View Full Version : Al Saunders for HC

07-06-2001, 09:04 AM
Let me pose a question.
In retrospect, why didnt King Carl just hire Al Saunders as Head Coach instead of DV? that way you get the guy truly reponsible for St Loo's offensive success, a guy with KC roots without losing a 2nd round pick. And St Louis wouldnt be negotiating for green with nearly as big of a chip on their shoulder. How long is DV going to coach anyway? And when he does step down, wont Saunders step up? Why not skip the middle step and go straight to the heir apparent?
Did Carl let his personal relationship get in the way of what was best for the Chiefs?

07-06-2001, 09:08 AM
Saunders is a lock for our next HC. DV and Peterson go WAAAAAYYY back. Vermeil wasn't ready to call it quits and Peterson always wanted him in KC (DV was his frist choice - Marty was his second).

Dick will coach for three years tops (at least, that's the over...)

07-06-2001, 09:11 AM
I think it's pretty simple. DV has caoched two teams to the Superbowl. Al Saunders has not. The Rams even with their mighty offense lost in the 1st round of the playoffs when DV was retired. DVs the glues that holds it all together. His coaching philosophy's are the difference. See! Simple.

PhilFree :cool:
Not to mention that Carl really does think DV is the best coach in the NFL at this time. I think he really believes this.

07-06-2001, 09:27 AM
I agree with #7.

I wanted Saunders for our HC. I hate that we gave up our 2nd Round pick for Vermeil [Tagliabue sucks] knowing full well that he will leave in a few years.

But I can see why Carl did it. We had just endured two years of total embarrassment at the hands of Gunther and his Stooges. Carl needed Vermeil's Super Bowl champion cachet to rinse the Stooge stench out of the air, attract quality Coordinators to KC and pump up the fans.

And it worked. The R&G fan base is invigorated again.

I disagree with the decision. I think Vermeil cost way too much. But I cannot fault the result.

Gonna miss those draft picks.

07-06-2001, 10:10 AM
The reason we hired Vermiel is simple: He brings instant credibility with his program, and he is able to lay a foundation for the future success of the organization. The on field stuff is probably less of a factor than the overall organizational stuff that Vermiel brings in regards to why hire him over someone else. As far as Saunders, he isn't a lock as next head coach. He may suck as an OC, and prove to be nothing more than a very good WR coach. We will find out over the next two seasons. Carl did not want to make another Gunther hire, even though Al has a few years under his belt as San Diego's HC. He needs to prove himself all over again...

07-06-2001, 10:29 AM
All the instant credibility aside, I think DV is obviously a short term (2-3 year) hire. Bringing in Saunders instead would offer some stability to a team that's been sorely lacking it for the last 4-5 years. When DV steps down, whoever replaces them will put in their people and their system, however similar it is to DV's. I just think the situation called for someone who could add a long term vision to the equation. And will Carl and Lamar be patient enough to sit through back-to-back 5-11 seasons in order to rebuild the team like Georgia Frontiere did if necessary? Will the fans be patient enough?

07-06-2001, 12:33 PM
As I mentioned on the other BB some time ago...perception plays as much a part in today's NFL as does actual coaching ability,
and Vermeil brings both. Vermeil's hiring was an important PR move to the future credibility of this franchise in the eyes of the media (always looking for a new bandwagon to jump on) and to the players, present and future. Future big name free agents and hot-shot rookies alike, will now take a hard look at the Chiefs, whereas before they might not have. I like the Vermeil/Saunders tandem, because it solidifies the foundation of this team for years to come. Don't be suprised if in the next couple of years, there's a sudden influx of interest to play in KC,
and we'll all be the benefactors of that talent pool heading here. IMO, it's about time this organization once again stepped up to the NFL elite, and was noticed for it.

07-06-2001, 12:40 PM
In Carl's mind, I don't think he feels that this team is too far away, thus the Vermiel thing. He's not among the top 3 highest paid coaches in the league or something like that to go 5-11...

07-06-2001, 12:44 PM
You're right Wolf. Once Carl gets his books in order (signing a punter for a mill-per doesn't cut it, however), and the system and coaches are sync...the Chiefs will thrive.

