.

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 01:11 PM
Good points, Mr. htismaqe. As usual.

I think you're right that a different approach might generate improved results. Perhaps we should attempt to field a decent offense and a decent defense at the same time.

We haven't tried that in a while.

FAX

It might not generate improved results at all.

But we'll never know until we try.

crazycoffey
06-07-2007, 01:20 PM
I NEVER said Trent Green was a FAILURE.

But his tenure here was certainly NOT a success.

I'm also not trying to suggest that the current approach is a guarantee of success. Quite the contrary, it could fail.

But it at least has the POTENTIAL to turn out better, simply because it's a different approach.


I'm also seeing what you meant, from the other posts/interaction. I think the way to get it done is balance, we need to keep good players and sign upgrades and draft solid stock too.

Recently we've just seen some bad drafts. Imagine if Bell was what we thought he'd be and Simms/Junior were too... Would our D have been good enough to get Dick/Priest/Green/Roaf/Shield, etc. a Superbowl birth?

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 01:25 PM
I'm also seeing what you meant, from the other posts/interaction. I think the way to get it done is balance, we need to keep good players and sign upgrades and draft solid stock too.

Recently we've just seen some bad drafts. Imagine if Bell was what we thought he'd be and Simms/Junior were too... Would our D have been good enough to get Dick/Priest/Green/Roaf/Shield, etc. a Superbowl birth?

What I'm getting at is that, other than Derrick Thomas and Tony Gonzales (and to some extent Neil Smith even though he was drafted the year before Carl arrived) we've tried to build a team foundation on free agency. The key players seemed to be veterans. We had the occasional Dale Carter draftee, but the "leaders" on the team were guys like Marcus Allen, James Hasty, Steve DeBerg, and so on. Even under Vermeil this continued, from Green and Priest, to Roaf, McCleon, and even Surtain.

We're at a point now where we're talking about the team leaders being Hali and Croyle, guys that we're growing in house.

crazycoffey
06-07-2007, 01:38 PM
What I'm getting at is that, other than Derrick Thomas and Tony Gonzales (and to some extent Neil Smith even though he was drafted the year before Carl arrived) we've tried to build a team foundation on free agency. The key players seemed to be veterans. We had the occasional Dale Carter draftee, but the "leaders" on the team were guys like Marcus Allen, James Hasty, Steve DeBerg, and so on. Even under Vermeil this continued, from Green and Priest, to Roaf, McCleon, and even Surtain.

We're at a point now where we're talking about the team leaders being Hali and Croyle, guys that we're growing in house.


donnie's back, he's a draft choice. LJ, DJ, Page/pollard, maybe Bowe?

I get where you are coming from.....

HemiEd
06-07-2007, 01:47 PM
It goes beyond Trent, or even beyond the Vermeil era.

We've never really tried to build a team through the draft, using young players. I'm ready to try it.

Maybe they haven't tried it since free agency began, but they used to and they failed miserably at it.

Here is one reminder, many more where this came from.


1985
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 15 Ethan Horton TE North Carolina
2 41 Jon Hayes TE Iowa
4 99 Bob Olderman G Virginia
5 126 Bruce King RB Purdue
6 149 Jonathan Bostic DB Bethune-Cookman
7 180 Vince Thomson DE Missouri Western
7 183 Dave Heffernan G Miami
8 210 Ira Hillary WR South Carolina
9 237 Mike Armentrout DB Missouri State
10 267 Jeff Smith RB Nebraska
11 293 Chris Jackson C Southern Methodist
12 321 Harper LeBel TE Colorado State

I remember how thrilled I was when we drafted Jeff Smith, a Wichita player that went to Nebraska.


Many are thrilled with Herm's first two drafts, but I sure hope to hell we don't look back at it like this one. Many were very happy with this '85 draft for a while as well.

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 01:56 PM
Maybe they haven't tried it since free agency began, but they used to and they failed miserably at it.

Here is one reminder, many more where this came from.

1985
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 15 Ethan Horton TE North Carolina
2 41 Jon Hayes TE Iowa
4 99 Bob Olderman G Virginia
5 126 Bruce King RB Purdue
6 149 Jonathan Bostic DB Bethune-Cookman
7 180 Vince Thomson DE Missouri Western
7 183 Dave Heffernan G Miami
8 210 Ira Hillary WR South Carolina
9 237 Mike Armentrout DB Missouri State
10 267 Jeff Smith RB Nebraska
11 293 Chris Jackson C Southern Methodist
12 321 Harper LeBel TE Colorado State

I remember how thrilled I was when we drafted Jeff Smith, a Wichita player that went to Nebraska.


Many are thrilled with Herm's first two drafts, but I sure hope to hell we don't look back at it like this one. Many were very happy with this '85 draft for a while as well.

The current NFL era started in 1992. We haven't tried it since then.

HemiEd
06-07-2007, 02:00 PM
The current NFL era started in 1992. We haven't tried it since then.

