PDA

View Full Version : RealTeam.com: Chiefs Are a Joke.


FedEx Marty
06-11-2001, 08:50 AM
Check out this article by supposed expert Terry O'Neil:



http://www.realteam.com/insiders/PublishedArticles/10561.jsp

jAZ
06-11-2001, 09:04 AM
This guys comes off sounding a little smarmy, but I think he is voicing one of two realistic schools of thought: we have already blown it, or we have fixed our problems and built a solid foundation for the 2nd half of 2001 and beyond.

I tend to believe the latter, but I am a fan, can I be trusted to be objective?

Justin

KCTitus
06-11-2001, 09:10 AM
I read the other 5 reviews of other teams that were below the article as well...he's basically trying to find everything wrong he possibly can with the teams. Some he finds more than others. I havent seen a review from an NFC team, I would be interested to see if they are handled any differently.

Yeah, KC has a lot of problems this year...probably another .500 year or so.

ck_IN
06-11-2001, 09:28 AM
And the problem with this article is what?

It may be a nasty pill homers-among-us, but we have to swallow it. We are a mediocre team at best.

Our defense was horid last year, and we've subtracted from it this year. Our ST's may be better but as bad as they were is that saying much? One of the continuing whines about EG was him being injury prone. So we sign a QB that is clearly injury prone. Another EG complaint is why he had no more experience than he had. Green has started a total of 19 games and he's approaching 31. Our new feature back was replaced on his own team by a drafted rookie at feature back.

Top this off with the fact that we have a brand new coaching staff and a rugged schedule. A burn in time will be required and it'll be against some of the best teams in the league.

This is going to be a long year gang.

KCTitus
06-11-2001, 09:38 AM
CK: in his San Diego review, he talks about 'addition by subtraction'. I dont think that the release of Chester or Hasty was necessarily a step 'down'.

Second, the ST's were bad, that is true, but again, we lost Stock and I would argue that's not a step down either.

Long year, yes...tons of dead money, new staff, tough schedule. At least KC's finally headed in a new direction.

Gaz
06-11-2001, 09:41 AM
His facts are correct. I may have an issue with the 'tude, but I cannot fault his analysis. In fact, I found only one false statement in the article:
they are mathematically eliminated from contention in '01.

Not yet.

xoxo~
Gaz
Doesn't expect that to happen until Week #8 at the earliest.

ck_IN
06-11-2001, 09:52 AM
Titus,

Addition by subtraction in the SD sense means losing cRyan Leaf. One could make the case we did that with Glock, but Leaf was replaced with Flutie. Glock was replaced with Downing. 'Nuff said.

I won't argue that Hasty was past his prime, but Crockett, by comparision, never had a prime. On his worst day #40 is light years better than Crockett, and I'd say still a top 10 CB.

Stock is gone. (insert chorus of joy here) He was replaced with Frank Ganz Jr. At the moment I view this as a push, with an option to revise later. What concerns me at the moment is, 'who will kick off?'. Our defense is too bad to overcome opponents starting at the 30+.

I do agree that we're headed in the right direction. But far more emphasis needs to be paid to our weaknesses. No more 3rd round reaches please. And since our depth is shallow the injury bug repellent should be bought in 55 gal drums.

shakesthecat
06-11-2001, 09:53 AM
"Will Shields, is a one-dimensional pass protector whose drive blocking is just fair."

There are some valid points to his article, but come on.

KCTitus
06-11-2001, 10:05 AM
Leaf's replacement is no better than Glock's. Im not sure how that's 'Nuff said', but ok...at least Flutie has a history--a long one.

As far as Crockett...I'm indifferent about this because I dont believe he'll be starting, but he does provide veteran knowledge that wouldnt cost KC about 4.5M under this years cap.

DaWolf
06-11-2001, 10:51 AM
Give me a break. First of all he focuses on that stupid superficial stuff that the media seem so intent to overblow, like the cap. The 31 million was taken care of and we ended up being 6 mil under, which ranked us 5th in the league at the start of free agency. Dead cap money? Yes, but that happens when a new regime comes in and you have to get rid of players who don't want to be here. While not having that dead money would have left us No 1 in money to spend, we still had room, and we eliminated malcontents. Which leads to the Grbac point. We didn't lose him due to our own flawed deal, like he says. We lost him because he wanted out. So what would have been the plus in keeping around a guy who didn't want to be here?

Then he ridicules the signing of Will Shields, a perrrenial pro bowler. His Priest Holmes argument is also debatable (we've had a couple of threads on that.)

His defensive arguments have validity for the skeptic. And he spends zero time focusing on the positives. I guess he's made up his mind about this team. I hope the rest of the media feel the same way. And it doesn't seem like we're done adding people to this team, so to judge them right now is premature...

http://www.realteam.com/gfx/pics/pic_oneil.jpg

KCinGA
06-11-2001, 10:55 AM
I think most people would agree that the article presented some valid points. KC has definitely reached for some players this year, taking chances on Trent Green, Priest Holmes, Eric Downing, and Ray Crockett. But, I feel each player has an equal chance of succeeding...

Trent Green has the ability to produce a scoring juggernaut in KC. Throwing to Gonzalez, Alexander, Morris, Minnis, Richardson, Holmes, Blaylock... I can't help but think that we'll have an advantage here against any defense that we face.

