PDA

View Full Version : Gonzo Praises the team Gun built


KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 06:20 PM
Tony Gonzalez: With Coach Vermeil, we will be great! His reputation speaks for itself. The thing with him is that he has a team with a lot of veterans on it. He can come in and do what he needs. We were a good team the last two years and for some reason they decided to get rid of the coaching staff and bring him in. So he has a lot to work with.

Aha! Now this young football player is not a spinning sports pundit, but an actual NFL COMBATANT. And he says that Vermiel inherited a "good team" that gives him a "lot to work with."

Gee, funny how strange it sounds to hear an actual Kansas City Chief say what I have been maintaining all along.

Well, Coach Vermiel, I bet it feels great to inherit a good veteran team that gives you a lot to work with rather than a cellar dweller that wins 9 games over your first two years.

Bless you, Tony!

KCJ;)

RedandGold
07-13-2001, 06:30 PM
I'm sure that most of us will agree with Tony that the Chiefs have a solid core group of young talent. It was a shame that that group of players had to underachieve due to poor playcalling, clock management and defensive scheme under the previous coaching staff. After the way the team fell apart under Gunther, the coaching change should not have been a surprise to anyone.

If Gunther had a vision for this team that went beyond that of being "big", he might have been a decent head coach. Unfortunately, he bit off a little more than he could chew, and we finally have a true head coach again.

I'm not a big Marty fan, but at least the guy was head coaching material.

Warrior5
07-13-2001, 06:33 PM
I especially liked his last comment...

<B>"we're gonna shock the world!"</B>

The Bad Guy
07-13-2001, 06:40 PM
I figured you would leave an important quote out like this Proctor, so I decided to post it for you.

Question: What's the biggest difference between last year under Gunther, and this year under Vermeil?

Tony Gonzalez: They have totally different philosophies. Gunther was more strict, like a General. Dick is looser and lets you be more of an individual. You aren't dealing with as many rules and are in charge of being a professional yourself. He isn't as strict and expects at this level we can do things ourselves. I think that will give us better results.

The only thing that Gunther built was a feeling of mediocrity around Arrowhead.

Chiefless
07-13-2001, 07:10 PM
"With Coach Vermeil, we will be great!...We had a good team the last couple of years."

Hardly praise in my book...more like trying not to burn his bridges.

Tony's quote reads more like: "Gun was OK and I have nothing against him personally, but we will be much better under Vermeil."

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 07:58 PM
Uh, gee Frank...Tony notices they are different...and that is some kind of revelation for you? He praises the team Gun built, just admit it.

Of course, what would Tony Gonzales know about the Chiefs football team?

Warrior 5: Ditto!

KCJ

NaptownChief
07-13-2001, 08:01 PM
KCJ,

Why would he bad mouth Gun? He has no reason to burn bridges...But it is pretty clear that he thinks DV is a step up or else he wouldn't be saying things like :

"I think that will give us better results."

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:04 PM
80, you're really trying to put a nice spin on this and I admire your chutzpah. Look, if Gun is the incompetent boob that you guys make him out to be, Gonzo would be saying how great it is to have somebody that is so much better. And he is not only saying Saunders is the guy with something to prove here, he is actually saying that Raye set the bar and that the onus is on Saunders to meet it.

I love it!

KCJ
:p :D

KS Smitty
07-13-2001, 08:13 PM
You can spin it either way. When I was "watching it" it seemed more like Tony just didn't want to say anything bad about the former coaches, and he did give Jimmy Raye high marks but he also came across as very ready for a good season this year. Sounded a little wishy/washy although I agree with his shock the world comment, I am both homer and naive (or stupid) enough to think that we will be contending for no lower than #3 in our division.
Smitty

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:15 PM
SOMEBODY is being wishy-washy here, although I am not convinced that that is Tony Gonzales. I hear a whole lot of explaining what Tony MEANT as opposed to what Tony Said...

KCJ

RedandGold
07-13-2001, 08:19 PM
Tony is a class act and he isn't the type to be bad mouthing the coaching staff (past or present) in the media.

I'm sure that he liked Gunther as a person, and Jimmy Raye's one-dimensional playcalling did nothing but highlight his natural ability. He and Alexander did nothing but benefit from the previous regime while the team as a whole could not.

