View Full Version : 1993 Chiefs and the 2001 Chiefs: Similarities/Differences

06-19-2001, 09:35 AM
In 1993, KC brought in Joe Montana from SF, his offensive coordinator, Paul Hackett, and RB Marcus Allen from the Raiders. The Chiefs went from the play-action smash mouth of '89-92 to a hybrid of Left Coast and Maulball (see: 2000 Raiders). They advanced all the way to the AFC Title game (13-6 overall). Incidentally, Al Saunders was the WRs coach on that team.

In 2001, The Chiefs brought in Dick Vermiel, Saunders and Trent Green, all from StL. They have brought in Greg Robinson as DC and will feature a hybrid (my term) between Air Coryell and smash mouth (just watch, I'm right on this one).

Main differences: Marty's entire staff except OC was intact. This is an entirely new staff. Also, the QB/RB brought in are first ballot HOFers. Compare Green/Holmes. Also, two words: Neil Smith/Derrick Thomas.

Still, the Chiefs stormed all the way to the AFC Championshiop game mostly on Montana's 38 yr old arm. It can happen. Will it?

Your thoughts?


06-19-2001, 09:54 AM

I agree that similar moves were made in 1993, but there is one huge difference: Montana and Allen are hall of famers. Holmes and Green are journeymen. Neither will ever be mentioned in the same breath as Montana and Allen. Yes Allen and Montana were near the end of their careers, but they new how to play the game and new how to win. Plus, the Chiefs had a pretty good defense then too. The current defense sucks.

Dont get your hopes up. The Chiefs have fallen to the bottom tier teams in the league. Giving up the 12th pick in the draft for a journeyman-free agent to be QB isnt the best path to the AFC Championship and signing Priest Holmes wont make much of a difference. Why they hired Vermeil is beyond me. They arent close to making a championship run and Vermeil is 67 years old. Certainly, he wont be around when Peterson finally figures out that you have to build from the draft to win championships.

A lot of you guys are convinced the Chiefs are doing things the right way. Not me. They should have hired a young offensive mind, signed a stop gap QB (Free agent), draft a running back with the 12th pick, and then plan on having a top ten pick next year. The Chiefs have had two picks as high as this years #1. Those two picks turned into Derrick Thomas and Tony Gonzalez. Not to shabby. This years pick turned into a 30 year, injury prone QB that has been a free agent twice in his career and probably would have been one again if the Chiefs hadnt caved in (nobody else was trying to trade for him and the Rams were over the cap).

Sorry to rain on the parade!

06-19-2001, 11:25 AM
Fudgepackerfan - so, please tell us where that so-called stop gap QB is? How is Holmes a journeyman? The Ravens drafted him.

The Bad Guy
06-19-2001, 11:45 AM
Packfan whines:Dont get your hopes up. The Chiefs have fallen to the bottom tier teams in the league. Giving up the 12th pick in the draft for a journeyman-free agent to be QB isnt the best path to the AFC Championship

Since when is Green a free agent to be?

2 more years on a contract doesn't qualify as that.

Anyway, why are you here? The Packers have fallen to the bottom tier of the league as well. Outside of Favre and Sharper, your team has noone. Freeman is a bust after getting big money, and Levens couldn't stay healthy if his life depended on it.

I suppose the Chiefs should of went the Packer way and drafted a player like Bubba Franks with a first pick.

I think you need to go back and hit the dictionary on the word journeyman as well. Priest Holmes played for ONE team in his NFL career. And he's only 27 years old. I guess by your defiiniton, your running back Ahman Green is also a journeyman.

Packfan whines again: This years pick turned into a 30 year, injury prone QB that has been a free agent twice in his career and probably would have been one again if the Chiefs hadnt caved in (nobody else was trying to trade for him and the Rams were over the cap).

The Rams had 7+ million in cap space when the trade for Green was made. I would also like to know how Green is injury prone. One injury doesn't earn the label of injury prone. Yes he had a major knee surgery, but he managed to play in 8 games last year and wasn't 100% and the knee held up fine.

It just boggles me why you care so much about Trent Green and the Chiefs. You would never see me discussing football on any Packer message board because I could care less what happens with that team.

I will be willing to bet money on the fact that KC will have a better record than your beloved cheeseheads.

Put up or shutup Ken.

Mark M
06-19-2001, 11:50 AM
First of all, let me say it's kinda nice to see you've crawled out from under that rock you call home. Or did they just now let you put a keyboard next to the fry vat?

Holmes, a journeyman? He's played with one team, dumba$$. How is that a "journeyman"?

As far as Green goes ... well, okay. I agree with that one ... kind of. While I like the fact we got a QB, a WR/PR and a RB (Blaylock, a RB we got in the draft) with our #12, I'm still not quite sold. But, unlike you, I'll wait until I see what happens.

Also, if a team is to build from the draft, like you say, how is it that Green Bay's teams were built through FA?? Favre ... a Falcon; Reggie White ... an Eagle; Desmond Howard ... too many to mention; Andre Rison ... see Howard. Without these players, no SB victory for GB.

Good teams build through the draft and FA. It's a shame you're too stupid to notice.

~~Moderately glad to see the whipping boy back on the board.

06-19-2001, 12:59 PM
fudgepackerfan reminds me of some kid that throws/says something and rides off on his bike - guttless turd

06-19-2001, 01:48 PM
Whatever Packfan's veiws are, he did not stoop to crass name-calling like some of you did. I think we can do better than that. That says more about us than Ken.

Ken obviously has an axe to grind with Carl Petersen. So what. Let's talk football and leave the name-calling to the Trolls.

Back on topic:
The '93 Chiefs have the edge in talent, but (according to most people on this BB) the '01 Chiefs have the edge in coaching (the ostensible reason for KC's 7-9 finish in '00). Now, if that be so, the '01 Chiefs should at least win the Division (applying the conventional wisdom here). If the Ringed staff of the '01 Chiefs can't get it done, what will the reason be?

Also, the 1993 Chiefs scored a strong 375 points with ___________ at WR and TE. Not dissing Willie Davis and JJ Birden, but compare w/DA, Gonzo, Sly, etc...

Will the '01 Chiefs do more with more, less with more?

The '93 Chiefs did more with less...


06-19-2001, 01:58 PM
The '93 Chiefs have the edge in talent, but (according to most people on this BB) the '01 Chiefs have the edge in coaching (the ostensible reason for KC's 7-9 finish in '00). Now, if that be so, the '01 Chiefs should at least win the Division (applying the conventional wisdom here). If the Ringed staff of the '01 Chiefs can't get it done, what will the reason be?

What a wonderful supposition that is completely absurd. I have not read one post on this BB where anyone has stated that the coaching staff alone will win KC the division.

Cmon, Proctor, let's try to keep a lid on the hyperbole.

I have read that last years staff cost KC 2 games. What would that mean? A change from 7-9 to 9-7. Given the questions in the secondary and the schedule, that's not a wild prediction for anyone to make.

Mark M
06-19-2001, 01:59 PM
Let's talk football and leave the name-calling to the Trolls.

Two things:

1. If Pack would actually talk football and not just bash Carl and everything the Chiefs do, then I would do the same.

2. Ken is the ultimate Troll. One would think you'd know that by now.

Back to the topic:
This team, IMO, is nothing like the '93 team, unless you consider the matching changes in position players. The offense is more innovative now and the offensive players are better (Montana was washed up when he arrived here. Allen was still good, but not the player he had been in the past).

The defense isn't nearly as good (something I agree with Pack about) but not as bad as some think, although the secondary still worries me. To say the defense "sucks" is nowhere near true. Sure, we don't have Smith or Thomas, but I think our D-Line is better overall now than it was then, and depth at LB now is better than the one-man-show we had then (even though I hate Bush).

Also, the division is much stronger now than it was in '93 (Seattle was still a doormat, San Diego was competent but nowhere near their '95 form, Denver had issues and the Faiders were their typical underachieving selves). Because of that, I will hesitate to claim the '01 version division champs.

I will also hesitate to rip on them, since I, and everyone else, haven't seen them take a snap, have no idea what cuts will be made at training camp and who will be the true starters.

~~Taking a wait and see approach.

06-19-2001, 02:04 PM
While the fan in me would like to believe that the Chiefs will walk away with the Division Championship, the Conference Championship and the Super Bowl this year, the realist in me says, not this year. :(

However, to think that the team will be improved from last year is a very achievable goal. <b> I will not allow anyone to pin me into stating that unless we get to the Conference Championship game that the current coaching staff is worthless.</b> There're are too many questions and variables.

However, unlike Chuck, I'm not going to predict a 6-10 season. I'd say 9-7 is not unrealistic in DV's first season. I'd say the Chiefs make a serious run at the playoffs in 2002 and that we're serious contenders in 2003, barring unforseen injuries and off-season mishaps.

I think this season start a tad slow, but build to a very satisfying conclusion as the players and coaching staff all get to know one another. I think a very solid nucleus of a young team is being developed and with the proper tutalige, the Chiefs are going to once again be a force to be dealt with in the AFC West and beyond.

(and personally, I don't let Ken get to me. Course, the fact that I have him on ignore might have something to do with it :p )

06-19-2001, 02:35 PM
The difference is DEFENSE... if our current defense proves itself as capable as our D from the early-mid 90s... then making it to the Division Championship is not far fetched at all...

Though, I think that it will be a year or two before we get the defense back in shape...


06-19-2001, 02:37 PM
MCF: gotta love that ignore feature...

Mark M
06-19-2001, 02:42 PM
Crap!! I forgot about the ignore feature! Thanks for reminding me! :D :D :D

Sorry Ken ... won't be able top respond to your intelligent and well-thought-out posts! :rolleyes:

~~Changing his profile ASAP!!

Mark M
06-19-2001, 02:44 PM
Well ... what do you know. No more Kenny!

:D :D :D :D

~~Would like to thank Kyle for making this possible

06-19-2001, 02:44 PM
GODAMMIT! I wrote a lengthy response and the damn server 'farted' when I hit the post button. When I hit 'back' on my browser, all text = gone. GRRRRRRRRR :mad: :mad: :mad:

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 05:17 PM

Change is good. Remember this...

"He who lives in the past, is depressed, he who lives in the future, has anxiety, he who lives for now...the present, is in peace and will receive good fortune."

So except these "new Chiefs and their new philosophy" with open arms, it just might work...


that goes for everything, not just the Chiefs, Proc.

California Injun
06-19-2001, 07:00 PM
Hey Packfan!

How's Mike Sherman doing these days?

And who is the GM for Green Bay again?

06-20-2001, 07:33 AM
You are a teenager.

I am a father of 4, a professional soldier, a college graduate and really understand more than you give me credit for about 'change.'

Stick to football, son. And learn to listen to your elders. You might learn something.

Wonders if Cody even knew what a football was during the '93 season...

06-20-2001, 07:34 AM
That was completely uncalled for Proctor.

And you wonder why so many people give you sh*t.

What an assinine post.

06-20-2001, 07:46 AM
:rolleyes: Johnny-
You are a piece of work. Very arrogant and very assine. Your being a father and solider and being educated is nothing special. It especially does not warrant you saying some of the crap you say. Your response to Cody was not one of an educated professional. It was more like a response from a frustrated, unappreciated middle aged man. Wise up and quit being a wise guy. You are never too old to learn... The younger people always surprise me with what we can learn from them. Your actions will get you respect, not your demanding because of age or status.

The Bad Guy
06-20-2001, 10:19 AM

I agree with the other posters, that slam on Cody was ridiculous.

So what if your older. This is a football bulletin board where opinions dominate the forum. This board isn't judged in terms of age, achievements, parenthood, or any military status you may have.

I think it's a double standard to ask for respect, when you clearly haven't respected Cody.

Just because your older doesn't mean you know more about football than anyone on this board, nor does it mean you know any less.

To pat yourself on the back for all your accomplishments is ridiculous. Your going for the sympathetic, respect your elders approach to get someone to buy into what you think and thats absolutely ridiculous.

I'm a 21 year old college student, does that mean that your any more important than me on this bulletin board because you have children and dedicate yourself to the military?

Don't let Proctor bother you Cody.

Mark M
06-20-2001, 11:05 AM
Let's see here:
he did not stoop to crass name-calling like some of you did.
Then you follow by posting:
You are a teenager.

I am a father of 4, a professional soldier, a college graduate and really understand more than you give me credit for about 'change.'

Stick to football, son. And learn to listen to your elders. You might learn something.