Priest Holmes will produce. At the least, he will upgrade the RB position - even if he is used in tandem with Richardson. He has more speed and wiggle than Richardson. I sure hated to see Garner go to the Raiders, though.

Eric Downing is young and raw, but maybe he'll an improvement - as long as he's not jumping offsides every other play. KC will need someone to step up, though, to divert some attention away from Eric Hicks. As it is, I'm sure each offense we face will double-team Hicks and make someone else beat them.

Ray Crockett is not a pickup I'm so sure about. I can only hope that our new defensive coach knows what he's doing. We sure did give him a lot of money, if he's not starting. But, I can see where he could help the young secondary in it's transition to new defensive schemes under Robinson.

The only real comment I had an issue with in the article is the one made on Will Shields. This guy's a pro-bowl player! He's not "average".

It would be easy to look for all of the negative things that could happen this year, but it's also easy to see the upside if some things fall into place for us this year. If we can protect Green, play some decent defense, and improve in special teams (which, I think we have done drammatically)... this team will be real solid this year and should make the playoffs!!

Clint in Wichita
06-11-2001, 10:58 AM
If healthy & playing, Martin will equal McGlockton's staggering 30 tackles and 2 sacks.

C'mon...that's only 30 more tackles and 2 more sacks than I got last year!!!

IMO Hasty was the only real "loss".

Every other move has been an upgrade IMO, especially the coaches.

Clint in Wichita
06-11-2001, 10:59 AM
Did I say EVERY move?

I forgot about Crockett and Cadrez.

OK, MOST of the moves have been positive!

DaWolf
06-11-2001, 11:02 AM
Media folk are mainly impressed with big name pickups, so we strike out big there. Regarding Garner, I guess I'm just not as impressed with him as some seem to be. The Chiefs obviously weren't either...

Lightning Rod
06-11-2001, 11:05 AM
Hey wasn't Faulk replaced by a draft pick rookie?

I know, not the same thing

keg in kc
06-11-2001, 11:06 AM
First, I am so damned sick of the completely idiotic use of the term "reach". Unless you're someone who happens to have a copy of all 31 teams' draft cards, you don't know enough to call anyone a "reach" and that includes 99% of the so-called "draft experts" who do little more than take up bandwidth on the internet. We don't know where teams had players ranked, and most of the draft information at our disposal was months old and doesn't contain any information about how players performed at the all-important private workouts.

Furthermore, you don't analyze a draft weeks after it happens, it takes years, and anyone with an iota of sense knows that. If it were 2005 and we're lamenting how Downing and Minnis didn't pan out, that's one thing, but to b!tch and moan about these picks before they see a down on the field is a collossal waste of breath. Let's hope they turn out like a few other KC "third round reaches" from the last decade, guys like Will Shields ('93), John Browning ('96), and Greg Wesley ('00).

Could they be Tamarick Vanovers or Rashaan Shehees? Sure. But nobody really knows and there's no reason to assume anything, positive or negative, at this point...

Enough said on that, now on to the opinion piece by this "Terry O'Neal" guy. He doesn't really have any information in there that anyone interested in KC wouldn't know already. He blasts our free agency moves, and I will say that I don't agree with a word that he said about any player other than Ray Crockett. He also makes it clear that he doesn't understand the situation with Charlie Garner jumping to Oakland: we never had a chance of signing him, much less for only a 2 million signing bonus. That was just an idiotic statement, if you ask me.

All-in-all, he looks like someone who knows absolutely nothing about the team trying to write an article about it, with a clearly negative intent, and that's fine. Whatever. His sarcastic banter really doesn't impress me, and it takes away from what could have been an insightful and interesting read for people who aren't familiar with the team. Instead it's just a bunch of negative, obnoxious crap perfectly in the vein of a Jim Rome "clone". Idiots like that would love this stuff.

The last paragraph sums it up best:

Finally, there is the spectre of injury. Prior contract excesses and player misevaluations have left no cap room for quality reserves. The Chiefs' backups are rookies, unknowns and worse.

That much I can agree with, with the exception of "player misevaluations". It's the same sort of idiotic statement like saying our draftees are a "reach". Anyway, like I said, that much I can agree with. But does he stop there? No. Of course not. He has to "spice" it up with a parting shot.

Let's hope they're not forced to play. This season will be difficult enough for the starters.

No class.

Let's not mistake who this guy is. He's a long time TV producer/executive who spent 3 years as an executive for the Saints when Ditka was there. You know, back when the Saints traded their entire draft to the Redskins for Ricky "maybe 10 games a season" Williams. Yeah, that's the guy I'd want to listen to when it comes to talent evaluation...

DaWolf
06-11-2001, 11:19 AM
Charlie Garner jumping to Oakland: we never had a chance of signing him, much less for only a 2 million signing bonus. That was just an idiotic statement, if you ask me.

I wouldn't say we never had a chance at him, we could have gone after him earlier when he was getting zero offers. The interesting thing to me is that Vermiel played against him twice a year, Carl saw him firsthand last year, they knew the Raiders were interested, yet they never made much of an attempt for him. Even in the beginning, they insisted that they had Holmes rated ahead of Garner. So something was going on there. In the end, we weren't going to get him, because Oakland being in the Bay Area had any edge against us contractwise. But I do find it interesting that Carl has had two clear opportunities to get him, once this offseason and once when the Eagles were trying to trade him for a draft pick, and he passed both times.