Jimmy Raye's overall offense got to be 5th in the league, but how was our rushing offense ranked? Elvis got 4,000 yards because we couldn't run the ball. Why? Poor personnel management and playcalling.

Since we're throwing around rakings, how did our defense stack up against the rest of the league? No one's in a hurry to bring that number up even though it's the main reason why the offense was ranked so high. Lord knows it wasn't because it was well balanced.

Tony is excited about the direction the team is taking, so there's no reason to spin it into him yearning for the days of Gunther and Company.

Jim Hunter
07-13-2001, 08:22 PM
I'm hoping that the good team DV "inherited" will improve rather than deteriorate as they appeared to do under Gun.

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:29 PM
Uh, excuse me R&G, I did not try to spin it as "him yearning for the days of Gunther and Company." I merely stated that Gonzo spoke highly of the team that Gun built, and for whatever reason, you guys HATE THAT.

What is SO HARD about just admitting that Tony thought highly of the Chiefs offense under Raye-Gun??? Compared to previous Chiefs offenses, the Gun/Raye offenses put up better #s than any Chiefs offenses since the 1960s, and were in the top 5 both years in red zone scoring % (including #1 in '99). I know it wasn't perfect, and I don't claim that it was. It's just so darned insincere for all of you to interpret Tony's remarks for him as though he doesn't know what he really means.

KCJ

The Bad Guy
07-13-2001, 08:39 PM
What is SO HARD about just admitting that Tony thought highly of the Chiefs offense under Raye-Gun???

What do you expect the player who caught 169 passes in his unbalanced offense to say?

Of course he thought highly of it. What do you expect him to be pist? He was the one benefitting from Raye's garbage style.

When you run the ball 4 times in one game, then I think your offense has serious problems. You can throw all your "5th offense in the league" BS out there at me, but the fact is that Raye couldn't gameplan to save his life. No balance. He was more predictable than any offense in the league.

Besides what do you expect him to say, screw off Raye?

Look at the records of the teams that Jimmy Raye has been the offensive coordinator on and you tell me how great he is.

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:39 PM
I'm hoping that the good team DV "inherited" will improve rather than deteriorate as they appeared to do under Gun.

-Jim Hunter

1998 Chiefs: 7-9
1999 Chiefs: 9-7
2000 Chiefs: 7-9

That is a net improvement of at least 1 game per year over the team he inherited. What ever it is, it is not deterioration. Of course I'm just dumb enough to believe people like Tony Gonzales who don't know what they are talking about.

KCJ

Clint in Wichita
07-13-2001, 08:41 PM
TG thinks the Chiefs were good the last 2 years?! Talk about easy to please!

Gonzo will have an orgasm at midfield if the Chiefs make the playoffs!

This kind of attitude concerns me. How hard is the team going to work at improving if they think they're already "good"? They should admit to themselves that they WEREN'T very good for the last THREE seasons, and that they need to work their arses off just to get back to the playoffs.

The Bad Guy
07-13-2001, 08:42 PM
Uh, gee Frank...Tony notices they are different...and that is some kind of revelation for you? He praises the team Gun built, just admit it.

Yeah, he says they are different and that he thinks the NEW way will work better.

His praise is for a head coach and an offensive coordinator that he had 169 catches for in a two year span.

The team that "Gun" built was .500, which is average. Is that something to praise? If it is, you need to raise your expectations.

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:43 PM
You can throw all your "5th offense in the league" BS out there at me, but the fact is that Raye couldn't gameplan to save his life.

The one who quoted that to you was Tony Gonzales, Frank. But thank you for disabusing both Gonzo and I of our misconception.

Unbalanced?
1999 Chiefs:
run 51%
pass 49%

Oh, but those are just 'stats' that don't mean anything...

KCJ

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:45 PM
Boy that Gonzales is dumb!

NaptownChief
07-13-2001, 08:45 PM
Unbalanced?
1999 Chiefs:
run 51%
pass 49%


How bout the 2000 offense?

NaptownChief
07-13-2001, 08:46 PM
KCJ,

You spin away but the bottom line is that they took over a pretty solid team and two years later no playoffs and they were fired...Boy that Carl Peterson must be really stupid to fire such a good coaching staff...

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:47 PM
I agree that the the 2000 Chiefs were less balanced (I think the official breakout is 55% pass/45% run) but they still fielded the NFL's 8th best offense. That is the same % as the Rams, BTW.