How is that defined, free agency? As I stated, we actually havn't tried it since Carl took over, for the most part.

pikesome
06-07-2007, 02:02 PM
mediodrity is the hardest trap in the NFL to get out of. It puts you in the middle of the 1st round. Never close enough to trade up or good enough to trade down.

But the kind of Mediocrity that we've practiced is even worse. We keep having more holes than picks either because we haven't drafted/developed well in previous years or we traded away picks. Maybe Herm can get the team to a point where we're not drafting for this year's starters and we have the luxury of picking the best talent even if we need to trade up to do it.

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 02:04 PM
How is that defined, free agency? As I stated, we actually havn't tried it since Carl took over, for the most part.

Yeah. Plan B Free Agency started in 1992.

chiefsfan1963
06-07-2007, 02:09 PM
That's why I've been so excited for next year's draft all our draft choices plus 2 extra can do wonders for re-building this team expecially after the last 2 drafts we've had. I think Herm's strength is in picking talent and potential leaders. Certainly DV was not very successful drafting during his tenure, and may be the main reason why he couldn't get over the hump here. Not taking away with what he did accomplish with aging vets, but adding young fiery rookies to the mix may have completed the puzzle.

I really don't want us to perform just good enough and have another 20th pick. If we eck into the playoffs this season and then get our asses handed to us like last year and then pick 20th or worst that would be a freakin shame.

Let's just play our young players this season and let them get experience and learn from failing. It didn't hurt teams like the Cowboys back when JJ first took over and they had a QB named Aikman and some other HoF players. I think they went 1-15 their first year, and shortly after that I think they won 2 or 3 SB's with that group.

milkman
06-07-2007, 08:01 PM
Green = not a failure (very solid stats, the D was the weak link)
Montana = not a failure (we went to a AFC Title game under him)

I've said this before, and most don't agree with me, but I'm alright with that.

While trading for Montana provided the Chiefs and it's fan base one of the most excitingyears in the last 37, and can't be categorized as a failure, the trade still only provided a short term solution to a long term problem.

That problem reared it's ugly head when Dawson was approaching the end of his career, and has continued to bite us in the ass year after year, after year, after year since.

Green provided us 6 years of stability, and that was nice change.

But I'd like to see a young QB in place that can give us more than that.

I still, to this day, believe that trading for Montana was short sighted.
I still, to this day, believe that the Chiefs would have been better long term had they signed Steve Buerlien in free agency that year instead of trading for Montana.

They might not have had the '93 season for us all to look back on in fondness, but they might have given us more in '95 and '97 with Buerlein at QB rather than Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.

And imagine Dana Stubblefield in the middle of our D-Line instaed of San Francisco's.

NewChief
06-07-2007, 08:29 PM
Green provided us 6 years of stability, and that was nice change.

But I'd like to see a young QB in place that can give us more than that.


And I'd, once again, say that finding a young QB that is going to stay with one team long enough to develop, stay healthy, last through coaching changes which are likely to occur if you go 6+ years, and be a consistent producer for such an extended time period is more of a luck of the draw thing than any sort of "draft smart and it will happen" thing. Actually, it's not even about drafting the right QB, it's about a ton of other factors (no injuries, no coaching changes where the QB no longer fits the system, no off years, no fans turning on the QB, etc.. etc..) all aligning in place to allow for the QB to keep the job for that long.

splatbass
06-07-2007, 08:47 PM
They might not have had the '93 season for us all to look back on in fondness, but they might have given us more in '95 and '97 with Buerlein at QB rather than Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.


We went 13-3 with both Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.

crazycoffey
06-07-2007, 08:50 PM
We went 13-3 with both Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.


exactly, and QB wasnt' the only flaw, the reason for not going further, there are too many variables to nail it down to one position. If there isn't one (a QB) to draft, then you have to look at FA.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2007, 08:35 AM
Good points, Mr. htismaqe. As usual.

I think you're right that a different approach might generate improved results. Perhaps we should attempt to field a decent offense and a decent defense at the same time.

We haven't tried that in a while.

FAX

That's just crazy talk.
:p

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 08:39 AM
We went 13-3 with both Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.

And lost in the first round of the playoffs when neither could get it going (especially Bono).

splatbass
06-08-2007, 09:03 AM
And lost in the first round of the playoffs when neither could get it going (especially Bono).

Was that their fault, or was it Marty getting ultra-conservative? You don't go 13-3 by accident. There has to be something there.

Deberg_1990
06-08-2007, 09:09 AM
I've said this before, and most don't agree with me, but I'm alright with that.

While trading for Montana provided the Chiefs and it's fan base one of the most excitingyears in the last 37, and can't be categorized as a failure, the trade still only provided a short term solution to a long term problem.

That problem reared it's ugly head when Dawson was approaching the end of his career, and has continued to bite us in the ass year after year, after year, after year since.

Green provided us 6 years of stability, and that was nice change.