In regards to this guy working for the Aints, man I wish you hadn't brought that up, because Bill Kucharic works in our front office, and he was the GM of the Aints in that time under Ditka. :( Alas, maybe he's better in his current role, and maybe Ditka is the one who was running that draft with final say, but we'll see.

I agree with everything else...

keg in kc
06-11-2001, 11:44 AM
That's true, DaWolf, about Kucharic. Hopefully it turns out a little better, although at the same time you could say that last year's success was based partly on what was built in the time Ditka was there. My main point about O'Neal, though, was that he was a TV guy, not a football guy, and what football experience he has isn't exactly glowing when you look at it in hindsight. And he's writing like he's some great insider with this pool of knowledge about player evaluation. Yeah, right...

As for Garner, I don't know why we weren't interested, and while, yes, we could have gotten him (I was a little too strong on that, we could have paid out the nose for him I'm sure) we certainly could not have gotten him as cheaply as the Faiders did. This O'Neal joker was basically saying we could have gotten Garner for an equivalent contract to what we paid Holmes, which is laughable at best, and a completely idiotic statement when you compare Garner's contract to Holmes:

Holmes:
2 million signing bonus (400K per year)
2001 448,000 (total cap number of 848K)
2002 750,000 (total cap number of 1.15 mil)
2003 1,200,000 (total cap number of 1.6 mil)
2004 1,400,000 (total cap number of 1.8 mil)
2005 1,600,000 (total cap number of 2 mil)

Garner:
2 million signing bonus (500K per year)
2001 500,000 (total cap number of 1 mil)
2002 1,977,000 (total cap number of 2.477 mil)
2003 3,627,000 (total cap number of 4.127 mil)
2004 4,227,000 (total cap number of 4.727 mil)

Obviously O'Neal knew absolutely nothing about the two contracts other than the fact that the signing bonus was the same (but not really the same on average, since Holmes is signed for longer...). Garner is making more money in one less year, and Holmes is making less in the final year of the contract than Garner will make next year. I mean, I'm no mathematical genius by any stretch of the imagination, but even I can see the difference between a 5 year 8 mil contract (Holmes) and a 4 year 10.5 mil contract (Garner).

And nothing will make me believe that we wouldn't have had to pay more for a jump halfway across the country than the Raiders had to pay him to jump across the bay, and to play for a coach he knows well and respects, no less.

BigMeatballDave
06-11-2001, 11:58 AM
Someone correct me if I`m wrong, but doesn`t Garner have a history with injuries?

DaWolf
06-11-2001, 12:24 PM
You are correct, we couldn't have gotten Garner at the same price as Holmes, partiularly with the Riaders right next door to him. But what interests me is that we didn't really have an interest in him. I vividly remember one of the first things Vermiel was asked when free agency started was about their level of interest in Garner. "We thing Garner is intruiging, but we've got Priest Holmes ranked ahead of him. We think Priest can be more of the player we're looking for." Boom, he just laid it all out there, before negotiations with anyone had even begun. This is why I find the suggestion that all of a sudden Holmes shows up to camp and Vermiel decides he isn't the back for him to be rediculous. These guys do their homework, they don't go through all that stuff to change their minds during non contact, no pad drills. It has more to do with the talent of TRich han the lack of talent of Holmes...

DaWolf
06-11-2001, 12:26 PM
Yes, Garner does have a history of nagging injury, which is why the Niners had to let him sit out practices during game week, so he could let his body heal up for the game. Even with that, he still wore down and was not the same back the last 6 weeks of the season. So even with Garner, we probably wouldn't be looking at "the man"...

One Arrowhead Dave
06-11-2001, 12:32 PM
How could this guy fail to mention that the CHIEFS actually got better by dumping the "STOOGES"? His analysis of the team failed to mention that the new coaching staff alone will automatically win the CHIEFS numerous games next season.
He better check his math...

keg in kc
06-11-2001, 01:24 PM
Posted this a few minutes ago, but I guess it didn't "stick"...

I wondered about that as well. I also remember Vermeil saying we had no interest whatsoever in Dillon too (although that may have been a $$$$ issue and not a talent issue).

Either way, I didn't understand ranking Holmes higher than Garner, unless, again, money was a major factor. Garner had a great year in '99, and Vermeil saw him twice that season.

However, that said, Garner is a pretty small back with a history of fragility, and at 5'9, 187 he still seems more one-dimensional/3rd down back in nature to me (despite his years in SF), and I think that is reflected in his lack of touchdown scoring over the years (33 TD in 7 years, 10 of those coming last season). A back like we're shooting for, to feature on all downs, needs to be as dangerous at the goalline as he is between the 20s, and if you look at the most formidable backs in the league recently, not a one of them is under 200 pounds. You have your Garners and your Warrick Dunns, sure, but they're not a threat at the goalline, and the complete backs, the Marshall Faulks, Corey Dillons, Edgerrin James and Fred Taylors of the world, for instance, are. And, maybe (this is just speculation, I have no idea if this is true), they see the 205 pound Holmes as someone they can keep in the game at all times, whether they're at the fifty or at the one.

But, all-in-all, I really don't know...