07-06-2001, 01:20 PM
The problem with Carl is that he's never thought his team is too far away.
And I disagree about drawing free agents to KC. Almost all of the talent in St Louis was either homegrown (Bruce) or acquired via trade (Faulk). Although he has changed since, Vermeil was infamous for his back-breaking practices which nearly caused a player revolt his second year. And even if his personality/credibility was a draw for free agents, who is going to sign on to the program knowing its going to last 3 years max? With Saunders as the head man, at least you could draw top-shelf offensive players who thought they could inflate their stats in his offense, however flawed that logic might be. And FA's would know that as long as the team was successful, Saunders would be The Man.
In order for the Chiefs to contend in the next 2 years, they will have to upgrade considerably just to keep up with the changes being made in Seattle and Denver and they simply dont have the cap room to do it. At least if they would have had a #1 (by taking Dilfer/Flutie/Gus/Kitna/Beurlein instead of Green) and #2 pick this year, they could have built a foundation for the future. There is no way that Priest Holmes is the long term answer at running back. Shields and Tate cant block everyone by themselves. Last years draft will help but that needed to be built upon.

07-06-2001, 01:32 PM
Not the immediate future, but the future does look bright.

Holmgren will be working his magic against the Lambs and the Cardinals next year, not in the AFC....

Oakland/LA/Wherever they are this week Raiders are old, very old. 2 years tops before they slide back down the ladder...

Denver is probably the most often banged up group of talent I've ever seen. Depending on the health of Griese/TD/Gary/offensive line they could go 12-4 or 4-12....Remember the Broncos/Jets of two years ago?

The Chargers will be good. They will. Big hurdle.

That's it....Raiders are old, Denver could dominate either the playoffs or the ER, and the Chargers still have the stink of failure on them. Anyone could take the division this year...All it will take is one team getting some early breaks, some confidence, and good luck with injuries!


Skip Towne
07-06-2001, 02:01 PM
#7 - To answer your original question, DV & CP did not think we would owe any compensation to the Rams. I didn't either (thanks Tagliabue). Also, you are correct that Saunders did a fine job as OC for the Rams. But hhis record as a HC is still suspect. I think of the coaching hierarchy of a pro football team a s very much the same as upper managemenof corporation. The HC is the President and is responsible for the overall success of the company (team).The OC & DC are executive vice presidents in charge of the overall performance of their area of specialization. ( Offense or defense). The position coaches are the middle managers who work with an even more specialized group of people. The armed forces are structured in much the same way. A good pilot doesn't necessarily make a good General. A good OC doesn't necessarily make a good HC. The responsibilities are quite different. See "The Peter Principle". I think this will turn out to please most of us.

07-06-2001, 02:05 PM
You wouldnt waste a 2nd round draft pick on a player who you knew would only be with your team for 2 years, so why would you do the same thing with a coach?

07-06-2001, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE

Oakland/LA/Wherever they are this week Raiders are old, very old. 2 years tops before they slide back down the ladder...

See now BC, usually I let this sort of statement slide as I realize this is a Chief's board and you've all got those red and yellow colored scuba masks on real tight (to go along with the mullet doo =P)..

But this time I feel the need to don the Silver and Black bat and come correct...

Our old players:

Gannon--- We drafted Tuiasosopo in anticipation of Gannon hanging them up in a couple....

Wiszneiski--- we signed a 25 year old, 4 year vet starter from Tampa (Frank Middleton) to succeed him.... Our next oldest starter on the O-Line is 30.

Brown/Rice--- Porter and Rambo waiting in the wings....

Trace Armstrong--- One of the reasons we signed him was none of our main guys at D-line were over 26... plus we drafted DeLawrence Grant....

Eric Allen--- Tory James is aready pushing him for the starting position....

Useless Pope--- Drafted Gibson to take his spot (also watch for Ray Perryman, the guys gong to be a player, mark my words)

Wheatley/Garner/Ritchie--- all under the age of 30...

Willie Thomas--- Eric Barton lost his position to WT due to injury, he's ready to start.... I'll give you Biekart, we have no replacement in sight..

I think Grudens done a good job planning for the future.... Unless for some reason we're not allowed to participate in free agency... or we do something retarded like give up our draft for a coach or bury ourselves with Cap mismanagement.... I see no reason why this team won't stay competitive for years to come.....

The "old" stuff doesn't fly IMO.... you guys should stick to the tried and true "Noodle arm got lucky last year".... one of these years you may actually be right
:D ......

The Bad Guy
07-06-2001, 02:25 PM
The second rounder that you would pick isn't NFL tested, and you don't know how he would adapt to the pro game.

Vermeil has been to two Super Bowls, and has won one.

How many perspective second round picks can say that?

That is why you give up the second rounder for a coach like Vermeil.

We gave up a second round pick for a great head coach and a great football staff.