But I'd like to see a young QB in place that can give us more than that.

I still, to this day, believe that trading for Montana was short sighted.
I still, to this day, believe that the Chiefs would have been better long term had they signed Steve Buerlien in free agency that year instead of trading for Montana.

They might not have had the '93 season for us all to look back on in fondness, but they might have given us more in '95 and '97 with Buerlein at QB rather than Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.

And imagine Dana Stubblefield in the middle of our D-Line instaed of San Francisco's.

What you say, might be correct but...........

Bringing in Montana to KC was a HUGE boost to this franchise and city. It also really brought the Chiefs from a regionalized fanbase to more national exposure. Yes, it was a PR move, but a good one.


I never had any qualms about the trade. Yes, everything you said was true, but at least we did get to the AFC title game with him so it was far from a failure.

and who knows if the Chiefs would have drafted Stubblefield??

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:18 AM
Was that their fault, or was it Marty getting ultra-conservative? You don't go 13-3 by accident. There has to be something there.

I believe Bono threw 3 interceptions in his game. I don't remember Grbac having a great game in 1997 either.

bobbything
06-08-2007, 09:23 AM
I believe Bono threw 3 interceptions in his game. I don't remember Grbac having a great game in 1997 either.
He did throw 3 picks, but the coaching staff completely got away from the run. We were averaging something like 5 yards per carry that day; running all over them. Then, out of nowhere, we completely abandoned it.

I'm no huge Bono fan; and he was what he was, but, IMO, the coaching flushed that game right down the toilet.

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 09:24 AM
I've said this before, and most don't agree with me, but I'm alright with that.

While trading for Montana provided the Chiefs and it's fan base one of the most excitingyears in the last 37, and can't be categorized as a failure, the trade still only provided a short term solution to a long term problem.

That problem reared it's ugly head when Dawson was approaching the end of his career, and has continued to bite us in the ass year after year, after year, after year since.

Green provided us 6 years of stability, and that was nice change.

But I'd like to see a young QB in place that can give us more than that.

I still, to this day, believe that trading for Montana was short sighted.
I still, to this day, believe that the Chiefs would have been better long term had they signed Steve Buerlien in free agency that year instead of trading for Montana.

They might not have had the '93 season for us all to look back on in fondness, but they might have given us more in '95 and '97 with Buerlein at QB rather than Steve freakin' Bono and Elvis mother****ing Grbac.

And imagine Dana Stubblefield in the middle of our D-Line instaed of San Francisco's.

I too was pissed when we traded for Montana. I thought so at the time and still do. Carl clearly mortgaged the future on that deal.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:30 AM
He did throw 3 picks, but the coaching staff completely got away from the run. We were averaging something like 5 yards per carry that day; running all over them. Then, out of nowhere, we completely abandoned it.

I'm no huge Bono fan; and he was what he was, but, IMO, the coaching flushed that game right down the toilet.

Right, so it wasn't Marty's "ultra conservative" approach at all.

A better QB might have made a big difference, even with the poor coaching decision.

StcChief
06-08-2007, 09:31 AM
I too was pissed when we traded for Montana. I thought so at the time and still do. Carl clearly mortgaged the future on that deal.
I thought Carl was desperate to get an early championship under his belt..... Montana had some left in the tank. but Chiefs could never draft a QB....I know Todd Blackledge/Bill Kinney wasn't on Carl's watch.

Let's hope Croyle breaks that streak.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 09:32 AM
IMO, the coaching flushed that game right down the toilet.


That is something many of fans have witnessed with Marty... Ask any Cleveland, KC and recently SD fans.... And they will say the same thing..

Marty is cursed....

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 09:34 AM
Right, so it wasn't Marty's "ultra conservative" approach at all.

A better QB might have made a big difference, even with the poor coaching decision.


Well last year a top 5 offense and defense team built my Marty, Martyed themselves in the playoffs...

Marty is what he is, a stellar regular season coach with a playoff record of 5-13 or 14? Not sure where on the losses after his monumental collaspe last year...

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 09:43 AM
I thought Carl was desperate to get an early championship under his belt..... Montana had some left in the tank. but Chiefs could never draft a QB....I know Todd Blackledge/Bill Kinney wasn't on Carl's watch.

Let's hope Croyle breaks that streak.

Hey! Bill Kenney was my Hero in 1983, he was great. He was about the only Chief that was, talk about a 1 man band.

I agree, Carl was trying to realize the 5 year plan goal on time, but it back fired.

I have good feelings about Croyle, as well.

Brock
06-08-2007, 09:51 AM
I too was pissed when we traded for Montana. I thought so at the time and still do. Carl clearly mortgaged the future on that deal.

Montana was worth it. That era was the high water mark of Peterson's time here.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 09:53 AM
Well last year a top 5 offense and defense team built my Marty, Martyed themselves in the playoffs...

Marty is what he is, a stellar regular season coach with a playoff record of 5-13 or 14? Not sure where on the losses after his monumental collaspe last year...