Whatever little respect I had for you just flew out the window (or the cube, in this case). Obviously your experience as a father, soldier and college graduate taught you two things:

1. Jack
2. Sh!t

~~Hates hypocrisy

06-20-2001, 11:09 AM
At the risk of piling on, I'm going to have to echo the sentiments of the crowd here.

I'm a 42 year old, father, ex-military (Air Assault, 101st etc.), fan of the game of football, as well as the Chiefs, and as all the above, I found John's critique of Cody to be highly unwarranted.

It's like this. I live in Baltimore (for all intents and purposes). I go to Raven's games on occasion. I know most of their players and I hang out with a TON of their fans. When the Chiefs played Baltimore, I was the only one in the pre-game picture at the tailgate with the RED jersey on. Everyone up here has NO question about my team loyalty, it's just I make the best of the situation (Raven's football ain't Chiefs football, but it's SOME football ;) ).

I don't think <b>anyone</b> here on this board would question Cody's enthusiasm and love of the Chiefs. Lord knows, he's posted more than me in about half the time. He believes in <b>THE TEAM</b>, not any one player, coach or system.

Many of us older fans could learn a lesson from that.

06-20-2001, 01:09 PM
I think Proctor owes Cody an apology...

My comments to packfan were indeed 'crass'. So, maybe I should apologize.....screw him!

I have never seen Cody belittle anyone like the way you did him, KCJ.
He`s always polite to everyone. Who cares if he`s 19 or whatever. I`m almost 31 and my brother is 17, we talk about football(chiefs)all the time. He shares the same passions with the Chiefs as I do. He was thrill that the so-called 3 stoodges and Dumbther were $h!t-canned! 95% of his football knowledge comes from me. I enjoy sharing that with him, even if he is a teenager.

06-20-2001, 02:18 PM
Ok, guys...that's enough...what happened was wrong, but I'm sure the Chaplain has gotten the picture already.

He's an honorable man, and I'm sure if he thinks an apology is warranted, he won't hesitate to give one...

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 03:17 PM
I'm telling on you Proctor!!!!!:(


:rolleyes: :D :p

is popping his collar:cool:

keg in kc
06-20-2001, 03:41 PM

AFC Championship?

No. Just not realistic. It could happen, but you don't make goals so far out of reach as to make any lesser degree of success seem a failure. I will stick with my 7-9 to 9-7 prediction with improved field presence and play, because I see it as both a safe bet, as well as a wise one.

The similarities to '93 may be there, but there are also differences as well

And I can't help but comment on this little statement: They have brought in Greg Robinson as DC and will feature a hybrid (my term) between Air Coryell and smash mouth (just watch, I'm right on this one).

For months and months, literally, I and a few other people - here on the planet, on the Park and at the old Star BB - have been saying this same exact thing, and you've either lambasted us, mocked us or ignored us, crying "pass-pass-pass" and "Ramcos" and "Rams West". No matter what we would say and despite dozens of statements (on at least 3 boards, here, the park and the old star bb) explaining how we believed the personnel on the team (Gonzo and T-Rich especially) would dictate a unique offensive system, a "hybrid" (MY term, not yours, I said that back in January, and, that said, I'm sure others have used it as well), of what has come before in SD, Dallas, Washington and St. Louis (as well as elsewhere) you wailed sorrowfully that "Maulball is dead!" and told us all we were traitors to the team for embracing the Rams offense (which, of course, we weren't doing anyway...).

Now you say "just watch, I'm right on this one"?

Why the change in tune, praytell, and why are you taking complete credit for the entire concept as if a number of people had not figured it out already, and been arguing ardently with you about it for weeks upon weeks?

As for the statement you made to Cody, I'd disappointed. Not surprised a bit, but disappointed nonetheless. A little respect for others might go a long way to the response you get, both here and elsewhere.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 03:53 PM
Its ok, guys, Proctor doesn't really bother me and I don't really take anything personally (its a fault I tell ya! hehe) but thanks for the back up.

I love given the guy crap, and if he takes it personally...what in the heck is up his butt? I don't understand the childish behavior (the "my dad is better than your dad" stuff) Proctor?


hmmmmmm...Marty's gone, Gun is gone...oh!, I see why you're in such a bad mood! :rolleyes: :D

If I was you, I'd be happy we have a coach and staff that KNOWS HOW TO WIN...but hey, whatever floats your boat...:p

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 04:06 PM
I'm in college, and my parents have taught me that going to college, doesn't make you any better than someone that isn't/or did not go to college.

Jesus was a carpenter.

06-20-2001, 04:28 PM
As you know, the 1993 Chiefs were one of the AFC's best and were a legitimate Super Bowl contender. Shoot, I wonder what could have been had Kimble not dropped that pass in the endzone just before half time? Those Chiefs won 13 games. This year's squad is not a playoff team & probably will win no more than 6 games. Just my opinion...:cool:

California Injun
06-20-2001, 07:11 PM

Just because the Skins will never win a Title with Mr. Tanners and the Jazz will never smell a Title with a decrepid Mailman is no reason to belittle a teenager. Nor is it wise to smack around a fan of team on the rise (Chiefs) and another that has displayed complete dominance in the NBA (Lakers).

But then again, I can understand your contempt at the younger lads superior intellect. He KNOWS how to pick teams that display a winning tradition and exude class.

(Even though us die-hard Laker fans can smell a bandwagon leaper a mile away!)

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 07:18 PM

I have ALWAYS been a Chiefs fan, my dad put a Chiefs teddy bear in my crib when I was a baby, but I did not understand or be around football or the Chiefs until around 1st grade and I've been a fan ever since.


now the Lakers, you can thank JK and JR for that...:D

California Injun
06-20-2001, 07:21 PM

Your Chiefs loyalty was never questionable.

Now how are those skinned knees doing on the Lakers trolley car?;)

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 07:21 PM
And believe it or not, when I'm talking about the Lakers with my friends, sometimes I accidently call them the Bulls:o


misses the untouchaBULLS:(

California Injun
06-20-2001, 07:26 PM
I hear the Wizards may be a contender next year.....

One word of caution, Laker bandwagon fans have been reporting numerous broken ankles the past two years.

It comes from all the leaping on and jumping off they do.

Some insiders have evidence of die-hards shoving them off but no proof is available.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 07:34 PM

Cut me some slack! My team got slashed!!!

What am I supposed to do:eek: :( ?


sorry, but this "bandwagon member" will be on it until Phil leaves... actually, I'm in denial, the Lakers are the Bulls in my eyes, but Longley gained 250 pounds and MJ grew a fro' :D :p kidding.

You're lucky! You had and got a GM that won't split up a team that is about to go dynasty in the NBA!

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 07:35 PM
Guess who I am imitating?



06-20-2001, 08:05 PM

Here's my $.02 and I know you weren't paying for it, but here goes.

If you were a Bulls fan, you stay a Bulls fan, MJ or no MJ.

I mean, look at me! I'm a Kings fan... ever since I started following the NBA back in 1980. I put up with a lot... and I mean, A LOT of crappy seasons. Shoot, winning 30 games was once a glorious achievement for the Kings.

So now things are going good... it's great to see them on TV so often, advance to the 2nd round, have everyone go to their games on the road to see them and cheer for them, their jerseys selling like hotcakes.

But once Webber leaves and Williams gets shipped outta Sacramento, I stay a Kings fan. They can be 20 games under .500 and I wouldn't give it a thought about switching teams... although Webber will...

Everything else you have to say on this post I do agree with, BTW

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 08:13 PM
I know, AJ,

I'm kind of on strike, right now, I will always be a Bulls fan, but JC (crap) and JR ripped my team apart and didn't leave any messages. We would still be winning Championships right now, and the Lakers wouldn't be what they are, IMO. Who knows, but I'm still pissed at the Bulls orginization for doing such a thing.

In the regular season I still watched the Bulls games, I get that WGN channel and they show a majority of the games and I still watch them, but its hard.

They took our hearts out and stomped on them, and I will not forgive Krause and Reinsdorf for doing that

I will eventually though, but I'm pouting right now;)


what I'm trying to say, is that I will return to the Bulls, sooner or later, no matter how bad they are or get...heck, I even go to NBA.com and look up stuff on them still

The Bad Guy
06-20-2001, 10:38 PM

I'm going with the census on this whole topic about the Lakers bandwagoners.

You bust Proctor about liking Schottenheimer and rooting for him, but then you admit the only reason you follow the Lakers is because of the Zen Master.

I have been a diehard Lakers fan since I was very little and my mom got me the Magic Johnson hoop set, man did I think I was the coolest when I had that.

I stuck with the team when they didn't know if they wanted Magic Johnson or Randy Pfund to be the head coach. Those were some dark days. The Del Harris/Kurt Rambis saga was another somber moment for Laker fans, and now the Phil Jackson era has made all those horrible Utah Jazz/San Antonio Spurs sweeps a distant memory.

If you were a Bulls fan, you stick with that team. The Chiefs could fall to 0-16, and you would never ever see me hop off the wagon.

Hell, my two favorite players in the NBA are no longer Lakers, but you will never ever see me follow Nick Van Exel's Denver Nuggets, or Glen Rice's New York Knicks.

I'm a diehard Chiefs and Lakers fan, and will be until the day I die.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 10:43 PM

Go down to post #35 and 36, I am imitating Proctor, by saying the stuff I said in post # 35.

I will always be a Bulls fan, but I'm still pissed at the dirty work of Reinsdorf and Krause (crap) and what they did to my Bulls, we would still be winning Championships right now, if it weren't for those two morons, IMO.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 10:45 PM
Do you guys think the Bulls would still be winning Championships if they were still together? I do. But maybe I'm dreaming.

California Injun
06-20-2001, 10:45 PM

If you follow your coaches in the NBA then how come you don't jump ship now that Marty is with the Skins? (If one former Chiefs fan can do it, so can you)

I am not discouraging any fan that wants to climb aboard this Lakers dynasty train, but to follow a coach and not the players is a bit odd.

The Bulls have a young nucleous and a top 5 pick this year. How much satisfaction will you have when you stuble back onto their bandwagon after the Lakers take a year off between their 4 straight Championships?

A team to watch is the Clippers. If Gentry snags Battie with the #2 then look out. The average age for these guys is around 22. They're a younger version of the 76ers right now but lack any facial hair for experience.

I cheer for them when the Lakers aren't on the tube. Besides, they give Adam's team (Kings) fits every time they meet.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 10:49 PM
I'm really not a full-time fan of Lakers, I'm just rooting for them because I'm remembering what it feels like to once win Championships, and its hard not to root for Phil, but Marty...come on!!! The guy didn't do nothing for us, but early exits and disappointments!!!! Anyway, I like seeing teams win Championships, and its fun to see the lakers do just that.


is waiting on the Bulls...it'll be awhile

Chiefs Pantalones
06-20-2001, 10:51 PM
"why don't I jump ship and root for the Skins"

Because I love football WAY more than basketball, and take it more seriously.

06-20-2001, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Packfan

I agree that similar moves were made in 1993, but there is one huge difference: Montana and Allen are hall of famers, Holmes and Green are journeymen. Neither will ever be mentioned in the same breath as Montana and Allen.

Hate to tell you Packfan that sentence in italics above made your statement invalid, you just mentioned them in the same statement. LOL :D

06-20-2001, 11:59 PM
Points of order,

Cal Injun, Proctors praise of all things Marty is really annoying but in my heart of hearts I know he is still a Chiefs fan. Calling him a former Chiefs fan is being a little tough don't you think. It is your call, but I believe him to be a lot disaffected and very much on the defensive because what he wants is gone. Until the season starts and he still is acting like a Denise clone only supporting the Redskins I will cut him slack.

I will not get into what you said to Cody, but dude go back and read what he said, it is very wise and great advice. If you do not agree explain why, last years KCJ would have.

Finally Cody,

A person can change allegience and that does not make them a bandwagon fan, but if you are going to jump with each player or coach move that is going to make it look bad. As a team fan at some point you have to stick with one team or admit you are not a fan of any team. Being a fan of a single player or coach is just fine, just stick with that and make that clear, you will not seem like a bandwagon fan in that case. As a fan of a single player or coach, my advice would be to avoid smaq about how good your team is, it is really not your team it is your favorite coach or player you are rooting for in the end.

To each of you, these are just my opinions, please do not be offended.

06-21-2001, 12:33 AM
How about this scenario?