And I'd agree with DaWolf in that I believe they're honestly surprised at what they're seeing from Tony Richardson. They've said it more than once in interviews and on the 'net.

htismaqe
06-12-2001, 08:17 AM
I think the guy brings up some good arguments, but really, is it anything we haven't heard or said before?

NO

There's nothing original in this article, and the comments about, for instance, Garner, show that he's less informed that we are.

We may not be instantly better, but we've turned the corner, and that's good enough for me.

NaptownChief
06-12-2001, 08:29 AM
I only agree with him about the Garner/Holmes comment...I am very confident that the Chiefs will be the so called surprise team that rolls to a 10-6/11-5 type record....This will be a very good team...I am willing to bet on it.

htismaqe
06-12-2001, 09:54 AM
At the very least, I see this team going 8-8...

There is NO WAY this team is worse than last years. On paper, the guys on the field are virtually the same.

However, Goonther and the Stooges are GONE. That right there should win us at least 1, if not 2-3, more games this year. There's no way we go 7-9 or worse this season, we're just not that bad...

bkkcoh
06-12-2001, 09:58 AM
I really don't see us being worse than 8 - 8 unless we have key injuries. If the pieces come together, I agree we might go 11 - 5.

This is going to be an exciting year for us. We are rebuilding, but not.

58Forever
06-12-2001, 11:57 AM
The guys a jerk....the "dead" money issue is valid but it became a necessity when certain players wouldn't renegotiate and others were overrated...we made some mistakes...so we have 19 mill in dead money...that means that we have 19 mil next year?...

Maybe 2001 will be a semi-rebuilding year, I don't know, contrary to what this ******* says, I think we've picked up some fairly good quality reserves...we'll see...

DaWolf
06-12-2001, 12:38 PM
He rips into Seattle pretty good too...

ChiefGator
06-12-2001, 04:28 PM
It was interesting to see the numbers on the dead money, though. Also interesting to note how much of it came from players cut after the June 1st deadline last year. Luckily, and he forgets to mention this out in his article, we did NOT do that this year. We have accumulated very little dead money on 2002 yet, and I don't expect many more cuts to players with large signing bonuses.

Good to take the brunt of if this year, and have a great free agency next year.

Especially if we can sign Gonzo and Riley both to long term contracts.

Mark :)

redhed
06-12-2001, 05:30 PM
I think Terry should go out and tell all of his media buddies that the Chiefs are already eliminated from contention. This way the Chiefs will sneak up on everyone and win the West.

I hope KC gets more negative pub.
The Chiefs always seem to do better when they don't have the distraction of the hype.

Terry O'Neil is still a choad though.

KCPHILLY
06-13-2001, 01:52 AM
This team, even with the 19m cap hit, has more talent then it did last year. And what morons like this guy fail to realize is we won 7 games last year with NO offensive scheme whatsoever!

Let's face it. Last year we started off with the same conservative passing game and the "smashmouth" mentality with the rush until late in game 3 when GUN FINALLY threw the white flag and let ELVIS throw the ball and ONLY because he had no other answer [still sickens me that he actually took credit for the adjustment]. We then won games on sheer talent and athletic ability alone. There was no scheme just "Air ELVIS". By late season teams started playing nickel and dime packages against us and instead of adjusting and taking advantage with the run we STILL kept with the "Air ELVIS" attack with no true scheme and we struggled... Then we choaked. The stooges had no answer.

It will be soooo nice this year to actually have a Coaching staff who can game plan and have the ability to go in at halftime and make the necessary adjustments to take advantage of what the opponent is giving us... I miss the HELL out of that!

Rausch
06-13-2001, 02:21 AM
This team may be more talented ON PAPER than last year, but I can't see loosing Grunny, Szott, Hasty, Anders, and bennett as no big deal. Four of those guys were as much Chiefs as anyone has been. Hasty threatened retirement and other pr pranks, but what would you do when forced to negotiate with King Carl?


I'm not impressed by this offseason, other than the addition of Snoop who I do think will prove a major threat on offense. I have said before and will again that I will Give DV this year as a freebie since our cap is such a mess, but I'm not optomistic about this new three year plan...:(

KCPHILLY
06-13-2001, 02:52 AM
GRUNNY will be missed as a leader but I'm sure someone will step up and take the leadership role on the O line. Don't get me wrong, I loved the guy, but the game was starting to pass him by.

SZOTT was another great warrior but he's been a non-factor for most of the last 3 years. IMO One of the best ever at his position to wear a CHIEFS Uni... He's done.

HASTY, another great warrior who was losing a step. He was also becoming a locker room problem [how do you negotiate with CARL when you won't negotiate?] Talent wise he will be missed because I don't care for his replacement.

ANDERS, great team guy but also disgruntled from last year and was a game non-factor. I loved this guy and wanted him to get a true shot last year. Pitiful how he was treated... Also done.

With the exception of HASTY, DV is replacing these guys with talent and speed and the right kind of personalities you want in the locker room. I don't have ridiculous aspirations for this year but 3 years?... You betcha. :cool:

KCPHILLY
06-13-2001, 02:57 AM
I forgot BENNETT. I lobbied for years to see this guy get his shot. Big mistake. He killed us last year.

I see us as 8-8 to 11-5. No way we lose more than last year and if we jell early you'll see DV's enthusiasm take this team over.