Their influence could be the difference in 3-4 wins during the season. No second round pick would have the same impact.

keg in kc
07-06-2001, 02:26 PM
Simple answer to the original question, Craig, I think:

When DV leaves, CP is leaving with him. That's really what I think is going to happen. What that will do with the coaching staff, I have no idea, but whether we get a Super Bowl or not from this, I honestly believe Carl and Dick will be walking away from the NFL hand-in-hand. This is Carl's last gasp, I guess, and he was willing to give up compensation for it (he said after the ruling he was willing to give up two 2nds for him, but that was probably PR bs...).

I didn't like it, personally, and thought our draft was hurt by it, but having the coach here will have a positive influence on the organization. Is it worth a 2nd and a 3rd?

Time will tell...

For the record, I was rooting for Marvin Lewis.

Concerning your "vision" for building a foundation, I see flaws in your logic.

1) They began to build for the future this year, just not the way you suggested. They got the quarterback they wanted and he should have at least 5 years in him, giving us time to "groom" someone they bring in next year (if Helming doesn't fit the bill), whereas the guys you mentioned were all temporary fixes, at best, and nobody in the draft was worth a nod (IMHO). We wanted Mike McMahon, but missed him by a pick, apparently.

2) We didn't have the cap room this season to move in free agency, but we took all the pain now, and we should have the finances next season to make moves, as well as re-sign Gonzalez with the 7+ million we freed up for 2002 with this offseason's moves.

3) Priest Holmes isn't the long-term answer, but it was a weak RB class in the draft and we couldn't afford Garner or Dillon. Holmes was cheap and can do the job and it was probably the best move available to us.

4) Riley, Shields, Tait and Wiegmann will be a very good line, probably improved from last year (run blocking!) with either Spears or Willis taking the guard spot opposite of Shields. I predict that by 2002, if not midseason 2001, you'll be seeing draft pick Alex Sulfsted in the rotation. Our line is young and athletic, and should be together for years.

Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say, and the same is true for this rebuilding of the KC team. We were in horrible cap distress, and that really killed any chance at making much in the way of offseason moves. We were able to remove the 30 million we had over the cap, but we still had to deal with 19 million in dead cap money (thanks CP...) and that just doesn't leave a team with any "wiggle room." They did what they could, and from where I'm sitting, we don't have a whole lot of moves to make in 2002 before this team is a legitimate contender. We'll need to address the RB situation and get a young QBotF. We may need a WR (or not, hard to tell right now) and we may need a DT. LB will be a concern when Marvcus Patton leaves. And CB may (or may not, who knows) be an issue. But it's not like this team will have to add 20 free agents next season to compete. A piece here and a piece there and we'll be contending.

Last year we were an 11-5 team coached down to 7-9 and the talent on the roster has not dropped-off much, if at all. This is still a talented team, and, as I just said, only a piece or two of the puzzle is missing.

07-06-2001, 02:58 PM
Does anybody remember Saunders record as head coach of the Chargers? I do remember he was fired for not winning enough games.... On the other hand DV has been to the SB with both teams he coached, and won one of them. 'nuff said.

keg in kc
07-06-2001, 03:15 PM
He was 17-22 as HC at San Diego. 'course he was "lucky" enough to come right in the middle of a decade where they only won 8 games in a season twice...

07-06-2001, 03:31 PM
You have no one proven behind Gannon, and while Tui might be good, he might not. And anytime you lose Tim Brown, you're going to have a drop off. Porter has yet to prove he has anything but potentual, although "reports" are that his showing is the reason Rison is still out of a job, and Rambo did slip to the 7th for a reason. He has to prove he has the will and desire to want to succeed. As far as Garner and Wheatley, in 2 years Garner's salary shoots up, and it'll be interesting to see at that point whether they're both still happy sharing the load, or if egos take over. And of course it remains to be seen if Alice will do the right thing and take care of Gruden, or if he's gone to become one of the highest paid coaches with total authority in another two years...

07-06-2001, 05:18 PM

How many teams have two "proven" QB's.. a 1 and 1A so to speak?... Even Denver's trumpeted duo comes with question marks..

Of course replacing a Timmy Brown doesn't come easily... I'm hoping Porter is to Brown as Terrill Owens was to Rice when many were questioning how was SF going to replace Rice a few years back....

Garners contract is basically two years, we both know that.... if appropriate his contract can be redone at the time....

My point was we've made provisions to replace our "old" guys.... Nothing is for certain, but at least we've earmarked quality players (IMO) to be ready for the impending change over in a few years....

As far as the statement in question, this being an "old, very old" team... your proximity to Raiderland should at least make you aware of the roster enough to realize that is not an entirely true statement.....