I moved to TN. over 15 years ago. I watched the Chiefs from afar. Then I got a team here from Houston. This was great because I could finally see a football game in person without continuing to contribute to the personal wealth of SW Airlines stockholders. I did manage to make a game at Arrowhead at least once a year, because of some very generous friends :cool:

I still scream for the Chiefs. I always will. As long as they aren't playing the Titans. I believe it was ESPN.com that ran an article about "why you are a fan". Much had to do with proximity. So I guess that I am guilty of that. I have discovered that I am a football fan. But the Chiefs will always have a piece of my heart. I have Chiefs memorabilia in my home, but no Titans stuff. I know more Chiefs history than I ever will Oilers.

So go ahead...slam me! But no matter what anyone says, I am a Chiefs fan. And there are a lot of people like me out here in cyber space. Just don't shut us out. Because we really want to see the Chiefs excel...again.

06-21-2001, 12:56 AM
and my mom got me the Magic Johnson hoop set, man did I think I was the coolest when I had that.

My first hoop set was a JERRY WEST... Man am I dated...

... Also, I hate the LAKERS.

Mom meant well bless her heart, but she had no clue. :rolleyes:

06-21-2001, 01:43 AM
I moved to KC in 80'. Became a CHIEFS follower [I don't remember anyone admitting to being a "fan" back then with the exception of the "brown baggers"] mainly because I was a huge football fan in general. I was amazed you could get a ticket at the gate on gameday. I saw some pretty exciting games in the early 80's and became a "fan" of the team in the first few years. It took the CP era [the first PHILLY connection] before I could consider myself a "diehard CHIEFS fan". When I went to a PACKED ARROWHEAD and watched DT lay 7 sacks on CRAIG there was no turning back.

When I first moved here my EAGLES were on their way to the SB under VERMEIL's guidance so facilitating my hatred for the RAIDERS was instant and easy. I still follow all teams PHILLY with a passion and most likely always will [I was probably the only guy in KC partying when the ROYALS lost the World Series ;) ] but I have just as much passion, if not more for the CHIEFS. Being in different Conferences I've never felt the need to choose.

That being said, I will be wearing red and supporting MY CHIEFS when the EAGLES come to town this year.

06-21-2001, 06:54 AM

Per my comments to Cody:

1. It was between Cody and me;

2. You do not know the history between Cody and me. Basically, he frequently posts on my threads or in reply to my comments with a recoomendation that I 'get with the times" or 'get over Marty' etc.. Now that is condescending coming from anyone IMO but irritating coming from a youngster. Cody is AOK in my book, I just wanted to let him know that his regards toward me were not being received with good humor anymore.

3. If I have offended anyone, please forgive me. I did not intend to cause this much of a stir.

Gen X squasher

06-21-2001, 07:54 AM
Ok, it's over now...

Talk some football already...enough of this Lakers bull****! :D

06-21-2001, 08:19 AM
Ahh, another thread about what the definition of a fan should be. Classic! Especially when it's coming from the "I'll show up and sit with Jack Nicholson when we're winning" Laker's fans;)

California Injun
06-21-2001, 08:58 AM

I have no issues with Proctor's allegiance to Marty. My contempt fo him is to write off our new head coach before the team has even broken training camp. How you can pass judgment upon a coach who has guided two different teams to the Super Bowl is beyond me.

Vermeil has inherited a freaking mess in Kansas City after the Stooges were rightfully given their papers. We never knew which team would show up last year;

The 54-34 Chiefs or the guys who mailed in games against the semi-pro teams (Pats, Chargers, Falcons, Raiders).

But hell, let's keep Goonther and his staff of buffoons another year and watch that knucklehead break down and quit on his team again after the 4th game of the season.

Let's marvel at Mike Stock's ability to mismanage the special teams for a third consecutive season.

Let's beat our chests to the rest of the league about how great our RBBC is chewing up huge chunks of yards yet none of the backs are household names outside of Arrowhead.e

Rather than rejoicing at the prospect of a new regime that is chucking the Play-A-Scrub RB, we hear Chicken Little diatribes about how this team is in for it.

No thanks.

Spit on my team without merit and prepare to duck because I'll hock a big one in response. The Chiefs may go 8-8 or 7-9 this season but if I see a team showing fortitude on the field, then I know Vermeil will have us play-off bound in 2002 and Super Bowl contenders by 2004.

By that time the Redskins will be "On the clock with the 5th pick in this year's draft."

06-21-2001, 09:07 AM
Golf clap for Injun...Bravo.

06-21-2001, 11:07 AM
Cal Injun

I said my piece to John on the exact same topic a couple of weeks ago, so I would be hypocritical to disagree.

What I had trouble with is calling him a former Chiefs fan. I too am beginning to wonder, but unlike him with Vermiel feel I should give him until after the first month of the season to make a true judgement.

If at this time he is on here with the type of negativism being shown currently then I will be the first to dog him. I respect your position and I understand your frustration.


One more pep talk when solid BB bretheren begin to consistently question your loyalty it is time to look at what you are doing. Please recall that last offseason on the Star BB I had a similar thing happen and I stepped back, apologized and righted the ship. Please think about it, saying once the season starts, yada, yada is all fine and good but you are creating fouled waters in the present. How much damage will be done by the time you right your ship. Hey its your reputation not mine, but I might reconsider if I was in your shoes.

One other thing I tried to point out to you that you should look at what Cody said that it was actually great advice. You suprised me this morning with what I consider to be a very unchristian like view that because Cody was young and you had been battling with him you seemed comfortable with what you did. In my opinion disprespecting an opinion because of age is arrogance and is a sign of being prideful. Now I am not a strong Christian so I stick my pride right up front far too much, so I am in this case the pot calling the kettle black. But John you are strong in your faith and doing what you did to Cody yesterday was not consistent with that faith so I was surprised. You seem to have an unhealthy anger building John, if you can release it and return to positive messages, I am hoping you will become happier and less angry.

Mark M
06-21-2001, 12:53 PM
I would apologize for piling on KCJ, but I just can't.

Very few things in this world piss me off as much as hypocrisy does. I won't put him on ignore or anything, but don't expect me to show much respect to him anytime soon ... I don't give a f*ck how old he is.

You have to earn my respect, not just assume it's to be given because of age, education or anything else.

~~Stingy with the respect he gives to people.

Mark M
06-21-2001, 01:43 PM
Exactly what would be "uncool"? :confused: Not picking a fight with you, just wondering.

I will usually give people the benefit of the doubt at first, but in the end they have to earn it for it to be full-fledged respect.

I would expect people to give me the same treatment.

~~Can take it as well as dish it out.

06-21-2001, 05:22 PM
I appreciate your comments (well, most of them) but let's get things in perspective here.

Like I said, I indulged young Cody for quite a while and perhaps I spoke out of turn to invoke some old dude credentials. I live in the belly of the military culture and the respect that juniors render to their leaders is the oxygen that military operations breathe. That's my world, that's my posture, that's the way I see it. If that offends you, I'm verry sorry, but that's the way it is.

I DID offer a request for giveness (below).

I think its hilarious that I am castigated because I invoked old dude credentials to rebuff a teenager who perpetually offers me unsolicited advice, while some of you use profanity, sarcasm, and harsh condemnation for me. I guess its OK to blast me no matter what the situation. Its OK. I can take it without having to attack, retaliate, etc...

Per my loyalty: If I didn't CARE, I wouldn't have such deeply held opinions. My quandry is not with DV, but with fickle fans who condemn Marty/Gun with a broad, sardonic brush while affording instant credibility to Mr. Vermiel. This is all the more perplexing to me because Gunther was roundly condemned for finishing 1 game under .500 while Vermiel is being praised ad infinitum while most of you are predicting a 7-9 season (????????).

I AM a Chiefs fan, and I think other true Chiefs fans know that. I also think Denise is a Chiefs fan, so....

I am held to a higher ethical standard and that is fine with me. However, I am human and I do err. To err is human but to forgive is divine, or as St. James puts it, "Love covers a multitude of sins."

Chiefs fan

California Injun
06-21-2001, 07:02 PM
As for giving Vermeil "instant credibility"....

Taking two different teams to a Super Bowl will get you that.

Same "credibility" that Parcells, Shula, and Reeves would receive if they got hired by the Chiefs.

And what has Marty/Goonther got on their resumes?


06-21-2001, 08:20 PM
I agree with Proc on a wide variety of football and Chiefs topics. And DUE to those topics, and generally NOT due to name calling or language, he get's mud tossed his way.


I don't know what I do different, or might just be fewer people read my posts, I don't know. But I agree that this was a Martyball and smashmouth team that emphasized defense for over a decade and I hate to see it go. Marty did do a lot for this franchise, and I don't over-value that. He was a very good coach for a long time. He never did bring us a ring, but he DID take us from losing year after year and make us a consistently competitive and feared team.

That is what Marty did. I don't care for a pass oriented offense, and I DEFINITELY don't like any philosophy that at first glance appears to devalue a strong defense. Our defense was not top 10 last year, and other than a punter, Cadrez, and a decent cb on pretty worn tires we didn't do much to improve it. I think our defense needed some help as well but all the flash and movement was done on offense. The attitude seemed to be that we need new faces for our new offense but our old faces were good enough on defense. And much like Whitless I agree that the loss of Hasty will hurt us on the field. That's my gripe , but I'll give DV two years anyway due to having to wrestle with a full cap and a new QB...

06-21-2001, 08:32 PM

I have to know because it is really got me puzzled, what was objectionable in this post below from Cody. It is great advice that we all would do well to remember in a number of situations. Basically it says do not panic, embrace change. Change is ever present in our lives, and we would all be better served to embrace it rather than fight it because of our anxiety about what it will bring. The past is gone if you loved it then embracing it will leave you feeling lost and forlorn.

Come on KCJ, if I had said this to you would you have jumped all over me?

Originally posted by Cody Goldizen

Change is good. Remember this...

"He who lives in the past, is depressed, he who lives in the future, has anxiety, he who lives for now...the present, is in peace and will receive good fortune."

So except these "new Chiefs and their new philosophy" with open arms, it just might work...


that goes for everything, not just the Chiefs, Proc.

Finally, did you even read my posts to you?

Really just wondering, and hoping that quote from St. James was from the real one and not a dig somehow at me?

06-21-2001, 10:27 PM
Cal Injun:

Yeah, the Clips are a scrappy bunch. I agree that if Battier falls to # 2 and the Clips select him, they're a playoff contending team and will likely split the 4 meetings with the Kings next year, with or without Webber.

No one can ever hate the Clippers... and everyone has a soft spot in their heart and a secret wish for the Clippers to oneday be NBA Champions. For all the generosity they've given to teams through the years, they should be allowed to win one someday.

But first Donald Sterling must either sell the team or die, for they are doomed with him running the show.

Gentry had my vote for Coach of the Year. He took a squad that might have had trouble beating Duke at the start of the season and got them to 31 wins with a college age lineup predominantly.

Besides, the Clippers were more than just a pain in the Kings rear. They were sensational at home the 2nd half of the season and if I recall, beat the tar out of the Lakers in one game by over 25 points... with Shaq and with Kobe.

Mark M
06-22-2001, 06:00 AM
I understand where you're coming from ... I guess. I work with a guy who was a Seargent in the Marines, and he goes around ordering people all of the time. He expects youngster to treat him with respect, which is how he was brainwashed--er--I mean taught. But there's one problem ... this isn't the military anymore. And neither is this board.

I understand the whole "respecting your elders" thing—I was basically raised by my great-grandmother. However, I've met just as many morons over 50 as I have under 17.

But that's not what ticked me off so much. I understand your point. It's the hypocrisy. Only three things will really draw my ire:

1. Hypocrisy
2. Not admitting when you're wrong
3. Not being able to agree to disagree

You were responsible for #1, and the other two I haven't witnessed because I haven't paid attention. If you tell someone not to do something, then go ahead and do it yourself, well, that's unacceptable, IMO.

I'm sure I'll get over it.

~~Hopes this is over and done with.

06-22-2001, 06:05 AM
Brad: Your last post could have been a 'proctor' post up until your last line. -- your willingness to give Vermeil a chance. That's the difference in most peoples mind.

Proctor is not and is now down on the Chiefs lauding their failures before even seeing one snap. It's the type of unrealistic, bombastic predictions I read before the 2000 season with regard to EG's performance.


This is all the more perplexing to me because Gunther was roundly condemned for finishing 1 game under .500 while Vermiel is being praised ad infinitum while most of you are predicting a 7-9 season (????????).