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:49 PM
OK, jl:
Gun inherited a solid 7-9 team, but DV inherited a bad 7-9 team?????
:confused:

NaptownChief
07-13-2001, 08:52 PM
The difference there is that the Rams was by design and ours was out of panic...The only reason our numbers were as balanced as the Rams is due to the first several games of the year were we unsuccessfully tried to run the ball over and over...After we switched schemes permanently, our balance was worse than theirs...

NaptownChief
07-13-2001, 08:55 PM
Where in the world did I say DV is inheriting a bad team?????I have all along said that he is a getting a pretty talented team and that I predict a 10-6 year with a outside shot at 11-5...

I think Gun inherited a decent team and did nothing with it and I now think DV is getting a very similar squad and I am predicting fairly good things will come from it...If not I will be the first to blame him as I am blaming the previous staff...

Chiefs Pantalones
07-13-2001, 08:57 PM
Johnny,

Dude, you need to calm down here...

CG

has a tape from psychology class that I'm studying for my final with your name written all over it...I can send you a copy if you'd like? hehe:D ...


ps. That will be my care package to you:p

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 08:58 PM
QUOTE]If not I will be the first to blame him as I am blaming the previous staff...[/QUOTE]

jl: if you make good on this pledge, then you are ALRIGHT in my book...

your friend,
KCJ

KCJohnny
07-13-2001, 09:03 PM
Cody,
I am happy for you that you are seeking the benefits of education.

A class in psychology equips you to become a shrewd judge of human nature and individual character. Man, thanks for the advice! From a real live personality theorist!

KCJ
Grateful that Cody understands him

Clint in Wichita
07-13-2001, 09:38 PM
If you think Gunther and his staff are the equals of Vermeil and his staff, so be it.


Why are you so upset?

milkman
07-13-2001, 10:31 PM
Johnny,
Every one is sitting down at their keyboards trying to explain to you something you just can't seem to grasp.

With that in mind, I won't try to explain it to you myself.

Since you seem to think that Tony can't be a nice guy, and won't say anything negative about a staff that is no longer with the team, then I say to you, if the things that Tony said about are are praise, then he is as big a moron as Goonther, Raye and you are.

The previous coaching staff was quite possibly the worst assembled ever in the NFL.

I don't believe that Tony believes that Raye and Goonther were good coaches.
He's just a nice guy.

I'm not. I'm an AHole that says what he thinks.

tommykat
07-13-2001, 11:25 PM
:D Tony Gonzalez: They have totally different philosophies. Gunther was more strict, like a General. Dick is looser and lets you be more of an individual. You aren't dealing with as many rules and are in charge of being a professional yourself. He isn't as strict and expects at this level we can do things ourselves. I think that will give us better results

BINGO!!! What would one expect Tony to say?????? HUM?:confused: DV. is less strick? So?? He expects the play and do what they should or they are out..PERIOD!

Now, would you rather play for a coach that is Mr. Military..aka..me, I, or someone that expects the players to do what THEY already know what should/can be done?

Hey, Gonzo is nothing but a class act. Look at the guys age. For someone that young I'd say he answered the questions quit depmolacticly.:p

The Chiefs are going to surprise us all this year. I just can't wait to see them in action!!

tommykat
07-13-2001, 11:27 PM
:eek: Sorry guys......I needed spell check bad with that post..

stevieray
07-14-2001, 12:13 AM
That crap is getting old milkman. Your hate for the previous staff is well documented. Give it a rest. Worst ever?...get real.

DaWolf
07-14-2001, 12:18 AM
I'm sure it's been said, but...

We were a good team the last two years

...that is maybe the dumbest statement I've heard an athlete say this year. And I understand Tony probably didn't want to say "we've sucked" but this team hasn't been very good the last 3 years. Even the year they were a kick away from winning the division, a lot of that was due to the rest of the division sucking, as was evidenced by the Seahawks winning the division and then getting rolled by the Dolphins.

I don't blame Tony if he likes Gun and Raye. Those two guys were on route to making him a lot of money with the amount of catches he was getting. But it's all about the W's, and if he thinks 3 years out of the playoffs constitutes pretty good, then he better set the bar a lot damn higher than it is now.