Rausch
06-13-2001, 04:42 AM
KCPhilly

I agree that Hasty will be the most missed production wise, but Grunny was a lockerroom leader, Szott was a stud, and Anders was one of the most dependable 3rd down fullbacks in the biz.

These aren't all supertalented guys last year, but they were STUDS in their prime. Their time is over and I DON'T feel we've successfully replaced them.

I don't even know who they plan to work at gaurd let alone start. Our corners are terrible, and Warfield proved last year that he wasn't up to the task. We lost a crawl-in prowbowler for a banged up guy with potential. Half back is easily an upgrade without even needing to see Holmes play. Our o line and our defense are barely respectable, and far from dominant as in years past.


Hasty was one of the few oldies deserving of 4 mil, and I guess DV figured we'd try youth. I just see the half empty, you the half full...



Look at that schedjule again when predicting our record for this year! :D

htismaqe
06-13-2001, 07:24 AM
Our corners are not terrible. The guy DV likes the most is William Bartee. He hardly got to play, let alone prove himself. Warfield was injured.

The ENTIRE defense suffered from Kurt's freaking soft zone. The change in philosophy alone upgrades this defense.

Our o-line is barely respectable? I hope you're ready to eat some crow on that one...

You can blame Marty and Gunther for ruining it for Kimble Anders. You can blame Gunther for a 7-9 season last year. Our schedule this year is no worse than last...we'll go at least 8-8

milkman
06-13-2001, 07:36 AM
I've been saying this since the end of last season. Dennis and Bartee are the future at CB. Both played well when given the chance to play in tight man coverage.
If not by the end of this season, then by the start of next season, they'll be the starters at corner, and we'll all agree, in this one instance, Goonther knew what he was doing when he drafted these guys.

htismaqe
06-13-2001, 07:37 AM
right on, milk...

alanm
06-13-2001, 09:24 AM
If Warfield would get his head out of his a$$ he could possibly be an all pro. He was playing hurt last year with what? A cracked vertibre?-spelling A broken back so to speak!! That tells me right there the kid is tougher than wang leather. Although none too bright for not telling anyone. I think the O-line will be just fine. Have to wait and see how Weigman turns out. Coaching change alone is worth 2 more wins despite every interview or story you read says it's a negative. Eternal optimism springs forth every year at this time. 10-6 it's what I hope for every year for the Chiefs. Should be good enough to get you into the dance :)

Joe Seahawk
06-13-2001, 09:37 AM
Notice the resemblance to Paul Taglibue?..Hmmmm..:)

He ripped on the Seahawks too, but he was only right about the Chiefs;)


http://www.realteam.com/gfx/pics/pic_oneil.jpg

keg in kc
06-13-2001, 10:59 AM
Hasty was one of the few oldies deserving of 4 mil

Too bad his contract was for more than 6 mil...

ck_IN
06-13-2001, 03:42 PM
For the most part I've got to agree with Brad on this one. For the short term, this off season has been a major step backwards. I do expect it to pay off in 2003, but in the meantime we'll undergo some 'character building' seasons.

The fact that they expect Crockett to start means our DB's will be toasted early and often. I like Bartee and Dennis but they've much to learn and I fear they'll have to learn it on their own. At least I hope they don't learn anything from Crockett.:eek:

For those saying the coaching additions are good for at least two wins ponder this. Robinson was the architect of the Bronco D's. When the Bronco boys were on here telling us how great their D was we told them the D prospered only because their O staked them to large leads, thus forcing opponents O's into predicitable playcalling. Now Robinson is our DC and we're hailing his brilliance.

So were we wrong then and right now or wrong now and right then? And how do the odes of joy over Robinson compare to the same odes we all emitted over Shaw?

Me thinks me senses a trend.

Gaz
06-14-2001, 06:54 AM
And how do the odes of joy over Robinson compare to the same odes we all emitted over Shaw?

The common factor is Kurt Schottenheimer. Compared to him, anyone looks like a genius.

The same phenomenon is currently in effect with Jimmy Raye's successor.

xoxo~
Gaz
Stoogeless still.

KCTitus
06-14-2001, 07:19 AM
I can think of 2 losses that could have been averted had we had a different coaching staff.

First, the January game between Oakland and KC at KC. After giving up 35 points on defense, Gunther decides that rather than get one first down and kill the clock with a lead in the fourth quarter, he would rather punt the ball and give the ball to Oakland.

Second, the second week of the 00-01 season against Tennessee, McNair just knocked out of the game and O'Donnell even slower slices up the defense after KC switches to a prevent defense allowing Neil to drive Tenn down and score a tying TD late in the 4th quarter.

Other games that were borderline:

Oak/KC game at KC in week 7 and Buffalo/KC game in Week 12

htismaqe
06-14-2001, 07:47 AM
Step back? Jesus Christ, what the hell do you want man?

I'd rather subtract 4 dollars from 10, knowing that I can make 8 back later, than to subtract 4 dollars from 12, knowing full well that I'll be stuck with 8 bucks for the rest of my life.

ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING, is superior to what we had last year.

ck_IN
06-14-2001, 10:07 AM
Ah Gaz, but the question is did we trade Curly (Kurt/Shaw) for Shemp (Robinson). Shemp was a smarter Stooge, but a Stooge nonetheless.

Perhaps Robinson is the real deal, but based on the Denver D's I've seen, I'm not convinced.