It has been said about 500 times now by most here that at least 2, some say 3 losses, can be directly attributed to the coaching decisions on game day. That takes last years team from 7-9 to 9-7 or 10-6 by strictly changing the coaching staff that doesnt do the 'dumbest' thing possible.

So yes, Gun and staff should be roundly criticized for the 7-9 season. What's more amazing is the play of the 54-34 Chiefs vs the last game of the season Chiefs against the Falcons--that game is one that should be solely blamed on the coach since he 'lost his team'.

Last, if you bother to read this far, I would like to know WHO is most of 'you' that is predicting a 7-9 season. I havent seen that prediction from anyone on this BB.

06-22-2001, 03:19 PM

Of course I read your replies. My CPU at home is REALLY slow so I only reply to 1 or 2 at a time. At work I have a faster one but I am very busy.

Cody's remarks are innocous in and of themselves. It was a reaction to a consistent paen of remarks to the effect that I was a stodgy, conservative relic who couldn't get a grasp on reality that set me off. I give counsel to a lot of people on very serious issues (at least more serious than football) and I guess I just went off a little on that one. I didn't insult the lad. I merely growled at him as 40 year old sergeants are wont to do.

Jim, I don't even know why I still post here. I have few friends (Bless you Brad!) and fewer people who who listen to what I have to say. I do not see hiring Vermiel as a bad thing, but I do not like it (for now). That is just my opinion, nothing more. I am wasting time better spent with my kids or even my soldiers.

The Chiefs will be fine. I am not lobbying for a return to the past. I am also weary of constantly explaining myself to a group of guys I have never met and who routinely insult me. I need to cool it for a while as far as the BBs.

Shoot me an email if you want to discuss any of our opinions off line.


keg in kc
06-22-2001, 03:26 PM
John, friends don't necessarily have to be limited to people who agree with you. As a matter of fact, the friends I find most interesting are the ones most different from myself. I might have considered you a friend at one point, and might again, and I'm sure Jim would say the same thing, and he's known you longer than I have. We're all good people here, even if we don't all agree.

06-22-2001, 03:27 PM

There's that self-pity again. I'd hate to see you go...

06-22-2001, 04:54 PM

I still consider you a cyberfriend and I would hope you still reciprocate. It is my opinion you have a lot of cyberfriends (use that term because most of us will never meet) on this BB and others.

I will try to make time to e-mail you from home tonight, until then lift those spirits and tote those positive vibes I am trying to send your way.

California Injun
06-22-2001, 05:18 PM

You'll never leave this BB because too many others have tried and later come back to eat their words. I do have a question for you..

Is it enjoyable to curry favors with the other closet trolls and put a huge bullseye blanket on yourself with your "opinons"?

Ever notice how many hits are attributed to your threads? Is it because of your in-depth analysis and positive outlook on the Chiefs future?

Hell, if it was that important to me to see my name in BB lights I could start poisonous threads this afternoon and watch the repsonses light up like a slot machine. Then I could spend countless hours defending myself and grabbing Chiefs Media Guides to explain my points.

But NOW you are getting a bit worn out from the constant barrage and you want to curl up your tail and retreat?

Buckle up that chin strap soldier!!!! Fall in line with the troops and count off! "Hup, two three, four......"

But if you want to decrease the first wave of fighters, try hoisting that folded Redskins flag in the trunk of your car. :p

06-23-2001, 02:22 PM
I have no hard feelings against you at all, man. Peace.

Jim, you're my buddy, come what may. I wish I could e-mail you your favorite adult beverage.

Cody: Do your homework and brush your teeth.:D

Parker: If you consider it to be self pity, that's your opinion. Do you have to post that so much?

NoCal: You really don't know me at all. And I frankly am insulted by your accusations that I post 'poisonous' threads just to get attention. When the Star BB gets back up, I won't be around here molesting you with my evil Chiefs football opinions.

Well, lightning burned up my modem last night so I have no internet access at home for a while. I won't post much from work.
Have a great summer everyone, and may the Chiefs win the Super Bowl and Dick Vermiel be named the coach of the year.

John 'KCJohnny' Proctor

Chiefs Pantalones
06-23-2001, 04:21 PM

Ok, take care, bud.

Be sure to take out your dentures before you go to sleep and wash out your mouth with Listerine and shave the bottom of your feet. :D


back at ya:p

Chiefs Pantalones
06-23-2001, 08:46 PM
BTW John,

Before you give me one of your speeches, I was just kidding about the detures thing.:D


thinks John probably thought I was telling him what to do (stubborness) Know wonder you like Marty and Gun so much;) :p

Chiefs Pantalones
06-23-2001, 08:52 PM
But I wasn't kidding about shaving the bottom of your feet, though.



06-23-2001, 11:08 PM
If I may offer a little insight to this rather combustible thread…


Those last posts were the equivalent of John saying, “don’t forget to pop those pimples and hide your crusty playboy so mommy don’t find it.”

I think you two may have a history not unlike some salesmen golfing partners I go out with every once in awhile - one big pissing contest.

Anyway, if John deserved to be beat up for his comment to you the way his was then you deserve at least that much for yours.

Says me.

KC Johnny,

I hope you reconsider your last post. I know you take a lot of flak but you do have a somewhat unconventional approach to your team loyalty.

A quick comment on the “instant credibility for Vermeil” comment:

I can speak only for myself, but I am not giving Vermeil any instant credibility. I am showing the same enthusiasm and optimism that I showed when Gun and Marty when they took over.

As far as Gun, well he lied to me and avoided explanation for his mistakes week in and week out towards the end of his reign while repeating his mistakes over and over.

I totally lost respect for him as my favorite teams head coach because of his lies, misleadings and inability to perform the job he accepted. That’s why I speak poorly of him.

As for Marty, I didn't want to see Marty Leave. But it was time none the less.

One last piece of insight through my eyes: Don't take this stuff too seriously. Were talking about a bunch of guys who get paid money most of us only dream of to play a game.

06-24-2001, 04:07 AM
I'm kind of butting in here, :D but I see where Proc comes from somewhat on the Chiefs/Foreskins thing.

When Cowher went to Pitt and turned them into the Northeast Chiefs, i supported them. They were my second favorite team, and if my boys couldn't make the big game, i then turned my dish to the Steelers and prayed they would. It's like seeing some blue collar guy win the lottery: not nearly as good as winning yourself, but at least it's someone like you.

I support Marty, and I'm young enough he's the only coach I've ever known for the Chiefs. I grew up watching Smashmouth and tough defense with the CHiefs and then the Steelers after Cowher's departure. I still enjoy their play. I will support the Redskins as well this season, and i'm interested in seeing what he can do with player and personel controol.

But don't ever confuse my loyalty.If the steelers or skins stand in our way, hell with 'em. THey are the enemy. MY best case scenerio would be the Chiefs beating the Skins in the super bowl on a 2 minute comeback drive, lead by a qb with an IQ, and just an overall great game. That way Marty goes to the big one, we of course win it, and Lamar will taste that Victory one more time...How sweet it would be! :D

06-24-2001, 09:30 AM
I am at work, so don't gimmee any biz about my burned up modem.
Brad, its amazing how similar our football opinions are!

I lived in Richmond, VA for 19 years where the Skins games were broadcast every Sunday. Of course that makes them more than just another team to me, but compared to the Chiefs, nothing.

My loyalty: Here in the Army, your loyalty is first and foremost to your colors (unit flag). That's what you fight under, regardless who is in command. If you have been to combat with one set of leaders, regardless of how bad/good they are, there is a bond or at least a sense of unity. When the commanders change, loyalty to the colors remains, regardless of what leaders are in leadership at the time.

That's how I look at KC. The Chiefs 'colors', the mighty arrowhead is the color that I cheer for. Now, bring in a bunch of Rams and Donx guys, and you BET I have an adjustment to make, especially when there seems to be a blatant disregard for the heritage of those hallowed colors. But my loyalty is still to the mighty arrowhead in red'n'gold, come what may.

Like Brad, I like seeing Chiefs alumni succeed (Gannon and any ex-chiefs on the donx excluded - grrrrrrr...) and that includes Marty, Raye, Cowher, Grbac, Joe Horn, etc... You don't have to agree. However, that does not diminish my loyalty to KC one iota.

It is precisely BECAUSE of my loyalty to the heritage, spirit and traditions of the Chiefs colrs that I initially reacted so badly to the Ramifization of the Chiefs offense and the donkification of the Chiefs defense. Unless you have soldiered under certain colors, you probaly can't follow what I am saying.

It is precisely BECAUSE of my loyalty that I wanted Al Saunders to be head coach: a man with excellent Chiefs credentials, spending a decade on the sidelines in Arrowhead. Is that so hard to swallow? Does that make me a doomsayer?

I am not now, nor will I ever be a 'win at all costs' type person. You can have Al Davis for that. I want to win with honor, at least with some vindication of the Chiefs that were perrennial SB contenders from '90-'00. I have no interest in dressing up the AFC all star team in the Chiefs uniforms and then saying, "see what the Chiefs accomplished?" That is what ruins baseball for me. There is barely any loyalty at all anymore (God Bless Cal Ripken).

I am loyal, I have been loyal, I will be loyal. But there are certain things that are hard to follow until you have been in the trenches together for a while. After a couple games at Arrowhead, we'll see. At least DV has ceased mentioning the Rams in every other sentence.

Good day.


The Bad Guy
06-24-2001, 10:10 AM
Proctor writes:

Now, bring in a bunch of Rams and Donx guys, and you BET I have an adjustment to make, especially when there seems to be a blatant disregard for the heritage of those hallowed colors.


I don't know exactly who has a blatant disregard for the teams heritage.

Was Carl Peterson supposed to limit his search of head coaches who would run the ball 50 times a game, or be ridiculously unbalanced?

Just because Vermeil has a different mindset now than previous Chiefs head coaches doesn't mean he has a blatent disregard for heritage. What it means is he has his own opinions about what this offense could do, and if it means the Chiefs spread the field and actually keep defenses on their toes rather than being predictable with the ground game, or passing game then I'm all for it. It's not like Vermeil doesn't have proof that his way works. When you take two teams to the Super Bowl, that warrants my respect immediately.

In all actuality, Gunther Cunningham showed the biggest blatant disregard for heritage last year with his constant air-it-out, give up big plays on defense approach that failed him miserably.

Coaches in the NFL are a revolving door. I bet that there weren't many people complaining about turning into the Kansas City Browns when Marty was hired back in 1988, nor were their loud screams when former Raiders coaches like Gunther, Art Shell, Keith Rowan, or Dave Adolph graced the staff over the 90's.

I am not now, nor will I ever be a 'win at all costs' type person. You can have Al Davis for that. I want to win with honor, at least with some vindication of the Chiefs that were perrennial SB contenders from '90-'00.

So if Kansas City goes to the Super Bowl this year, you will be upset because they didn't have the same mold of the Marty Schottenheimer teams that NEVER won a championship?

I could care less who the players are that get us to the championship. If I see Lamar Hunt holding up the Vince Lombardi trophy in January, it will make all the difference in the world to me. A Chiefs championship would be incredible to me regardless of what type of philosophy, or theories the head coach or the staff has.

06-24-2001, 12:07 PM

I e-mailed you but if your modem at home is fried you will not get the e-mail. You should have my addy so e-mail me from work and I will send you a reply.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-24-2001, 07:12 PM

Oh c'mon! Were just playing around with each other.



its ok to play around, and live a little... HAVE FUN!!!!

06-24-2001, 08:14 PM
Just a little inside information.....DV has forbidden any of the Chiefs from being out in a bar. He put his foot down on the drinking and parting. He doesn't care if they are a Chief or not. He wants attitudes good too or they are gone. This was from a friend of mine from KC that knows some of the players and plays trivia on Friday nights with them. They were bidding there ado's and that was what he was told. Personally, it's about time someone put their foot down and put some discipline on them. They are the Chiefs property for 6 months and being paid dang good for it. So maybe we should now have players in better shape and working for what they love or they are out. :)

06-25-2001, 05:46 AM
Getting a new CPU tower this week.
I'll email you ASAP.

Was Carl Peterson supposed to limit his search of head coaches who would run the ball 50 times a game, or be ridiculously unbalanced?

OK< Frank, is that your take on Al Saunders? See my reply below.


06-25-2001, 08:46 AM

Come on now...Blaming me for bringing up the self-pity trip? I wouldn't post about it if you didn't DO it...