Just my opinion but I like the moves we've made anticipating turnover... What else can you expect your team to do?

07-06-2001, 05:27 PM
No, I do understand the Raiders are not an "old" team, especially on D. However, their key players are old on offense, and there is bound to be a drop off unless some of these young guys are just fabulous. For example, I don't put as much stock as some do in Tui at the NFL level, but he could surprise me and be a stud as some people think, and you guys don't suffer. Or Porter might live up to his potentual and become a good WR and that blow is lessened. Or you might sign a free agent in the near future to replace one of these guys. The Raiders are probably bound for a dropoff, but over the next few years, depending on how these guys come along, we'll see if it's a big dropoff or not much of one...

07-06-2001, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by HC_Chief
Dick will coach for three years tops (at least, that's the over...)

I'm definitely taking the under.

As for DV being a short term solution, that is CP's MO.
Need a QB, trade for Montana. Need a RB sign Marcus.
Need a HC, give away draft picks for DV>

Man, I wanted a new GM (Jeff Diamond) and a different new HC (Marvin Lewis)

Ah well, maybe CP finally got something right, although I still doubt it.

At least he did eject Goonther and the Stooges.

07-06-2001, 09:30 PM
DVs the glues that holds it all together. His coaching philosophy's are the difference.

IMO, People just don't give him the credit he deserves. This quote says alot. 2 to 3 years will be plenty of time for him to implement his attitude and passion for the game. It's what he's done everywhere he's Coached and he'll do it here. It becomes contagious and creates overachievers.

If there's one thing we've needed in our locker room and on the field is a refreshed attitude. Passion and a desire to win. A unified fight for a common goal and a willingness to leave it all on the field in the name of team...

... Brothers can I hear an AMEN from the cheap seats! :D

OK it sounds like preaching but IMHO it's true. Those of you who have spent time in the military know what I'm talking about.

IMO, DV was the right move and worth the picks and bringing SAUNDERS or a first year Coach [LEWIS] in as HC would have been a huge mistake and not what this team needs right now.

Skip Towne
07-06-2001, 09:46 PM
Milkman, et al, as I stated in post#11 of this thread, CP DIDN'T KNOW that DV would cost draft choices. Nobody did since it wasn't determined until later. Why do you guys keep hammering Carl for "wasting" draft choces?

07-06-2001, 11:39 PM
You're right. He didn't know, but once the Rams took the grievance to Tagliabue, CP said that if Tags awarded the Rams to much, we would not sign Vermeil.

He decided after Tags decision to give our 2nd this past draft and the 3rd we received from the Skins from next year's draft as part of the compensation for Marty, that the price was not to high.

I still vehemently disagree.

07-07-2001, 12:39 AM
dang guy, didn't mean ta' hit a nerve! :D

Tim Brown and Rich Gannon are what make your offense work when Wheatley isn't running the ball. And yes, he does do it well. But in my opinion anyway, Gannon and Gruden infused your team with the heart and never-say-die attitude that had been missing for a decade. Gruden is going nowhere, Tim Brown and Gannon are.

The heart of a team is as important as it's most talented players. Marty is gone, and so is the Chiefs dominance over the raiders. Smith, Thomas, Hasty, Marcus Allen, and others are all gone. They were at one time the heart of our team, and heart we DID miss last year. Not our talent, but our lack of heart got us THUMPED by the Raiders. It's all necessary to really have a team.

Green and Tuiossososopopos whatever are both unproven. Brown and Rice are old and near the retirement stage, and after them the depth is potential and only that.

DOn't think I'm predicting all roses for the Chiefs either, I'm not buying into the DV feel good tour. I'll give him two years to get our rears in the playoffs, then all bets are off. I'm not saying that the Chiefs are about to overtake the Raiders, just falling with them....

California Injun
07-07-2001, 12:41 AM

It will be a happy day in Chiefs land when Timmy Brown decides to hang up his cleats. The man has just killed the Chiefs.

Why the hell no one can stop his short crossing routes in beyond me.

What kills me even more is the 3rd down catches. Everyone in the world knows the Raiders are going to lob the ball to Brown.

In an organization of malcontents, Brown has remained above the fray. He became my semi-idol when he punked Grandpa Al for more cash after using the Broncos as bait a few years back.

07-07-2001, 01:04 AM

Believe me, the way you guys feel about Timmy hanging them up.... That how I felt about Hasty... HE KILLED US almost every year except last year... I guess he carried a grudge towards us for backing out of signing because he "wasn't fast enough".... Brown ending up in a Donx uni would have killed more than Marcus's defection....