Marty still didn't throw those 3 interceptions, Steve Bono did.

ROYC75
06-08-2007, 09:56 AM
Montana was worth it. That era was the high water mark of Peterson's time here.

Yep, at least we got to the AFC Championship game before Buffalo and a frozen field took us out.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Marty still didn't throw those 3 interceptions, Steve Bono did.


Agreed, Marty didnt fumble.. Byner did... Marty couldnt stop Elway... Marty didnt miss 3 FG's, Elliot did... Marty didnt hold on a FG, Tony G did... Marty didnt throw the ball out of the endzone on 4th and Goal... Grbac did....

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 10:01 AM
Montana was worth it. That era was the high water mark of Peterson's time here.

But it didn't have to be the high water mark, but the Montana trade doomed it to be in retrospect.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 10:03 AM
Agreed, Marty didnt fumble.. Byner did... Marty couldnt stop Elway... Marty didnt miss 3 FG's, Elliot did... Marty didnt hold on a FG, Tony G did... Marty didnt throw the ball out of the endzone on 4th and Goal... Grbac did....

Not trying to absolve Marty.

But EVERY coach in the NFL, regardless of style, is subject to what happens with the talent on the field.

Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl. Because Peyton Manning isn't Steve Bono.

Brock
06-08-2007, 10:04 AM
But it didn't have to be the high water mark, but the Montana trade doomed it to be in retrospect.

I doubt that first round pick would have made any difference in the big picture. The team wasn't nearly as old then as it as gotten recently.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 10:08 AM
Not trying to absolve Marty.

But EVERY coach in the NFL, regardless of style, is subject to what happens with the talent on the field.

Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl. Because Peyton Manning isn't Steve Bono.

Just so happens that Marty's playoffs implosions are more histerical than the last one...

Dont feel for the guy, nor care. As long as he is never back in Arrowhead agian in any capacity... Life is good for the Chiefs and Fans...

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 10:09 AM
I doubt that first round pick would have made any difference in the big picture. The team wasn't nearly as old then as it as gotten recently.


Montana was a big reason of the Chiefs success in the 90's, Without him, Carl, Marty and Co.. Might of slipped back to obscurity...

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 10:10 AM
I doubt that first round pick would have made any difference in the big picture. The team wasn't nearly as old then as it as gotten recently.

That is exactly my point, that team was not old. You had a great crop of youth to add to, the team was on the up-swing in a major way.

Carl basically went "all in" by aquiring Montana, we got to the final table, but we busted.

The real reason the Chiefs did not win the SB that year, was the 17-19 loss to the Bears at Arrowhead. Marty went for a field goal, up 14-12, with less than a minute on the clock. Of course, the Bears score the winning TD and the Chiefs 11-5 have to go to Buffalo 12-4 in the snow.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 10:10 AM
As long as he is never back in Arrowhead agian in any capacity

I wouldn't go that far.

I'd LOVE to see Marty back here...
















Coaching our opponent in the playoffs. :D

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 10:11 AM
I wouldn't go that far.

I'd LOVE to see Marty back here...

Coaching our opponent in the playoffs. :D

:bravo: Rep worthy...

bobbything
06-08-2007, 10:21 AM
Bono threw the INT's, but who's to say he would have been in the position to throws those passes if we added 10 more rushes and cut out 10 passes.

I remember watching the game thinking to myself, "why in the hell are we getting away from the run?"

But, all in all, it wasn't our day. Bono had a very good year that season. Hell, he went to the friggin' Pro Bowl. He choked during the playoffs. Elliot missed 3 FG's. Marty mistook our QB for the future Mrs. Manning.

The only thing we did well on offense was lost in the coaching. Stick with it until they can stop it.

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 10:23 AM
Bono threw the INT's, but who's to say he would have been in the position to throws those passes if we added 10 more rushes and cut out 10 passes.

I remember watching the game thinking to myself, "why in the hell are we getting away from the run?"

But, all in all, it wasn't our day. Bono had a very good year that season. Hell, he went to the friggin' Pro Bowl. He choked during the playoffs. Elliot missed 3 FG's. Marty mistook our QB for the future Mrs. Manning.

The only thing we did well on offense was lost in the coaching. Stick with it until they can stop it.

Who's to say a better QB wouldn't have thrown TD's instead of interceptions?

I can't believe anyone would stoop to defending Steve ****ing Bono.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 10:25 AM
Who's to say a better QB wouldn't have thrown TD's instead of interceptions?

I can't believe anyone would stoop to defending Steve ****ing Bono.


Not saying you are, so dont get me wrong, but I cant believe there are Chiefs fans that would stoop so low to defend Marty the Playoff Joke?

htismaqe
06-08-2007, 10:27 AM
Not saying you are, so dont get me wrong, but I cant believe there are Chiefs fans that would stoop so low to defend Marty the Playoff Joke?

I'm not defending Marty.