As for the "perennial SB contenders" get real...only one year -1993- were the Chiefs a legitimate contender, and that's because we had Joe on OFFENSE...as much as I like the Marty tradition, we were NEVER contenders with him at the helm during the playoffs...

06-25-2001, 09:51 AM
The best chance we had to get to the Superbowl we should have been called the KC Brown49ers. Someone's got their perceptions askew. DV has a plan and a philosophy, Marty had a plan and a philosophy. Gun had? Well he must of had something!

PhilFree :cool:

06-25-2001, 10:15 AM

Gun, I believe had his foot firmly implanted in his mouth, which is why he could never come up with a game plan or a strategy. It is also why he constantly talked out of the side of his mouth (that was the only place with room left) when he talked about what he wanted to accomplish with the team.

06-25-2001, 10:32 AM
I agree Jim. Gun did do one thing his first year that I liked though. He sped up practice and sped up the offense in games. It actually made our offense better. Under Marty when we had the ball we'd stand there what seemed like forever waiting on plays and then we would barley get them off if at all. The opposing D was always ready. Besides that one thing Gun had no idea how to be a head coach. Perhaps he spent to much time sending out gift packages instead of formulating game plans.

PhilFree :cool:

06-25-2001, 08:03 PM
WRONG! The '95 and '97 Chiefs were both a missed FG away from advancing to the AFC Title game. Oh, hell, I'm tired of arguing these stuoid points. You say mediocre, I say 3rd winningest francise of the decade, let the individual decide. As far as self-pity, your website gets about 500-1000 hits per thread when KCJohnny posts his 'self-pitying, uninformed, maulball-loving' opinions on it.

That is a little bit personal. I was miserable out there on the DMZ when Gun sent me that package and I did NOT ask for it. He sent it because he believed in the greatest commodity that the Chiefs have, THEIR FANS. He sent it to a soldier overseas out of kindness and gratitude, and that's all. Man...


06-25-2001, 08:17 PM
Lick his arse...

06-25-2001, 09:04 PM
Aw shucks Johnny, I was just joshing with ya. You make yourself and easy mark.

PhilFree :cool:

KS Smitty
06-25-2001, 10:29 PM
Don't let em get you down. There's no Denise to pick on and Packfan hasn't been on very regularly so some one's got to bear the brunt of all the "unemotional" :) vibes floating around. I've never served in the military but my brother (God rest his soul) did and so much of how he thought comes across in many of your posts. I, personally don't have that mentality cuz I've never experienced military life but what you say about your colors certainly describes how I feel about my family and close friends and the Chiefs. I haven't posted any football topics in this off-season due to the fact that I'm a wait and see guy but IMHO this BB would be alot duller without the dissenting or controversial opinions expressed by you. Also I don't think I'm in the caliber of some of you guys and am using this as a learning experience, I'll be prepared better next off-season thanks to you and the other posters here.


06-26-2001, 06:49 AM
your website gets about 500-1000 hits per thread when KCJohnny posts his 'self-pitying, uninformed, maulball-loving' opinions on it.

The same can be said for Packfan's and [the late, unlamented] BroncoFan's posts.

Generating heated responses is not exactly something to be proud of, IMO.

Thinks anyone can generate lots of hits.

06-26-2001, 06:50 AM
You just made my day, brother!
Bless you!
Now if I can just get this $%#@ bullseye off my chest!
Phil: Its cool. I didn't know you were funnin'. Some of these posters are out for blood. They can't wait to see a famous BB personality like me stumble. Cyber papparezzi (sp)?

06-26-2001, 06:52 AM
You're just jealous, Gaz.
Nonconformist Chiefs enthusiast:cool:

06-26-2001, 07:04 AM
Lesson #1 in generating many hits/responses on a thread, put the entire group you're speaking at in the same light, when obviously not true.

Ken says 'all chiefs fans do [insert nonsense here]'
Proctor says 'nonconformist chiefs fan'

What the hell?

Cmon KCJohnny, if you want people to respect your opinion, you have to respect theirs. The fact that others here are not predicting impending doom for KC does not make them 'conformist', 'bandwagon', 'traitors' or anything remotely close. It makes them optimistic--you might remember that word, that was the same one you wielded like a sword last year.

06-26-2001, 08:21 AM
Proctor, a famous BB personality? More like infamous... :D

Honestly, John, it's nice to see you CAN take a joke...

06-26-2001, 09:46 AM

I dont use the word "all" when refering to Chief fans. There are some intellegient ones and there are some that dont jump on and off the bandwagon. I respect those fans. I have little respect for the rest of them.

Many Chief fans - including yourself- are quick to blame Chief failures on which ever player/coach was the last to leave. That ignorance at its best. IMO, the reason many Chief fans do this is that they simply dont get it. They dont understand that talent is what wins games first and foremost. Scheme, preparation, dicipline and all the other things coaches do is very important. But if you dont have talent, you are going to lose more than you are going to win. The Chiefs have marginal talent and have lost. The General Manager is responsible for the talent provided to the head coach.

To me, it sounds pretty simple. But it SEEMS like MOST Chief fans dont get it.

Quit misquoting me.

06-26-2001, 09:51 AM
blah, blah, blah...Carl Peterson...blah, blah, blah...

06-26-2001, 10:39 AM
Interesting that this thread is continuing. But, I see that KCJ has the same disease as Grbac. Runs his mouth the wrong direction, contradicts himself and has a very inflated opinion of himself.
Johnny Grbac:eek:

06-26-2001, 11:00 AM
I hate ta' say it but I agree with Packfan...

The staff did cost us games last year, at minimum the Titans and Chargers games. But talent makes big plays, busts big runs, catches ubelievably poorly thrown passes, etc...We didn't have an overabundance of talente on defense or in the backfield last year COMBINED with an inability to use the talent WE DID HAVE to emphasize our strengths....

06-26-2001, 01:09 PM

Lack of talent has been the Chiefs problem for some time now. When you field a team with Steve Bono or Dave Krieg, or Elvis Grbac, you have talent issues. When you rotate running backs every year, you have talent issues.

When you rely on Linn Elliot to put points on the board, you have a talent issue. When you have Sean LaChappel, Lake Dawson, and Derrick Walker as wideouts, you have a talent issue.

Coaches cant teach speed, instinct, guts, heart, toughness, or the ability to make unbelievable plays in the clutch.

Blaming the "stooges" is like blaming is like saying that Tony Muser is the reason the Royals stink.

06-26-2001, 01:23 PM

I don't disagree that most of the teams under Marty/Gun suffered from a lack of talent, but last year's problem was first and foremost, coaching...

Notice, however, that only one of the players you listed in your "lack of talent" list was on the team last year? I did...

Coaches cant teach speed, instinct, guts, heart, toughness, or the ability to make unbelievable plays in the clutch.

No, but coaches like Gunther CAN inspire apathy, laziness, disrespect, hopelessness, and confusion in guys that otherwise possess your aforementioned traits...

06-26-2001, 01:27 PM
The Royals stink because they do have a lack of talent and the inequity of revenue sharing. And if that persists no money in the forseeable future to aquire said talent. And who knows Muser may have more to do with the Royals stinking up the joint than you give him credit for. I'm a Royals fan also and it kills me to see them sucking pond scum after having such a proud history. :(

06-26-2001, 03:34 PM
Ken makes some valid points, but they are valid about every sports franchise, not just the Chiefs.

Look people-
Only 1 team is going to win the Super Bowl each season. That does not make the other 30 'losers', 'mediocre,' 'chokers' etc... The Chiefs have been a perennial contender for over a decade and still are IMO. It is not talent as opposed to scheme/coaching, but BOTH. And as the '99 rams demonstrated, it takes a lot of luck, too- Warner, getting the #31 toughest schedule, Shawn King getting sacked for a handful of 20-yd losses in the NFC championship game, the Titans dying on the 2-yd line on the last play of the SB, etc... and Marty and Gun just didn't have that luck (dang kickers!)...JMO...

Stop blaming the Chiefs troubles on their QBs! Every starting QB for KC since '93 has appeared in the Pro-bowl at least once (and you can include Gannon as a Raider) and they played in the most QB unfriendly system of all according to you guys. And talent? Anders, Szott, Grunhard, Shields, Gonzo, DT, Neil Smith, Hasty, Saleamua- the Chiefs had plenty of talent. And still do.

There is no one single cause for victory or defeat- it is a consummate team effort from the GM/Prez to the water boy. And the Chiefs have knocked on the door at least 4 times ('93, 95, 97, 99) and BARELY fallen short...that is no reason to junk the whole project and start from scratch IMO. And apparently Mr. Hunt agrees, seeing Carl is still here (Hi, Ken!)

Its only football.

06-26-2001, 04:20 PM
The Chiefs didn't even make the playoffs in 99, how is that "knocking at the door"?

06-27-2001, 08:14 AM
Come on, Proctor...Knocking on the door?

Ever since Marty's days in Cleveland, it was that way. The ONLY year I really felt we COULD win was 1993 in Buffalo. Every other year, you knew going into the game that our offense wasn't going to be able to score enough points to get it done.

The Chiefs of the past had PLENTY of talent on the defensive side of the ball, but we had people like Steve Bono at QB...we haven't had a dominant RB since Okoye...you can't score points with WR like Lake Dawson and JJ Birden.

My point of contention with Ken is that right now, including last year, this team has ALOT more offensive talent than they ever did in those years we "contended". Our defense isn't as good, but the NUMBER ONE reason we went 16-16 over the last two years is because our coaching staff was one of the worst ever assembled.

06-27-2001, 08:59 AM
you can't score points with WR like Lake Dawson and JJ Birden

JJ Birden was a good receiver, we just didn't have a compliment to him.

06-27-2001, 10:50 AM
I wouldn't say JJ was that good...the most catches he ever had in a season was 51...

06-27-2001, 10:58 AM
Knocking on what door? They havent won a playoff game in 8 years! Lately, they have been closer to knocking on the basement door.

Coaching is very important, but not the most important aspect in building a winner. You think Dennis Green taught Randy Moss world class speed and how to jump?? We both know he didnt. But Green was smart enough and gutsy enough to know what a steel a behaving Moss would be in the middle of the first round.

As far as the QB being blamed, I agree, its not all the QBs fault. However, you bring up guys like Anders, Salumua, Grunhard, Szott, ect. Good players, but not stars. Teams need at least three bonafide stars, IMO. The Chiefs have only had one: Derrick Thomas and that was a long time ago. Gonzo probably is a star player now, but the Chiefs need at least two more. You dont get stars by picking up castoffs in free agency. USUALLY, you draft players that turn into stars ie Tony Gonzalez and Derrick Thomas. Quarterback is a position where a star player would greatly increase your chances of post season success. The Chiefs havent had a star player there since Dawson. Montana was a star, but not with the Chiefs.

As you all know, I think there is one man to blame for the Chiefs mediocrity. The Chiefs have changed coaches, QBs, RBs, kickers, WR, scouts, personnel guys, ect. They have changed everything over the last 8 years except the most important position: General Manager. I have been saying for some time now that things wont get any better until Peterson is gone. So far, I have been correct. Until he is replaced and a sound plan is developed, expect continued mediocrity.

06-27-2001, 11:14 AM
There is no probably about it! Gonzo is a star. And Montana was definately a star for the short time he was here. I think Dale Carter was a star unfortunately so did he. Of course Derrick was a star but so was Neil Smith. How bout Marcus Allen was he a star? I bet most people think so. Gee, wasn't all those guys on the same team at the same time? (cept Gonzo)
What determines a star anyway?

PhilFree :cool:

06-27-2001, 02:34 PM

Montana was no star. In fact, he was injury prone while with the Chiefs. He was way past his prime. Smart player and a winner, but not a star anymore. Allen? Star?? Are you Serious?? 600 yards and you think he is a star? Please! I guess Greg Hill was a star too!

06-27-2001, 02:41 PM
But I have to agree with him to some extent.

The only real star this team has had on offense in the CP era is TG.

Montana and Marcus were shadows of their former selves when they arrived in KC.

But I don't agree that it takes stars to get to and win SBs. A team makes it to the SB, the players become stars. The Giants of the 80's weren't exactly overflowing with a lot of talent on offense when they won their SBs.

They did it with guys like Simms and Hostetler. Morris? and Anderson. Mark Bavarro. Who the hell were there receivers even?

The Ravens last season weren't offensive juggernaughts either.