Don't you live up Concord way?... We just scheduled a game in 2002 with the 115 wins in a row top dog De La Salle... They pulled out of a game a few years back so we shall see... I think they are from your neck of the woods...

07-07-2001, 01:10 AM
Beee Ceeee....

No biggie... It just seemed that every article I've read has led in with the statement "the old Raiders".... I guess people mean the trio of Gannon, Brown and now Rice... I just thought I'd throw my perspective on the matter out there for the record.... I'm actually quite happy with the off season moves for a change... Uhm, most people may remember my anti Rison bitching last offseason... I guess I was wrong... though I am glad he is not comin back.... This season, with the exception of passing up a couple of LB's I wanted in the draft... I'm content...

07-07-2001, 01:41 AM
I love smashmouth man, don't get me wrong, but if Gruden doesn't give Garner 1/2 the touches Wheatley gets he's insane.....That's an amazing 1-2 punch that did wonders for the Gmen, TB, and a one time for us....Garner is an underappreciated stud...

Now, I'd LOVE Gruden to play Wheatley most of the time. I'd also love him to make Rice the no 2 guy and only leave 5 men back to protect Gannon....:D

07-08-2001, 01:15 PM
The expectations are high with Vermiel;
the results could crush the fan base more than invigorate it. I hope that Vermiel succeeds by trying to win it all immediately and not rebuild.

It makes no sense to rebuild with a 64 yr old HC, without the two top draft choices, and with a 31 yr old career back up QB. Which is why I say, go for the title now.

Had a serious rebuild effort been considered/executed, it would have made all the sense in the world for Carl to hire Saunders outright. However, Carl's philosophy has always been that you don't need to move back to move forward, and I agree.

The Chiefs have the talent to be a 10-11 game winner (on paper). If Vermiel takes the approach he took in StL for his first two years (Rams went 9-23 during DV's first 2 campaigns) then there will be a lot of disappointment in KC. My gut feeling is that Vermiel is too old and the KC talent pool too rich for him to completely rebuild. I could be wrong. He has really done virually everything a HC can do to repudiate the former regime and institute a new offense, new defense, new QB, new STs, etc...

We'll see if the Chiefs have what it takes to coagulate into a cohesive unit with all the newness by opening day. The loss of vets like Grunhard, Anders and Hasty will cost something in the lockerroom.

Patiently awaiting the Saunders era...

07-09-2001, 12:16 PM

I don't think we will miss Hasty in the locker room, he was never really a team guy. Add to that the fact that we DON'T have Elvis anymore, and I think the overrall team morale should be improved...

07-10-2001, 08:19 PM
We are all speculating about locker room leadership. I am just going by what other players have said in print. Hasty was very well respected on the field and in the huddle. The secondary is is deep doo doo IMO and the departure of Hasty (while necessary for $ reasons) will hurt.
Likes CBs who can take away half the field

07-10-2001, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by KCJohnny
The expectations are high with Vermiel;
the results could crush the fan base more than invigorate it. I hope that Vermiel succeeds by trying to win it all immediately and not rebuild.

It makes no sense to rebuild with a 64 yr old HC, without the two top draft choices, and with a 31 yr old career back up QB. Which is why I say, go for the title now.

Had a serious rebuild effort been considered/executed, it would have made all the sense in the world for Carl to hire Saunders outright. However, Carl's philosophy has always been that you don't need to move back to move forward, and I agree.

Rebuilding is a product of poor salary cap management and talent selection. Which, and it surprises me to say this, Carl Peterson hasn't been horrible at. He has been adequate (at best).

I feel sorry for any fans who expect more than 8 wins out of this crew, given the schedule.

07-11-2001, 02:25 PM

We may have a couple of guys on this roster right now that can "take away one side of the field"...all it takes is knocking the receiver on his *** at the LOS...

Of course, we'd never know thanks to Squirt's soft zone...

07-11-2001, 02:56 PM
Since I'm seemingly on the negative side of debates most of the time, I feel compelled to chime in here.I get to take the positve side for a change.

I really believe that both Dennis and Bartee are very capable of becoming as solid a pair of corners as any tandem in the leauge.

The rare times that Dennis was allowed to line up in tight man to man last season, he did a fine job, jamming the receiver, knocking down passes thrown his way, and hitting the receiver hard enough to make him think.

Bartee had even fewer chances to show his game, but there were a couple of plays that he was able to dispaly the athleticism and physical qualities he brings to the position.

I think that the corner position is in capable hands for the next few years.