I think alot of people here overrate the importance of coaching.

Talent trumps coaching, simple as that. And we've had a dearth of it at the QB position for the better part of 40 years.

Reerun_KC
06-08-2007, 10:29 AM
I'm not defending Marty.

I think alot of people here overrate the importance of coaching.

Talent trumps coaching, simple as that. And we've had a dearth of it at the QB position for the better part of 40 years.


I cant argue that... That is why I am excited that Herm is going to start or give Brodie every chance to fail...

I really dont want to waste another season with someone like Huard behind center...

Time for the Chiefs to step up...

bobbything
06-08-2007, 10:36 AM
Who's to say a better QB wouldn't have thrown TD's instead of interceptions?

I can't believe anyone would stoop to defending Steve ****ing Bono.
I only defend him to the extent that, if I knew what kind of QB he was, then Marty Schottenheimer knew what kind of QB he was. And to go into a pass-happy mode, with a marginal QB, when we're averaging 5 yards per carry is insane.

If the Baltimore Ravens can win a SB with Trent friggin' Dilfer, the Chiefs should have been able to with Steve Bono. That's coaching IMHO.

milkman
06-08-2007, 07:32 PM
And I'd, once again, say that finding a young QB that is going to stay with one team long enough to develop, stay healthy, last through coaching changes which are likely to occur if you go 6+ years, and be a consistent producer for such an extended time period is more of a luck of the draw thing than any sort of "draft smart and it will happen" thing. Actually, it's not even about drafting the right QB, it's about a ton of other factors (no injuries, no coaching changes where the QB no longer fits the system, no off years, no fans turning on the QB, etc.. etc..) all aligning in place to allow for the QB to keep the job for that long.

All that may be true, but I would venture to guess that you would be hard pressed to find five other teams that have had the instability at QB that the Chiefs have had over the last 30 years.

To be clear here, I'm saying that out of the 24(?) teams that existed when Dawson retired, including the Chiefs, at least 18 of those teams have probably had at least one QB that started for 10 years or more.

I haven't given it much thought, and any research, so I could well be wrong.

milkman
06-08-2007, 07:39 PM
What you say, might be correct but...........

Bringing in Montana to KC was a HUGE boost to this franchise and city. It also really brought the Chiefs from a regionalized fanbase to more national exposure. Yes, it was a PR move, but a good one.


I never had any qualms about the trade. Yes, everything you said was true, but at least we did get to the AFC title game with him so it was far from a failure.

and who knows if the Chiefs would have drafted Stubblefield??

Everything you say may be true, however, I still believe that the Chiefs would have been better off with Buerlein over Montana in the long term.

If we signed Buerlein, we not only would have had that pick to use on Stubblefield if we chose, or any number of other players, but we very likely would not have been put into a position where we had to trade for Bono, and later sign Grbac.

Those two things cancel out Montana's one good season, at least IMO.

Of course my opinion is influenced by the fact that I didn't like trading away the future for Montana.

milkman
06-08-2007, 07:42 PM
Montana was a big reason of the Chiefs success in the 90's, Without him, Carl, Marty and Co.. Might of slipped back to obscurity...

Montana had that one good season, so I really don't believe that he was a big reason for the success of the 90's.

He was a big reason for the success of '93, but he well could be a big reason for the failure to advance in '95 and '97.

milkman
06-08-2007, 07:44 PM
But it didn't have to be the high water mark, but the Montana trade doomed it to be in retrospect.

Exactly.

You are clearly a brilliant man.

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 09:01 PM
Everything you say may be true, however, I still believe that the Chiefs would have been better off with Buerlein over Montana in the long term.

If we signed Buerlein, we not only would have had that pick to use on Stubblefield if we chose, or any number of other players, but we very likely would not have been put into a position where we had to trade for Bono, and later sign Grbac.

Those two things cancel out Montana's one good season, at least IMO.

Of course my opinion is influenced by the fact that I didn't like trading away the future for Montana.

You make your point well milkman. Also, the Chiefs had a lot of young, high caliber talent. They had been hitting on their draft choices, then they shifted directions totally.

The Montana deal was the first time I got upset with what Carl did, there have been a few since. (Gunther, Kris Wilson, Herm)
We gave up our #1 for a 2 year player on the downside of a great career.

I didn't need the Montana exposure to make me a Chiefs fan, I already was one.

It used to actually tick me off when people would associate the Chiefs with Montana.

ClevelandBronco
06-08-2007, 09:09 PM
...The Montana deal was the first time I got upset with what Carl did, there have been a few since. (Gunther, Kris Wilson, Herm)
We gave up our #1 for a 2 year player on the downside of a great career.

Good point.

And still some here would have had us believe that Green (no Montana, he) was worth a #2.

FAX
06-08-2007, 09:14 PM
It's funny, but there's a part of me that thinks the Montana trade was worth it just for the last minute, Monday Night comeback against the goats.