The Chiefs had teams that could have made it to the SB in the 90s. Teams that could have been compared favorably to those Giants teams.

There was one major difference between those Giants teams and the 90s Chiefs.

They had Parcells. We had Schottenheimer.

Nuff said.

The Bad Guy
06-27-2001, 02:42 PM

Who are the 3 stars that the Packers have?

You have 1 in Brett Favre.

I'm glad you take the time out of your day to talk about our weaknesses when your Packers have just as many question marks as we do.

06-27-2001, 02:43 PM
But I don't agree that it takes stars to get to and win SBs - agreed milkman, heck, even Green Bay needed Rison and Desmond Howard to win their SB. I wouldnt call them stars either.

06-27-2001, 03:05 PM
Rison and Howard were free agent castoffs. No team wins a Superbowl with FA castoffs.

keg in kc
06-27-2001, 03:59 PM
It's a stretch to call Favre a star, IMHO; he hasn't sniffed a qb rating of 80 since 1998. He was a star at one point, but he's clearly dimmed a great deal since then.

Not to mention the fact that his team sucks in every way, shape and form. They have pathetic talent on offense and a joke of a defense. Farve would probably play better somewhere with half-decent receivers and a capable line. Poor guy. In any event, some teams just don't know when to rebuild I guess, and instead give 100 million dollars to 32 year old QBs who are in a downward spiral. That's probably why they haven't won a playoff game in 3 years and seem to change head coaches more often than I change socks.

At least we all know now that Wolf really is a genius; he knew when to jump ship...

Chiefs Pantalones
06-27-2001, 04:27 PM

I agree with you sometimes about Carl Peterson, but not about Montana. Montana was 38years old and defenses still couldn't stop him. He never lost a game for this team. As far as him not being a star, he sure as heck brought alot of PR to KC for the first time in years.


keep stating your points about Carl, (even though I'm alone on this) I think they make good sense, seriously.

06-27-2001, 05:04 PM
1993: Chiefs advance to within 1 game of the SB;
1995: Chiefs have homefield throughout, NFL's best record, and lose on Lin Elliott's 3 missed FGs; score 10-7
1997: Chiefs have homefield throughout, NFL's best record, and lose 14-10 on arguably the worst officiating in post season game of that decade;
1999: Chiefs miss winning the AFC West by a (again!) a missed FG. They would have had at least one home game and who knows if they could have advanced to the AFC Title game?

To all you glass-is-half-empty folks that is standing in the street. For me, that is knocking at the door.

The Chiefs DO have talent on their roster, but not more than the '95-97 squad. They have a little more offense, a lot less defense, and no where near the STs.

I wouldn't knock Montana, who led the Chiefs in '94 to a huge offensive production (most since the 60s up to that point). Montana, Bono, Grbac all made the PB as Chiefs. Gannon made the PB as a Raider.

The Chiefs had legitimate shots for the title in '95, '97 and who knows for '99? I would not callin losing 10-7 and 14-10 dismal failures, especially when you see the Chiefs led all three of those games (Colts, Donx and Raiders) in every statistical category except points, and the chances were there, but in all 3 cases, the kickers blew it ('97 it was more the refs).


06-27-2001, 05:24 PM
Scoring 7 and 10 points in playoff games points at more than just the kicker missing kicks.

Blame the kicker all you want. I will always point the finger at Marty for the Chiefs failures in playoffs.

Once or twice is bad luck, or bad karma, or missed kicks or whatever. Consistent failure is a pattern. Marty and his ultra-conservative play not to lose approach is the one constant in all those failures.

06-27-2001, 05:36 PM
I maintain that trading for Montana was a mistake. He was a short term solution to what has been a seemingly endless problem in KC, the revolving QB door.

The Chiefs would have been much better in the long term if they had persued and signed Steve Buerlein in FA that offseason.

Had the Chiefs signed Buerlein then, he might still be our starting QB, and the Chiefs mght be grooming his replacement now, instead of trading away the #12 pick for Green.

We also would not have had to suffer through the Bonehead and GrBust years.

So trading for Montana not only affected the Chiefs in the short term, it very may have had a long term impact as well

06-27-2001, 11:17 PM
If Baltimore misses three field goals in one of their playoff games, no super bowl...The Giants progressed to the super bowl on special teams, field goals and defense against the Eagles then proceeded to whomp arse on the Vikings. No one saw that comming....

Point is, if you're still alive you never know. If Elliott, if Bono, if not for a bad call, if not for a dropped pass or a foot out of bounds...

Fact is you can't prove the Chiefs would or wouldn't have done anything if we'd have beaten the Colts/Broncos/Bills....You just can't....

Let's work with what we know....Playoff games are quite often won by 7 points or less....It may be 39-34 or it might be 10-3, but it does happen...I'd get the best kicker in the biz personally, there's nothing worse than loosing a game because of a kicker...:eek:

06-28-2001, 06:12 AM
MrBlond: Green Bay did. Howard was SB MVP and Rison was the wide open WR that scored the first TD of the game. Those two things had a a direct impact on winning that game.

The team that scores first and the SB MVP were the result of FA castoffs, maybe Wolf is more of a genius than we realize... :rolleyes:

06-28-2001, 06:53 AM
Brad, once again you bail me out with a common sense, objective (and homerized, of course!) take on the Chiefs success.

Milkman: That's Bull hockey!!!! The '99 Rams that we all are worshipping now won the NFC championship game by a whippoing score of


and that was with the greatest offense since football was discovered on a remote island in Ohio. So that theory just does not hold water and Brad's does; in fact, the last 2 SB winners proved that. By how many points was the '98 Vikes team eliminated from the SB hunt?


And they had (up til then) the highest scoring offense of all time, AND a kicker who had not missed ONE FG in the season! So there is such a thing as being snake-bitten, losing although you schemed, coached and played well, but still coming up short for a lot of reasons.

So there are 3 great examples where a very good, even great team gets eliminated by a FG.


06-28-2001, 07:48 AM

Lawyers call that "circumstantial". What do ALL of the teams you mentioned have in common that KC's teams never had?

the ability to make a big play at any moment

Whether it's Sharpe taking it to the house, or a Jermaine Lewis return, all of those teams at one time or another took a shot and scored.

Marty was always too afraid...run on 1st down, run on 2nd down, dump it off to Kimble Anders on 3rd down.

Sure, if Lin Elliot made a couple of field goals we would have possibly advanced, but the point is, we NEVER opened up and just scored points. If you want to win, you have to take risks...too bad Marty was the safety coordinator...

06-28-2001, 08:10 AM

Agreed. That was a sarcastic shot at Packfan. Because the fact is that the GB Superbowl teams were a collection of castoffs. Reggie White, Favre, Howard, Rison were considered expendable by their previous teams. And marginally talented role-players. The truth is that the Packers, like most great teams were built in every direction. Draft, FA, trades, player development, coaching. No stone can be left unturned in the search for talent. Green should not be discounted because Washington and Stl felt that he wasnt the best man for the job. By Kens logic, Warner should still be stocking shelves. Failed at GB, failed in Europe, arena league, couldnt beat Green out head to head in Stl. He is the ultimate castoff.

06-28-2001, 08:45 AM
Cheese D__k Breath,
Montana was every bit as much a star in '93 as Farve has ever been. He was old then but his performance in the playoffs was superb. Didn't you see the Monday Night shoot out between Montana and Elway in '94? I believe that was a star performance. Montana was a star no matter how you spin it. Marcus Allen was as clutch as a player can get. He was money in the red zone and short yardage situations. Didn't you see the game in the snow at Denver where he became the NFLs leading TD scorer for rushing TDs? If that's not a star then what is?

PhilFree :cool:

Ken, Don't go away mad. Just go away!

06-28-2001, 09:39 AM
Chief fans,

Montana was a star with the 49ers. He wasnt a star with the Chiefs. I dont give two s hits what he did in one regular season Monday night game. He was a short term, broken down fix to an ever recurring problem as the Milkman stated.

Favre won 3 MVPs. He is the only "star" on the Packers. And yes, despite his dismal QB rating, he is still a star. If they didnt have Favre, they might win 3 games. Watch the Packers and you will see what I mean.

Rison and Howard were huge in the super bowl for the Packers. But the Packers get there get there with or without those guys. Titus still cant figure that one out. You field your entire team with cast offs like these guys and you wont make the playoffs. The Chiefs are good examples of that.

Mr Blond,

I am quite surprised by your comments. I thought you knew more about the NFL than that. Favre cost the packers a #1 draft pick. White went to federal court to become a free agent. The Eagles didnt want him to leave! Where the hell were you during that time?? These guys were hardly "expendable". Again, I am quite surprised at your titus-like comments.

06-28-2001, 10:27 AM
Have you ever figured out what an H Back is... and where does he line up?

just curious...

06-28-2001, 04:56 PM
Just because the Chiefs ability to make 'big plays' came as often on defense (DT, Carter, Neil Smith, Donnie Edwards, etc..) or special teams (Vanover, Lowery, Stoyo) doesn't mean that they didn't have the ability to produce big plays. I seem to remember a big play by Rison from Grbac in the closing seconds of a MON nite game against the Raiders. I also recall punt returns defeating the donx (Vanover '99) and INTs/sacks ending many a comeback by opponents.

And there is NO team anywhere that can make big plays simply at will. I know you are alleging (with some accuracy, perhaps) that Marty wouldn't even go for the big plays, and it is beyond dispute that Marty saw a 4 pt lead in the 4th quarter the way most other coaches view a 21 pt lead. But let's be fair. The Chiefs have their share of big plays and great players. They came sooooo close at least 3-4 times, but failed to take it to the next level, for WHATEVER reason. And your reasons may be better than mine.


06-28-2001, 05:56 PM
You field your entire team with cast offs like these guys and you wont make the playoffs. The Chiefs are good examples of that

The CHIEFS probably have more of their own draft picks in starting positions than most teams in the NFL. Does this guy have any idea what he's talking about?

06-28-2001, 08:25 PM
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the Chiefs scored 20 or more points in a playoff game more than once in Marty's days as HC.
Occassionally teams will win low scoring affairs in playoffs. The Chiefs did it against the TRaiders.
But the point is teams must take shots at the end zone and score some points to succeed in the playoffs. Marty never did. He was far to willing to settle for the easy 3, and it always bit him in the ***.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-28-2001, 08:26 PM

Marty scored 27 and 28 against the Steelers and Oilers in the 93 playoffs.


just gettin that in there

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 08:35 PM
Red Eyes, in 10 playoff games KC only scored 20+ points twice.

1990: Lost 17-16 at Miami.
1991: Beat Raiders 10-6; Lost 37-14 at Buffalo.
1992: Lost 17-0 at San Diego.
1993: Beat Pittsburgh 27-24 (OT); Won 28-20 at Houston; Lost 30-13 at Buffalo.
1994: Lost 27-17 at Miami.
1995: Lost 10-7 against Indianapolis.
1997: Lost 14-10 against Denver.

That's an average of 14 points per game. Like it or not, that kind of scoring output just won't get it done in the NFL no matter how good your defense is.

06-28-2001, 08:52 PM
Ok, ok,
I forgot one. Shoot me.:D

Obviously Kyle, you are supporting the point I was trying to make.

I just don't understand why Johnny doesn't get it.

Oh, wait, he's a sargeant. I was forgetting that.
That explains it.:p

06-28-2001, 09:00 PM
The two times we did score 20+ Montana was our QB and Allen was our RB.

The rest of time our skill position players were the worst in the league among playoff teams, and damn near the worst overall.

Marty did a very good job do get them as far as he did with the piss poor offensive talent he was given IMO.

Bono, Grbac, Birden, Cash, Dawson, LaChapelle, Krieg, Hill etc. etc.

I am actually amazed they went to the playoffs as many times as they did with that motley crew.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:13 PM
Yep, Red Eyes, I clearly agree.

And to pre-empt KCJ's likely comment about the Ravens last season winning with "martyball", I'll add these facts:

During the regular season, Baltimore's defense gave up 10.5 ppg.

The team's scoring average was 22.1 ppg.

And, during the playoffs, Baltimore's defense gave up only 5.75 ppg, while they scored an average of 23.75 ppg.

That's how you do it; you win on both sides of the ball.

06-28-2001, 09:18 PM
You simply cannot compete in the postseason with a lack of talent.

If your well coached, you can beat the weak sisters, and pull out squeakers against good teams in the regular season. However, when the post season rolls around the lack of talent is exposed. It happens everytime.