The key words Hitsmaque were <i>short term</i>. I do think that these moves will pay off in the longer term. That is if more attention is paid to our weaknesses, instead of addressing our strengths. I'm simply saying that I don't buy into the idea that we're anywhere near a playoff team, a division winning team, or even a truely competitive team at this point.

I truely do hate predicting a 6-10 record for my Chiefs, but based on the info I have, that's the logical number I come up with. I am hoping for better and will welcome it, but I just don't see it in the short term.

morphius
06-14-2001, 10:39 AM
If you look at his article it looks more like he didn't do any real research into the subject matter and just through together a quick article about one of the NFL smaller cities, so not much mail, and one that hasn't went to the playoffs in a couple of years, so they don't count for much on the big scale of things.

The funny thing is that anyone here could have thrown together a better article, with some in depth player analysis in the same amount of time it took this guy to come with this "article", about 15 minutes.

I hate what these "experts" can pass off as "analysis".

htismaqe
06-14-2001, 12:06 PM
I don't get this deal with Denver's D...I posted this in another thread (Titus, where are you, go find it)...

Last year Denver's D sucked, and they weren't good the year before...

During Robinson's years there they were in the top 10 5 times, and the top 3 twice, in things like total yardage allowed, points allowed, turnovers, etc.

Except for last year, Robinson's defense were not just good, they were excellent. Period.

KCTitus
06-14-2001, 12:19 PM
here you go:

Regarding Greg Robinson, DC for Denver 1995-2000

- Defense ranked in top 15 in total defense 5 of 6 years, including 2 years that they were 3rd and 4th overall in the NFL

- Defense ranked in top 10 in points allowed in 3 of 6 years

- Defense ranked in top 10 in takeaway 3 times, including 2nd best in NFL last year

- Defense ranked in top 10 3 times in passing yards allowed

- Defense ranked in top 10 3 times in rushing yards allowed, including being FIRST in 1996 and 3rd in 1998.

Yes, last year they weren't that good, but you used the word never, and the facts obviously don't support that...

As for my prediction -- 9-7...

ck_IN
06-14-2001, 05:29 PM
And what were the Oakland stats under Shaw? My problem with Robinson is three-fold.

One, I can't help shake the feeling that we've been there and done that with Shaw. Everyone was singing praises about the numbers with the Oakland D and how Shaw would turn us around. He obviously didn't. Yes, I know Kurt was the DC, but if Shaw were that good, Kurt would've been simply a figurehead.

Two, we all told the Bronco boys they were full of it when they touted their D. We told them their D was only good because Elway and Davis made them good via the offense. That's a position I believe holds some truth. Guess what gang, we don't have Davis, and we certainly don't have Elway. Our D will have to stand on its own. I find that a scary prospect.

Three, two of Robinsons first three moves were signing Crockett and Caderez. Apparently Crockett is viewed as a starting CB. If these two are viewed by Robinson as worthy additions, instead of the has beens and never wases that they are, it speaks volumes of the man.

KCPHILLY
06-14-2001, 11:30 PM
On ROBINSON... DENVER's D was solid during their SB campaigns. I think most BRONCO's fans will agree with the fact that SHANAHAN is an offense minded coach and has hurt them in recent years with all the attention [drafts, fa's] on the O. In 99' it caught up with them. That's why the 2000 draft was D with the top picks and this last draft and most of the FA moves this year have concentrated on the D. I see their recent struggles as mostly a personnel problem.

On SHAW... I never was a fan. In his first year with OAKLAND he turned a week D around in a major way. But teams eventually were able to read his schemes and game plan to their weaknesses. He was unable to adjust. His last year there the D was once again struggling, but the main thing that led to his departure was he was creating problems within the organization, making demands and putting coaches at odds with each other.

When he came to KC I think it was mainly our organizations assumption that he could work with our DB's and could best help us gameplan against OAKLAND. That obviously didn't work out. Also an insecure KURT S saw him as a threat. By mid-season the 2 were involved in a power struggle with our D.

BTW I'm glad to see him gone. His claim to fame in OAKLAND was the "bend don't break" defense. That happens to involve a considerable amount of "soft zone".

htismaqe
06-15-2001, 08:05 AM
Philly beat me to it...

The difference I see between Shaw and Robinson is that 2 years ago, all my Raiderfan friends were saying

"you're gonna HATE Shaw, he'll install the freaking soft zone and your defense will never be the same"

Right now, my Broncofan friends are saying

"Robinson's a good DC, if you give him some weapons, you're D will be pretty good"

And don't blame Robinson for signing Crockett or Cadrez...DV and Carl make the personnel decisions...Cadrez is a long snapper and quality backup for very little money. Crockett is a mistake, but he won't be starting long, Bartee wants his spot and DV likes what he sees...

Packfan
06-15-2001, 11:30 AM
I couldnt agree more with this guys assessment. Some Chief fans refuse to believe hard statistics and hard facts. The things about the up coming season that concern me the most are:

1. Trent Green. Hasnt practiced yet. Did the Chiefs give up the 12th pick in the draft for a guy who cant play?

2. Depth. Because of God awful cap management, the Chiefs are forced to have rookies and castoffs as backups. The Chiefs should have seen this comming. When you give playing time and focus on the Lew Bush's of the world, you take away from your younger players. The Chiefs have always believed in building through free agency. It has finally caught up with them.