FAX

HemiEd
06-08-2007, 09:15 PM
Good point.

And still some here would have had us believe that Green (no Montana, he) was worth a #2.

I guess that all depends on whether you are "buying or selling", but since that deal is over, I think Carl did very well.

If Gaethers had not have scrambled Trents noggin, and Willie Roaf was his traveling LT, he would be worth it. :D

I honestly, dread what Trent is going to look like in Miami, if that line is no better than it has been. He is too nice a guy to get totally humiliated, I hope it doesn't happen.

milkman
06-08-2007, 09:18 PM
You make your point well milkman. Also, the Chiefs had a lot of young, high caliber talent. They had been hitting on their draft choices, then they shifted directions totally.

The Montana deal was the first time I got upset with what Carl did, there have been a few since. (Gunther, Kris Wilson, Herm)
We gave up our #1 for a 2 year player on the downside of a great career.

I didn't need the Montana exposure to make me a Chiefs fan, I already was one.

It used to actually tick me off when people would associate the Chiefs with Montana.

For the most part, I also liked what Carl was doing early on.

He did, however, piss me off when he hired Marty.

Hell, Carl hasn't hired a guy yet that I liked.

Douche Baggins
06-08-2007, 09:24 PM
He did, however, piss me off when he hired Marty.


How did a fan even know if a coach was worth a shit back in those days before the internet and over-coverage?

FAX
06-08-2007, 09:28 PM
How did a fan even know if a coach was worth a shit back in those days before the internet and over-coverage?

You had to refer to the stone carvings left behind by the ancient fans, Mr. GoChiefs. It often led to cerebellum overload and a strange but compelling desire to club one's neighbor for little or no reason, but it was the only available source.

FAX

milkman
06-08-2007, 09:30 PM
How did a fan even know if a coach was worth a shit back in those days before the internet and over-coverage?

TV, newspapers, magazines.

Tribal Warfare
06-08-2007, 11:56 PM
313 posts on this thread yet not one from the Dolphin fans cutting down Trent. ROFL

HemiEd
06-09-2007, 02:39 AM
How did a fan even know if a coach was worth a shit back in those days before the internet and over-coverage?

I would set on the floor by the family radio, and listen to the descriptions. They would describe the players and coaches in detail.
We also got player and coach cards in the Cheerios box.

Guru
06-09-2007, 02:44 AM
313 posts on this thread yet not one from the Dolphin fans cutting down Trent. ROFL
I am sure you can find something on finheaven.com

Here's one....

No Icon Selected Whats the difference between Green and Culpepper? I don't see it.
Their both former pro bowlers, they both got signed to us after having injury plagued seasons, they both had more INT's then TD's on the previous season that we signed them. I really don't see what all the hype is about. Green looks like another culpepper to me as far as skill wise this point in their career. They both had HUGE pro bowl targets. Did anyone see Green in the playoffs last season?

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=199617

Anyong Bluth
06-09-2007, 03:37 AM
I'll just go ahead and say that I know for a fact that Carl has had very minimal say when it comes to the majority of draft picks in his tenure. Carl has always been first and foremost a dollars and cents GM. He did have front office guys, such as Terry Bradway, and other scouts that would interject, and under Marty's tenure pull the occasional Carte Blanche card a few call. Some of those calls are what led to the power struggle that Marty and Carl had, and ultimately became the sad situation of Marty signing a number of guys w/ questionable surroundings in the attempt to get over the hump. Which is why we ended up w/ the 1998 season of disaster.

You can hate on Carl all you want, but the fact is he has been voted GM of the year at least twice, and understands that no matter how frustrated we as fans may be, a horrible season will kill his bottom line. KC is one of the top 3 teams in total wins since 1990, and the fact we always have a viable shot to make some noise since Carl has been here is only a testament to is effectiveness.

The Chiefs woes are not and should not be placed solely on Carl's shoulders. As much as people want to aggrandize Lamar, there were many times that Carl was forced or prevented from doing what he thought could truly help the team. Lamar already had his legacy, and I will put money on the fact that KC actually will have a brighter future because Clarke eagerly wants to carve his own niche w/in the NFL.

You can chose to agree or disagree with me as much as you like, but I have dealt with Carl on a number of occasions w/in a professional capacity, and as well on a less formal setting, and will say he has been projected way more negatively than he really is. So many here want to view Carl as the epitome of a self-righteous, pompous @sshole, but if his ego was his sole drive, the quickest way for him to gain favor w/ the fanbase would be to reach at any and every opportunity he had to reach the fans by winning a super bowl.

DenverChief
06-09-2007, 04:10 AM
It's funny, but there's a part of me that thinks the Montana trade was worth it just for the last minute, Monday Night comeback against the goats.

FAX


:thumb: Egfrigginzactly...and the Wild Card comeback against the Squeelers the Comeback against the Oilers and fat@ss Buddy Ryan...I mean the thrill of those wins made me feel so alive and I still have yet to feel like that again...well the Green Bay win when we went 9-0 that was special, Eddie K in the EZ getting mobbed....