How anyone can expect ANY coach to win a Superbowl w/ Gregg Hill, Steve Bono and Lin Elliot is beyond me!

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:20 PM
Cannibal, I refuse to believe that Marty had no say whatsoever in personnel decisions. He clearly had a profile for the type of players that he wanted, and he build a team consisting of that kind of players (just like Gunther in 1999 and 2000). If they weren't the most talented guys out there, than some of the responsibility has to lay on his shoulders.

06-28-2001, 09:23 PM
You can believe what you want, but Carl Peterson has always had final say in personell. He's even stated as much in a Star article.

Bottom line, we'll always be mediocre until we get dominant players on both sides of the ball. And that will not, and has not happend in the Peterson era.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:25 PM
I hate to keep bringing up the Ravens, but they won with Trent Dilfer, for god's sake. Add into that mix great offensive talent like Brandon Stokely, Patrick Johnson and a well past his prime Ben Coates and it's pretty evident that you can win with lesser talent if the coaching is solid and the team is aggressive...

I'll say it again, I refuse to see Marty as a victim in any way, shape or form. Good coaches find a way to get it done...

06-28-2001, 09:26 PM
We've had three different coaches in here during the Peterson era and we still don't have a running back. We still don't have a franchise QB. We still don't have a superstar WR.

Three different coaches, but one general manager. A common theme is in place.

06-28-2001, 09:27 PM
The Ravens may have had a mediocre QB, but they did have an excellent, if not dominant running back, and also had a hall of fame TE.

They also have possibly the best defense in NFL history.

I am sorry, but they are a bad example.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:31 PM
Carl Peterson having the final say in personnel (no doubt about that) and Marty having no say are two completely different things. This team was clearly built the way Marty wanted it to be built. Make no mistake, I'm no Peterson backer by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time I'm no apologist for Schottenheimer either. Both of them are clearly directly accountable, in my humble opinion, and I'm sorry, but repeated postseason let-downs are clearly a result of coaching and philosophy as much as they're attributable to personnel. Only scoring more than 2 TDs 30% of the times in the playoffs over a 10 year period is simply inexcusable. As I said before, good coaches just get it done, and Marty and his staff were clearly unable to make the needed ajustment when it counted.

06-28-2001, 09:34 PM
Until Peterson leaves we'll never win a Superbowl.

Schottenheimer does have his drawbacks, but he has accomplished a helluva lot more in the NFL than Peterson ever has, or ever will.

If you are happy with 10-6 and first round playoff exits, keep supporting Peterson.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:35 PM
Oh, I'll agree with that.

I'm using the Ravens as an example only because they are the most recent winner and they're often referred to (incorrectly, IMHO) as a "martyball-esque" team by certain members of the board who I will leave nameless (*cough*KCJ*cough*).

And the fact remains, Trent Dilfer may be the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl as a starter.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 09:53 PM
Cannibal, I would think you're intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between "supporting Peterson" and "not supporting Marty."

I don't like Marty. I never have and I doubt I ever will (especially now that he coaches a team I hate as much I hate as the Raiders). That's just the way it is. My opinion of Marty should in no way be construed as support of CP.

Answer me this:

I don't like Marty. Who hired Marty?

I think Gunther was a mistake. Who hired him?

We're eating 19 million in dead cap money. Whose fault is that?

I could give you plenty of other reasons I don't like Peterson, too, but that's not what we were talking about, or rather, that's not what I was talking about...

The Bad Guy
06-28-2001, 10:13 PM
I'll chime in with my .02 on Peterson.

I have never ever liked the guy. However, he has made two wise decisions in the last 4 years.

One was drafting Tony Gonzalez.'

The other was hiring Dick Vermeil.

You can clearly see a changing of the guard with all the personnel, and roster moves that Vermeil is calling the shots.

Without Dick Vermeil, CP never ever cuts McGlockton, Grbac and Hasty all in the same offseason. He would have continued to put off the cap troubles until the last possible minute.

CP has a major problem of admitting he was wrong on players. But with DV, we have suffered the salary cap blow and still obtained some pretty good players this offseason.

There has been a changing of the guard at One Arrowhead Drive this offseason. And for the sake of all Chief fans, this is a great thing.

For 10 years, Peterson never took a backseat to Marty in any decision. However, in just 6 months, Vermeil has got CP signing a different tune.

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 10:20 PM
Absolutely Frank.

And the moves this offseason have freed up 7 million against next year's cap, which might just be enough to allow us to make a serious move or two next year, not the least of which would be (fingers crossed) signing Gonzo to an extension if we can.

Hopefully we'll be getting that running back we all seem to want, too, in the event that nobody steps up this year (which is possible). Next year is also said to be a prime year for quarterbacks in the draft. You never know...

Chiefs Pantalones
06-28-2001, 10:26 PM
IMO, the Ravens got away with murder last year (lol, not like that:D ) I mean, not to take anything away from them, but they will not do that again. No team will make it the Super Bowl with a below average QB and win. Trent Dilfer can think the D of B-more for that one. But it will not happen again. Teams around the league have made adjustments and will not be surprised by the Ravens D. Thats one reason why they will not repeat. Adjustments. And I think the Ravens made a big mistake in getting Grbac (30 mil down the drain, just watch).


thinks every year is different...one year its the O, the next its the D, but the next "DYNASTY" team will be dominant on both sides of the ball, not just one. (and special teams)

keg in kc
06-28-2001, 10:34 PM
I agree completely, Cody, and I'm hoping we're the team that can find a way to put that together in a year or two.

I don't think, however, Baltimore will have as tough a time repeating as you seem to, though (I'm not saying they'll do it, just that I believe they can do it). I think Billick will not have the same offensive style again, and they'll be aggressive on both sides of the ball. Grbac is clearly an upgrade from Dilfer and they have some good personnel on offense around him, both at receiver and TE as well as at RB.

Repeating is a tough task though. I think (like every year it seems) that Tennessee is a real contender (although McNair is holding that team back IMO), and so are several other AFC teams, and then there's the NFC.

Heck, with free agency, we may never see a dynasty again...

Dave Lane
06-28-2001, 10:36 PM

Marty called a lot more shots than you seem to think.

"How anyone can expect ANY coach to win a Superbowl w/ Gregg Hill, Steve Bono and Lin Elliot is beyond me!"

I know for a FACT Hill was Marty's choice. CP asked Marty who he wanted Hill or some other running back (probably Terrell Davis) and Marty said I want Hill. CP gave him final say on almost every personnel decision while he was here. CP just made his greatest move IMHO hiring DV. Naysayers can clip this quote for another day (or year or two) but you are wrong DV is going to be an excellent hire.

How about Gunther hiring the one kicker because he had short sleeves (and an odd ability to kick the ball out of bounds) :( You think CP would have made the decision based on that? Then again what normal person would have?

Chiefs Pantalones
06-28-2001, 11:05 PM
I agree, Kyle, we may not see it again because of free agency, but hopefully, the team (if there is) is the Chiefs!


is waiting:D

Chiefs Pantalones
06-28-2001, 11:10 PM
Dave Lane,

The two RBs they were deciding on were Greg Hill and Mario Bates (who I think is out of the league now as well as GH) Mario Bates first played for NO, and some other team but I think he's out of the league now.


not very good RB scouting if you ask me

06-29-2001, 07:14 AM

You lose almost all credibility when you suggest that Marty wanted Greg Hill and Carl wanted Terrell Davis. Hill was a first round pick and Davis went in the 7th round. I doubt that either of them had ever heard of Terrell Davis.

Peterson has final say in personnel decisions. If he doesnt, then what the hell does he get paid for?? Sure he has made some good ones: DT, Gonzo, Szott, Shields, Carter, Anders, Marty, but man has he had some awful ones: Trezelle Jenkins, Gunter Cunningham, Bono, Victor Bailey, Blundin, Perriman, McGlockton, Dan Williams (decision to resign after holdout), Greg Hill, Harvey Williams, Carlton Gray, Lew Bush, Brenston Buckner, Bam Morris, ect. I could name another 20. You get the idea.

Cannibal is correct. As long as Peterson is here, dont expect much in the post season. As I have said, goal #1 is to fill the seats. That means build your team for right now with capable castoffs that are just good enough to win 9 games. Thats the junk that floats in the free agent pool. Carl lives and dies with free agency. Teams that do that dont get very far. The Chiefs have proven that with no playoff wins in 8 years. Only the Bengals, Seahawks, and Bears have a longer streak.


06-29-2001, 07:24 AM
Damn, I thought Kent was going to say something original.

06-29-2001, 08:48 AM
I agree that Peterson is primarily to blame. The difference between then and now, however, is clear.

Marty and Gunther were EMPLOYEES of Carl Peterson, and had never worked with him before.

This is the FIRST time in 4 times of working together that CP is Dick Vermeil's boss. Not only that, but they are close friends.

I think it's obvious that DV is making alot more decisions than Carl ever let Marty or Gun make...

06-29-2001, 10:00 AM
There was an article in the star in which Peterson stated that his job was always and still remains that he looks at free agents, and the draft and prepares a final roster for the head coach. And that it then the coach's responsibility to prepare games plans with the roster Peterson has assembled.

I wish I had saved that article. I have quoted from it before.

That fact remains that we have now had three different head coaches here. But we still have had the same problem. No superstars at the skill positions. The vast majority of championships are won with a couple of franchise offensive players at the skill positions.

We still have no franchise RB, no franchise QB and no franchise WR.

We now have some pretty good players. I like DA. Green *might* end up being what we need. Holmes has never been a true feature back, and most don't think he can.

But are these players really going to win a championship? I don't think it's very likely. Although I hope I'm wrong.

Peterson's problem is that he doesn't want to spend the money where it counts. In order to get a franchise RB, WR and QB you have to set a aside a very large portion of your salary cap toward those positions. Peterson seems to think that you can get by with mediocre players at those important positions and not have to pay them as much. Lets face it, whether we like it or not, we've always had very mediocre talent on the offensive side of the ball. Until Peterson leaves, I don't expect that to change.

06-29-2001, 10:08 AM
Another problem of his is that we ALWAYS seem to have major holes on the roster.

He's never fielded a complete team since he's been here.

We've always needed those skill players like I mentioned, but when we fill one hole on the team, another one always pops up at another position. I think this problem stems from his mismanagement of the salary cap.

It's easy to blame players and coaches no longer here, but the one constant has always been Peterson and we still have the same problems.

As long as Peterson stays, we'll never have a shot at a championship.

06-29-2001, 10:12 AM
So basically what I'm saying is, blame it on Marty all you want if it makes you feel better.

But if it was Marty's fault, why has nothing changed? We still have the same problems we did before.

Clint in Wichita
06-29-2001, 10:25 AM
Actually, it's worse now, and that's the most convincing evidence that Marty wasn't the problem. It was and is Carl "Fuggin A" Peterson.

06-29-2001, 10:52 AM
I think that we do have good offensive talent right now. If Greene holds up his in of the deal we should have a good offense this year. If Morris hadn't gotten hurt although thin we would have three legitimate recieving weapons. We don't have a Marshall Faulk but the combo of TRich and Holmes could be pretty good. Besides that we have a couple of good young tackles in Taite and Riley. People can ***** and moan about Peterson all they want but if you look around the league how many teams have great players on both sides of the ball? Not many. Ya know why? Because it's just not as easy to come up with personnel as some people act like. Sitting in front of your PC the answers seem so clear but in reality they are not. In my opinion our biggest weakness throughout the '90s was WR. We could always run the ball but we couldn't pass to save our ***. Except for '93 when Joe lead us to the AFC Chamionship game. If our D comes round we will win more games then people think in 2001.

PhilFree :cool:

06-29-2001, 11:07 AM
Nothing changed until this offseason. There was no change after Marty left because his staff was still in place and one of those staff members took Marty's place at HC. I will give Marty credit that he's better than Gunther, but that's not saying much.

I dont think things are worse now, we've completely replaced the entire staff, have rid ourselves of cap problem children and seem to be headed in the right direction.

I blame Marty for taking a team twice to a 13-3 record and then completely changing the playbook and going away from what got him there in the first place. You dont go 13-3 in the regular season and then look like the keystone kops in the post season just because of the talent level.

06-29-2001, 11:10 AM
The answers ARE VERY CLEAR!

He's had 12 fuggin years to get it done on the offensive side of the ball at the 3 most important positions.

How many years does he need?

20? 30?

I'd bet he needs more than that.

Titus' signature says it all. Only it's not just the RB position.