3. Defense. Ray Crocket?? Why not just renegotiate James Hasty's contract? There basically the same thing: Overpriced, over the hill malcontents. Also, Dan Williams and Steve Martin? Ouch. Williams wont play half the season and Martin sucks.

4. Runningback. Even Vermiel has all but said that Holmes inst the answer at running back. Once again, band aiding the 2nd most important position with someone elses castoff. You dont win many playoff games doing that.

I agree with this guy. Its going to be another long, frustrating season for the Chiefs.

milkman
06-15-2001, 11:42 AM
I knew there was something I hadn't been missing the past few days.:mad:

Packfan
06-15-2001, 11:44 AM
Milk,

I havent been here in weeks. Nothing to talk about!

Iowanian
06-15-2001, 12:13 PM
or Packfan is back.


1. Hasty was cut because he WOULDN"T renegotiate his contract.

2. John Browning will be the starting tackle...not Steve Martin....but I think they will be a decent rotation...especially if one of the rookies step up....not all pro..but effective.....at least opposing teams can't count on 3 first downs free from Chester.

3.Holmes and Richardson will make an effective backfield...the Chiefs will gain more rushing yards that the Packers in 2001.

4. trent Green threw the ball at the mini camp this week.

htismaqe
06-15-2001, 02:11 PM
I was going to respond, but then I managed to read the name of the poster and noticed it was Packfan...

ptlyon
06-15-2001, 02:14 PM
Just what does "Packfan" stand for? ;)

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
06-15-2001, 04:22 PM
What's a Packfan?

Well, normally, you'd assume that it's a fan of the Green Bay Packers.


However, on Chiefs Planet, it is a sub-species of troll. One that unlike most trolls, who actually inhabit a board of their own specific team, this troll lives only to haunt this and other Chiefs boards spewing some kind of nonsense that passes for logical thought in the bowels of its mind.

We've learned to toss it an occasional bone and eventually it gets tired of the lack of attention and drifts to another Chiefs board.

Warrior5
06-15-2001, 04:45 PM
<B>Guard your cans of 30W!</B>

KCJohnny
06-15-2001, 05:01 PM
Let's face it, men: $19 mil cap hit is absurd, no excuses. The only 2 teams worse off were SF & Dallas, the two most dominant teams of the 90s who had a ton of aging superstars to finance.

This guy is a negatron, that's obvious, but he underscores one inescapable point: the Chiefs are NOT loaded with high dollar stud players, and will sink or swim on draft picks, home-grown starters, and bargain-bin FA acquisitions.

Funny how everybody loves to whack away at the old coaching staff. Who really believes the Skins will finish below the Chiefs?

I am convinced that the Chiefs will exceed the expectations of the critics, but it worries me that we are picked almost unanimously to be bottom feeders in '01, 'stellar' coaching staff and all.

KCJ

milkman
06-15-2001, 05:11 PM
Now I've been saying this for some time. People are always blaming CP for his FA acquisitions, but I've always said, while he may have the final say in the matter, that for the most part, CP went out and got the people that his coach wanted.
So if you want to cry about that 19mil in dead money, you can point the finger at Marty as well as CP.

DaWolf
06-15-2001, 05:13 PM
You put the Skins in this division and they're not looking like they're going anywhere either.

Again, the media is enamored with which club made the biggest name aquisitions. There are 3 critical things to the success of the Chiefs in 2001: chemistry, avoiding injuries, and decent play from the cornerbacks. If we get these things, we will win...

DaWolf
06-15-2001, 05:15 PM
milkman,
Good point. Chester, who was the biggest hit in that dead cap money this year, was a Marty aquisition...

milkman
06-15-2001, 05:22 PM
Wolf,
I've been saying this for a long time. This is the same type of topic that came up on the Star BB over a year ago, that I actually debated on with The TRaider Spinster and Pacfan about. I usually just insult them and run.

milkman
06-15-2001, 05:36 PM
Pacfan,
I realize that you haven't been here for some time, but over the past few days, I've had more time to spend here than usual, which is the reason I just sited the past few days.

KCJohnny
06-15-2001, 05:55 PM
GM just signs the people the HC wants, eh?

Why isn't Corey Dillon a Chief, then?

KCJ

milkman
06-15-2001, 06:02 PM
Because Mike Brown made it clear that the Bengals would match any offer, and they had far more cap space than the Chiefs.

About mid season last year, I heard CP do an interveiw with The Loose Cannons on XTRA Sports 690 in SD, and while he couldn't speak in specifics, he made it pretty clear that the Chiefs were very interested in Dillon last offseason, and that they would be interested at making a run for him this offseason. I wonder why that interest just died?
Maybe it has something to do with a change at the HC position.

TEX
06-15-2001, 06:32 PM
Some of the article is true, but it's just this guys opinion. That's the advantage of being a "writer." However, he did NOT do his homework in some instances especially when talking about Will Shields. I wonder if he even saw Will play last year? Kind of hard to miss since he played BOTH GUARD and TACKLE very WELL! Not too many lineman can do that. The ones that can DESERVE the MONEY! I'll choose not to listen someone who could overlook that fact.

KCPHILLY
06-16-2001, 02:44 PM
What do you know about MARTIN? When we picked him up last year I visited with many of my PHILLY budies who ALL were very disappointed and surprised that the EAGLES let him go. They said he was their most consistant player on the DL in 99'. They were also very surprised we were bringing him in as a back-up.