DenverChief
06-09-2007, 04:13 AM
Eddie K in the EZ getting mobbed....

If anybody can find that pic It would be greatly appreciated

C-Mac
06-09-2007, 05:12 AM
I'll just go ahead and say that I know for a fact that Carl has had very minimal say when it comes to the majority of draft picks in his tenure. Carl has always been first and foremost a dollars and cents GM. He did have front office guys, such as Terry Bradway, and other scouts that would interject, and under Marty's tenure pull the occasional Carte Blanche card a few call. Some of those calls are what led to the power struggle that Marty and Carl had, and ultimately became the sad situation of Marty signing a number of guys w/ questionable surroundings in the attempt to get over the hump. Which is why we ended up w/ the 1998 season of disaster.

You can hate on Carl all you want, but the fact is he has been voted GM of the year at least twice, and understands that no matter how frustrated we as fans may be, a horrible season will kill his bottom line. KC is one of the top 3 teams in total wins since 1990, and the fact we always have a viable shot to make some noise since Carl has been here is only a testament to is effectiveness.

The Chiefs woes are not and should not be placed solely on Carl's shoulders. As much as people want to aggrandize Lamar, there were many times that Carl was forced or prevented from doing what he thought could truly help the team. Lamar already had his legacy, and I will put money on the fact that KC actually will have a brighter future because Clarke eagerly wants to carve his own niche w/in the NFL.

You can chose to agree or disagree with me as much as you like, but I have dealt with Carl on a number of occasions w/in a professional capacity, and as well on a less formal setting, and will say he has been projected way more negatively than he really is. So many here want to view Carl as the epitome of a self-righteous, pompous @sshole, but if his ego was his sole drive, the quickest way for him to gain favor w/ the fanbase would be to reach at any and every opportunity he had to reach the fans by winning a super bowl.

Good post...agreed.

htismaqe
06-09-2007, 05:17 AM
For the most part, I also liked what Carl was doing early on.

He did, however, piss me off when he hired Marty.

Hell, Carl hasn't hired a guy yet that I liked.

Marvin Lewis is a DISASTER. :thumb:

htismaqe
06-09-2007, 05:20 AM
I'll just go ahead and say that I know for a fact that Carl has had very minimal say when it comes to the majority of draft picks in his tenure. Carl has always been first and foremost a dollars and cents GM. He did have front office guys, such as Terry Bradway, and other scouts that would interject, and under Marty's tenure pull the occasional Carte Blanche card a few call. Some of those calls are what led to the power struggle that Marty and Carl had, and ultimately became the sad situation of Marty signing a number of guys w/ questionable surroundings in the attempt to get over the hump. Which is why we ended up w/ the 1998 season of disaster.

You can hate on Carl all you want, but the fact is he has been voted GM of the year at least twice, and understands that no matter how frustrated we as fans may be, a horrible season will kill his bottom line. KC is one of the top 3 teams in total wins since 1990, and the fact we always have a viable shot to make some noise since Carl has been here is only a testament to is effectiveness.

The Chiefs woes are not and should not be placed solely on Carl's shoulders. As much as people want to aggrandize Lamar, there were many times that Carl was forced or prevented from doing what he thought could truly help the team. Lamar already had his legacy, and I will put money on the fact that KC actually will have a brighter future because Clarke eagerly wants to carve his own niche w/in the NFL.

You can chose to agree or disagree with me as much as you like, but I have dealt with Carl on a number of occasions w/in a professional capacity, and as well on a less formal setting, and will say he has been projected way more negatively than he really is. So many here want to view Carl as the epitome of a self-righteous, pompous @sshole, but if his ego was his sole drive, the quickest way for him to gain favor w/ the fanbase would be to reach at any and every opportunity he had to reach the fans by winning a super bowl.

It doesn't take a whole lot of brain cells to see that types of players we drafted under Marty, Gun, Vermeil, and now Herm are pretty different - a strong indication that Carl is deferring to the head coach on Day 1 of the draft.

It also doesn't take much to understand that the surest way to put butts in the seats is to win it all.

Carl's not a saint. And he's made A LOT of mistakes in KC. But he's also not this ridiculous evil caricature of a man that some fans and media would have you believe. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Messier
06-09-2007, 07:30 AM
I'll just go ahead and say that I know for a fact that Carl has had very minimal say when it comes to the majority of draft picks in his tenure. Carl has always been first and foremost a dollars and cents GM. He did have front office guys, such as Terry Bradway, and other scouts that would interject, and under Marty's tenure pull the occasional Carte Blanche card a few call. Some of those calls are what led to the power struggle that Marty and Carl had, and ultimately became the sad situation of Marty signing a number of guys w/ questionable surroundings in the attempt to get over the hump. Which is why we ended up w/ the 1998 season of disaster.