06-29-2001, 11:13 AM
It must be nice to be a genius, Cannibal :D

06-29-2001, 02:07 PM

I would agree with you except for one thing - we haven't played ONE DOWN with Vermeil, Green, or Holmes. Why don't you wait until we play a couple of games before you wave your heavy hand?

If, after a couple of games, it proves to be more of the same, kudos to you. But I think this season is going to be different. Who knows, maybe Lamar has something to do with Carl giving DV some say-so.

06-29-2001, 03:34 PM
Besides filling the seats and having mediocre personel every single year, another thing Carl is very good at is constant change and spinning it to the less sophisticated football fans as "continuous improvement".

For example, after Marty left, Carl gushed over Gunter Cunningham and how his passion, dicipline and knowledge would take the Chiefs to the next step. Many fans bought into that. After the Chiefs signed Bam Morris to a long term deal a few years ago, Carl bragged about it in the season ticket letter. Now with Vermeil, he selling another bag of crap to Chief fans.

What many Chief fans dont understand or dont want to believe is that it takes talent to win playoff games in the NFL. Coaching can only do so much. I think Marty was a great coach and Vermeil is one of the better ones, but I just dont see the Chiefs winning with the marginal talent thats on the roster.

And Canninbal is right. Carl hasnt filled the QB, WR or RB position with quality in his entire tenure. And Carl has only 3 playoff wins in 12 years. That kind of record gets you fired anywhere else in the league. Maybe he has Lamarr Hunt snowed too.

06-29-2001, 03:38 PM

What the hell was the "less sophisticated fans" crap? If that was directed at me, well...

suck my dick *******...

I can listen to your anti-Carl crap all day, but if you want to insult my intelligence bring it on...I'd really hate to have to embarrass you...

06-29-2001, 03:42 PM
Another good point - when was the last time the Chiefs developed a young QB?

I'm showing my ignorance here but when was the last time the Chiefs drafted a starting QB?

I can't believe no one but me (at least not verbally expressing it)is pissed off that all 3 of our QBs are 30 somthing. Where the future? The next Chiefs QB for when Green retires or gets hurt?

I'll tell ya where, backing up some other freaking team, under some other offensive system getting in sync with other recievers.

I think I'll change my signature right now.

I'll ignore the "less sophisticated" remark for now peckerfan.

06-29-2001, 04:00 PM
"less sophisticated" is a polite way of saying "dumb fan". That doesnt apply to all Chief fans, but a good many of them, IMO. Dont worry Htsmque, when I think of "less sophisticated" chief fans, I am not thinking of you.

Theres a difference between optimism and ignorance.

06-29-2001, 04:42 PM
A good QB will play to 37 or 38 so if Green works out we may be set for 7-8 years. QBs typically take 3-4 years to mature so the majority of QBs do not start playing regularly until 27 or 28. That would mean our QB is a couple of years into his starting years.

There are of course exceptions who have done well but they come as 1st through 10th picks of the first round generally, the Chiefs have not had one of those in the last 12 years so why all the pissing and moaning.

Packfan do not bother to respond I have you banned so I will not even see your response.

By the way Otter the answer to your question is never, not once in their 41 year history.

06-29-2001, 05:18 PM

Thanks for the clarification on my question.

As far as 1st through 10th round picks?!?! I can name a whole long list of starting QBs who were drafted in later rounds. Joe Montana, Elvis Grbac and Trent Green are three of them. I know you are a smart man buy your wrong in that statement.

I think its asinine not to have a developmental QB back there right now. We have all these brilliant offensive minds in arrowhead to teach a young QB and we are not taking advantage of it. Besides that, your assuming Green is going to hold up both physically and mentally for that duration. Never assume.

Why have Collins who back there at #3 when a young gun could be in the works? It doesn’t make sense to me. If it makes sense to you, I’d love to hear your logic. No pun intended. :D

keg in kc
06-29-2001, 06:03 PM
I'm optimistic, and I'll explain why.

#1: There were no top tier QBs in the 2001 draft after (both arguably) Vick and Brees. The only QB we were interested in, McMahon, was taken a single pick before we were going to select him in the fifth round, which lead to us grabbing Derrick Blaylock. We did pick up undrafted FA QB Ryan Helming (23 y.o.) from Northern Iowa following the conclusion of the draft as well as 26 year old FA Gus Ornstein, so there is some youth on the roster, although I have no idea what the odds of either player making the roster would be. Some people think Helming has upside, but that remains to be seen. There were no top-tier FA QBs available, unless you consider Brad Johnson as such.

#2: The 2001 draft was also weak at the RB position, without, arguably, a single "franchise" calibre player. Ironically, it may turn out that we drafted a player in the fifth (Blaylock) who is virtually as good as what we could have taken in the mid to late first (Bennett - although I believe he'll have good numbers as the starter in Minny, merely by virtue of touches). That's just my opinion, of course, so it's completely subjective. That said, I also believe there was limited talent available in free agency, as well. Holmes was clearly the most economical player available, and when you're eating 19 million in dead cap value, that's what you have to look for. Dillon was simply way, way, way out of our price range, and I argue that Garner signed in Oakland for a significantly lower number than he would have asked of us (although his contract is still a great deal more expensive than Holmes).

#3: Although this is an early projection, the 2002 draft may contain one of the strongest classes of QBs in some time, both in terms of talent and in terms of depth. The 2002 draft is also strong in the running back position. Barring a trade, we will have a full salvo of picks to use in that draft. Furthermore, instead of spreading the "pain" so to speak, we cut our FA losses this season. Because of that we have already cleared 7 million dollars off of next year's cap which should aid us somewhat in the acquisition of more higher-tier talent, be it through trade or through free agency.

Now, Carl Peterson has made some completely idiotic moves in the past. That's beyond question in my opinion, and the position we find ourselves in at this point is clearly one of his own making; the cap has been handled poorly and we're paying for that now.

However, that said, I'm judging this year on what we've done this year, and I'm quite content with the majority of the moves we've made, and, frankly, they're virtually the same moves I would have made:

#1: Once again, we've eaten the dead cap money now, leaving us free to make moves in 2002.
#2: We got Trent Green and we payed significantly less than the ridiculous asking price.
#3: We got Priest Holmes, clearly a stopgap (IMHO) but an upgrade in any event.
#4: We picked up a young, athletic center.
#4: We picked up the best (arguably) kick returner in the NFL.
#5: We took care of the punting situation. Finally.
#6: We brought in a good young kicker to compete with Peterson
#7: We've begun bringing in talented players, instead of bringing in underdogs.

Now, two moves I despise:

#1: Signing Crockett
#2: Signing Brister

We'll see what happens with those two.

And, finally, this is what I want to see in 2002:

#1: Acquire a young QB (draft) and a stud RB (draft or FA).
#2: Address the defense, pending this year's performance (i.e. LB and CB).
#3: Pending Morris' recovery (as well as the performance of Klemic and Ricky Hall), address the WR position.

Honestly, I think we're close. Regardless of what peckerfan thinks, there is talent on this roster, and we've even begun to build some depth. All-in-all, looking at this from the standpoint of Vermeil having 3 years, and only 3 years, I think we've made a very good start. Other people want immediate results, and I understand and respect that, but the fact of the matter is that the first thing we had to do was clean out the house and fix the foundation. And we did just that.

Back in February, I thought this was going to be the worst offseason I've ever seen. We were 31 million over the cap and I didn't know what the hell was going to happen. My grade for Peterson at that point was a "G" (because an "F" ain't bad enough). But he surprised me. He let people go. Hasty? Gone. Chester the Digester? Gone. Kimble? Gone. Donnell? Gone (thank the maker!). Then he went out and got the players the coaching staff seemed to want; Green, Holmes, Horne, Stryzinski, et al. We have the players here that Vermeil wants to have here, no question (although I'm sure he'd like some of the players we've all wanted too, but the reality of the cap situation...). I'd give a "B+" (edit: I said "A" originally, but then I remembered Brister and Crockett...) for what has been done this offseason. I honestly believe we've made the best of a horrible situation, and I don't think the team is much, if any, worse than it was a year ago at this point. Does that excuse Carl getting us into the situation in the first place? No! But I'm giving credit where I believe it's due...

I think things are falling into place now, something I never thought in either '99 or '00. I see a plan and I see some logic behind the moves we've made. Does that mean I think we're contenders?


But, if we continue to make the right moves next offseason and add to what was begun this year, we will be. Mark my words.

Finally, I should say that, by nature, I am not an optimistic person by any stretch of the imagination, but I do see the glass as half full right now. I may be wrong (I usually am...) but I see what I see.

06-29-2001, 06:28 PM
Exellent post as usual Keg, but I question this:

Does that excuse Carl getting us into the situation in the first place? No! But I'm giving credit where I believe it's due...

Who is to credit, Karl or Dick Vermeil?

I guess I'm asking do you think these same moves would have been made under CP's managment?

06-29-2001, 06:45 PM
Carl has made some blunders, but he has the longest tenure of any NFL GM if I am not mistaken. He has a win %of over 60% (how many GMs can say that?) and neither Carl nor Marty nor Gunther missed those FGs in '95, '97, and '99.

If he hadn't lunged at DV, we would have Grbac and Deuce McAllister now as someone else shrewdly suggested.

The Chiefs will probably shock the drawers off of the league this year with a 2-TE offense that features high % passing and Tony Richardson rushing and receiving for 1,500 yds (don't scoff; he got 1,165 in '00).

A lot depends on parity, scheduling, and who the big disappointment/surprises are this year (who picked the Gaints and Ravens? Huh? I DID pick the Ravens and Gaints to advance, but had no idea they would play in the SB).

Vermiel, Robinson and Saunders will have to deal with their share of shanked punts, dropped balls, missed tackles and botched FGs just like Marty, Gun and every other coach out there.


keg in kc
06-29-2001, 06:53 PM
Otter, in my opinion, it's a combination of both. Peterson is still "in power" as it were, so although I believe these moves are ones dictated by DV, the fact is that he's letting DV make them, and in fact getting exactly who the coach seems to want. It's not exactly related, but I wholeheartedly believe he also let Gunther give serious imput into the moves as well, before the '99 and '00 seasons. I'm beginning to think the "King Carl" days are really over. I also believe he'll be leaving when Dick Vermeil leaves, but that's another issue altogether.

Like I said before, I think both Marty and Carl are accountable for both the success and the failure of the '90's, which is where this argument headed, and, similarly, he and Vermeil will both be accountable for the success and/or failure from this point onward.

And, also like I said before, don't mistake me saying any of this as me being a Peterson supporter or fan. This is the first offseason where I think the moves are sensible and I understand and agree with what has gone on. I see a lot of people complaining but rarely does anyone voice a valid and realistic opinion or suggestion regarding what we could or should have done. In other words, if someone doesn't like the QB and/or RB situation (among others), then please, by all means, show me a valid and realistic solution that would have both significantly improved the position/team and not put us over the salary cap. The only moves I could see doing that are different than what we actually made involve either inferior or similar players, or players we simply could not afford.

Peterson certainly deserves criticism for getting the team into the cap woes to start with. What he does not deserve, however, in my humble opinion, is criticism for what he's had to do to resolve those cap woes this offseason. I believe we're in a better position now than we expected when the 2000 season finished, and I'm not sure what else we should expect or require of him...

Actually, in all honestly, I'd rather hold this discussion by talking about "the Chiefs" and not about "Carl Peterson".

06-29-2001, 07:10 PM
What he said!

06-29-2001, 08:12 PM
There is no question that CP has had the final say in acquiring personnel, but when Marty came here from Cleveland, he brought some Browns with him.

I suppose that could just have been coincidence (sic), but that would imply to me that Marty had some input, and that CP actually tried to acquire the players that Marty wanted.

But when it came time to put game plans in place, Only Marty and his coaching staff can bear the blame.

Marty never took any risk on offense in the playoffs. When the Chiefs got within FG range, he refused to take shots at scoring the TD, but settled for the FG attempt.

He may not be the guy that missed the FGs, but he was responsible for the failure to score.

07-01-2001, 02:27 PM
Nearly 2,000 hits.

trying not to notice...

Skip Towne
07-01-2001, 04:17 PM
Looks like KCJ pimping his ownthread to keep it from falling off the board.

07-02-2001, 12:13 PM
"the Chiefs stormed all the way to the AFC Championshiop game " and what happened after that? got crushed by the Bills and didn't win a single playoff game since then. Get real Johnny Boy