So what is it you know about him that the people who watched him play don't know?

I'm also still trying to find the "facts" in your post.

Dave Lane
06-17-2001, 10:53 PM
KCJ,

CP tried VERY hard to get Dillon but as he said it takes two to make a deal. I blame ALL the dead money on your buddies Marty and Gun. Point the finger at the deserving parties please. CP has done a good job getting the guys that the coaches want.

Also I'll bet you that the Skins finish with a worse record than the Chiefs what do you want to bet?

Packfan
06-18-2001, 07:53 AM
Once again, chief fans blaming FORMER Chief employees for their salary cap woes and mediocrity. For example, "Chester was Marty's guy. He told Carl to trade for him...."

I am sure all coaches have input as to what personnel decisions are made by the GM. But the GM has to take full responsibility when things dont pan out. Just like Carl would take credit if he build a super bowl winner. You guys that pick and choose which FA bust was Martys fault and which one was Carls simply dont get it. Next thing you will do is blame Marty for the Gunter Cunningham fiasco because Marty endorsed him prior to his hiring.

Chief fans need to look no further than Carl Peterson when trying to place blame for the last 4 seasons of mediocrity. He has been in panic mode from day one. Sudden departures by Neil Smith, Dale Carter, and Elvis Grbac resulted in panic driven acquistions of Chester McGlockton, Carlton Gray, and Trent Green. Chester and Gray were disasterous. I think it will be the same for Green. He is nothing more than Gus Ferrotte, Elvis Grbac, Vinny Testeverde, Randall Cunnigham, Jeff Blake, and Tony Banks. Except for on critical thing: The Chiefs paid dearly for their "free agent".

A few years from now, the same people pointing fingers at Marty for Chester will be pointing fingers at Vermeil for Green. Unfortunately, Carl Peterson isnt held accountable for the mediocre crap that he has placed on the field the last couple of years.

California Injun
06-18-2001, 08:04 AM
Yeah, just like Wolfie took all the blame for the Packers sucking chrome off the NFL tailpipes since the REAL genius left for Seattle?

BTW: How's Mike Sherman doing these days?

htismaqe
06-18-2001, 12:07 PM
Come on guys, it's not that difficult...

Let's say it altogether now:

It's all Carl's fault...It's all Carl's fault...

There, no you get the idea...

KCPHILLY
06-18-2001, 03:56 PM
Chief fans need to look no further than Carl Peterson when trying to place blame for the last 4 seasons of mediocrity

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean 3 years... don't you?

A few years from now, the same people pointing fingers at Marty for Chester will be pointing fingers at Vermeil for Green

A few years from now I look forward to pointing my finger at "doom and gloomers" like yourself eating their words over the GREEN deal.

Baby Lee
06-18-2001, 04:21 PM
But the GM has to take full responsibility when things dont pan out. Just like Carl would take credit if he build a super bowl winner

Moot point, Gun or Marty wins a Superbowl and neither of them are gone now.

Please, I'd love to see this. Make a credible case that the entrance of DV hasn't fundamentally altered the type of players Carl is now on the lookout for.

milkman
06-18-2001, 05:09 PM
Pacfan,
So CP hires Vermeil, and just about the first words out of Vermeil's mouth is related to Green. He spends the next several weeks talking about Green as if he is the all everything QB this team needs, and after hard negotiations, the Chiefs trade for Green.


But in years to come, if Green is a bust, Vermeil, according to your great wisdom, should not be blamed for the acqusition.

OK, you betha!:rolleyes:

Otter
06-18-2001, 05:42 PM
Mr. Terry O'Neil looks like he could use a laxative.

I think the article brutally straightforward but very true also. I do however think the following paragraphs should have been included to twist the knife one more rotation:

“In what promises to be a year of transition the Chiefs have once again left a gaping hole in their hopes for building a championship team: They failed to draft a young quarterback to one day take over the position.

It seems as if this new batch of offensive coaches the Chiefs have acquired promise to not only stick around for awhile, but also to one day take over the head coaching position. What better time to groom a young QB like, Marques Tuiasosopo, Mike McMahon or Drew Brees to become a “Chief QB” instead of some other teams castoff, from some other offense from some other coaching philosophy?

Instead the Chiefs have left themselves with a stable of 30 something career backups.”

otter
~still doesn’t like the green trade without drafting a QBOTF

Phobia
06-18-2001, 06:24 PM
Sudden departures by Neil Smith, Dale Carter, and Elvis Grbac resulted in panic driven acquistions of Chester McGlockton, Carlton Gray, and Trent Green.

Hmmm, Neil Smith was a DE - Chester is a DT. How Chet replaced Neil on the interior line is a mystery to me. Carlton Gray was brought on to replace Mighty Mouse - every indication was that he was going to be the nickel back when he was signed. All the articles and interviews stated that much. Obviously, he didn't even manage to crack the lineup as a nickel back but HE WAS NOT CARTER's "panic driven" replacement. I don't recall how many times this FACT has been pointed out to you.

milkman
06-18-2001, 06:30 PM
Com'on Phil,
You should know better by now.

Pacfan can't be bothered with something so trivial as facts when he's on one of his anti-CP rants.