You can hate on Carl all you want, but the fact is he has been voted GM of the year at least twice, and understands that no matter how frustrated we as fans may be, a horrible season will kill his bottom line. KC is one of the top 3 teams in total wins since 1990, and the fact we always have a viable shot to make some noise since Carl has been here is only a testament to is effectiveness.

The Chiefs woes are not and should not be placed solely on Carl's shoulders. As much as people want to aggrandize Lamar, there were many times that Carl was forced or prevented from doing what he thought could truly help the team. Lamar already had his legacy, and I will put money on the fact that KC actually will have a brighter future because Clarke eagerly wants to carve his own niche w/in the NFL.

You can chose to agree or disagree with me as much as you like, but I have dealt with Carl on a number of occasions w/in a professional capacity, and as well on a less formal setting, and will say he has been projected way more negatively than he really is. So many here want to view Carl as the epitome of a self-righteous, pompous @sshole, but if his ego was his sole drive, the quickest way for him to gain favor w/ the fanbase would be to reach at any and every opportunity he had to reach the fans by winning a super bowl.

Very good post. I must say that all the people who say things like, Carl doesn't want a championship, all he wants is money, he wouldn't care if the Chiefs never win, are very dumb.

In that dumb category are media types fanning the Carl bash flame. KK has recently been trying to belittle the role of the NFL GM, or more precisely CP, he is trying to take away the one thing that people who don't like CP are begrudgingly willing to give him credit for, putting butts in the seats and making money for the Chiefs. But now KK is trying to take that away by saying things like anyone, even I, can be a successful NFL GM, it's the easiest job in the world. It smacks of a desperate attempt to make it appear Peterson has no purpose other than to annoy people like KK.

milkman
06-09-2007, 08:21 AM
Marvin Lewis is a DISASTER. :thumb:

Is he?

The character issues on that team are definitely a huge problem.

However, in an interveiw on ESPN Radio a couple of weeks ago, a Cleveland reporter said that Lewis was dead set against drafting some of those players with character flaws, but was overruled.

Now that those players are his to coach, he is in a position to try and motivate them and defend them.

He looks like an ass because he defends them, but I bet those players work for him.

ct
06-11-2007, 01:46 PM
From Rotoworld...

Trent Green-QB- Dolphins Jun. 11 - 12:59 pm et


Trent Green will make $6 million this season, with an extra $2.45 million available in incentives. He's scheduled to make $13.5 million if he sticks around for three years.

Wow. Green will be one of the higher paid quarterbacks in the league despite coming off a serious injury at age 37. The salary is a sign that Miami still sees Green as a top-shelf option, not a placeholder until John Beck is ready.

Buehler445
06-11-2007, 01:54 PM
From Rotoworld...

Trent Green-QB- Dolphins Jun. 11 - 12:59 pm et


Trent Green will make $6 million this season, with an extra $2.45 million available in incentives. He's scheduled to make $13.5 million if he sticks around for three years.

Wow. Green will be one of the higher paid quarterbacks in the league despite coming off a serious injury at age 37. The salary is a sign that Miami still sees Green as a top-shelf option, not a placeholder until John Beck is ready.

I read the same info in an SI column, and it said that it is 500K less than Culpepper. Also said something about incentives if he makes a run into the playoffs.

Buehler445
06-11-2007, 01:57 PM
Found it!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/06/11/mmqb/1.html

Trent Green's deal with the Dolphins seems very fair ... maybe a little too fair for a 36-year-old guy who ended last year on such shaky ground with the Chiefs.

He'll make $6 million this year, with an extra $2.45 million in incentives based on the Dolphins going far into the playoffs and Green playing at least 75 percent of the snaps.

Here's an interesting fact: Green will be cheaper than Culpepper would have been, had the Dolphins chose to stick with the former Vike. This year, minus incentives, Green's $6 million is $500,000 less than what Culpepper was set to make. And over the three years of Green's contract, if he stays, he'll make $13.5 million; Culpepper would have made $17.5 million.

When you think of the deal in that way -- considering the comfort level Cam Cameron has with Green (they bonded as assistant and backup while with the Redskins) and that Cameron did not have with Culpepper, this is a logical signing. But it won't be very logical if the Dolphins have to play Cleo Lemon while paying Green $6 million.

----

go bowe
06-11-2007, 02:40 PM
It doesn't take a whole lot of brain cells to see that types of players we drafted under Marty, Gun, Vermeil, and now Herm are pretty different - a strong indication that Carl is deferring to the head coach on Day 1 of the draft.

It also doesn't take much to understand that the surest way to put butts in the seats is to win it all.

Carl's not a saint. And he's made A LOT of mistakes in KC. But he's also not this ridiculous evil caricature of a man that some fans and media would have you believe. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.no it doesn't...

the truth is closer to the saint than the ridiculous evil caricature of a man...

btw, i'm hoping somebody can explain how it is that "the truth lies..." :D :D :D