Thank goodness someone with higher standards is coaching this group of losers...

tommykat
07-14-2001, 12:22 AM
DaWolf

What is the deal with you?:confused: Calling the Chiefs a bunch of loosers???? If I read it wrong, sorry.....BUT COME ONE.....GET REAL......

CHIEFS RULE~~JUST WAIT!:p

DaWolf
07-14-2001, 12:29 AM
Sorry tommykat, but you've got to understand, based on my standards, winners do not A)Get punked at home in their first playoff game TWICE, B) finish out of the playoffs the last 3 years, and C) Lose 3 in a row to the Raiders.

And thus, if we're not winners, then the opposite of winner must be loser. That's why I am disgusted when a guy says "For some reason they changed the staff, we were pretty good the last few years." B.S. These guys have been losers the last 3 years. When they actually win a playoff game, then they can tell me that they were pretty good.

Of course I hope that Vermiel has sat all these guys down, and explained to them that we're not interested in being pretty good, we're not interested in being winners and issuing press releases stating that we won this many games in a decade, we're inerested in being champions. And until we are, I will not be satisfied with this team...

Logical
07-14-2001, 12:32 AM
OK,

Does someone have a link or do I have to rely on your memories. If this is how each of you remember a radio or TV interview I think I will just consider all of this just personal positions on what people think they heard. I would love to be able to read what was said and then post my opinion.

I will say this from what I have read that is common between Proctor and the rest of the posters. I would say it is you John that are trying to spin it more positively than it really was in terms of Gunther.

But I would like to read or hear it myself so is it on the Web somewhere, I went to the Star Chiefs page and to the Chiefs Website and I did not find it either place.

DaWolf
07-14-2001, 12:34 AM
Jim, if you are referring to the Gonzo chat, then click the link below for the transcript:

http://www.sportsline.com/u/chat/2001/nfl/gonzalez071201.htm

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 12:36 AM
tommykat,

There is nothing wrong with D, he is telling the truth. TG and co. did not have the privledge of this good of a coaching staff before and therefore, IMO, got down a little, but DV and co. will bring them back up to higher standards.

Is that what you mean, D?

CG

trying to explain:)

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 12:48 AM
stevieray,

Dude, you've got to admit, this coaching staff sucked a$$. They cost us 3 or 4 wins, IMO.

DaWolf
07-14-2001, 12:49 AM
Cody,
Yes.

When these guys win a playoff game, they can tell me they were a pretty good team.

Now in Tony's defense, I can understand him thinking that we have a pretty good team and had one the last two years. I too thought the talent was there. But when the results are not there, then it is idiotic to say "for some reason they decide to change the coaching staff" UNLESS like you say and I expect, Gonzo is just trying to be nice to the old coaches, whom he may have liked personally. I don't really believe Gonzo is an idiot or that he believes this team played well the last few years. However, if we take KCJohnny's interpretation of the statement as a literal truth, then assuming that, it becomes a dumb statement.

But bottom line, this team needs to set higher standards and reach those standards...

TEX
07-14-2001, 01:01 AM
MM,
Maybe not the worst ever assembled, but last years staff was the worst in the NFL last season. Especially when you take into account their knack for not making appropriate adjustments and their inability to game plan. They were truely aweful and their leader was bi-polar. Not a good combination.

Johnny,
IF the team was SOOOO good the past couple of years, and for "some reason" they just didn't win, that says POOR COACHING all over the place. I honestly can't understand how you could think that the past staff was good! There is a REASON why the team LOST 6 IN A ROW last year and COLLAPSED the season before. I'm telling you that Marty is in for $HIT CAN of a season. I for one will laugh until I'm blue in the face. :D

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 01:02 AM
DaWolf,

I completely agree that this team is a bunch of losers, like you said, they haven't won a playoff game in 8 years (math...:mad:) and when given the privledge of homefield the last two times they made the playoffs, chewed it up and choked on it.

And tommykat, this is the truth, this is being real, and I hope no one else takes offense to this.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 01:03 AM
You know something TX, your reply has "poll" written all over it...

be back in a few...

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:23 AM
First, thanks DaWolf,

Now to my perspective on the interview:

First a big slam on Grbac especially the part I have bolded:

Question: Do you think the passing game will be successful with the addition of Trent Green? Why?

Tony Gonzalez: Yes. I think so! He is an awesome QB. Incredibly accurate and can move in the pocket. ]The best asset he has is the ability to lead the players on the team. He has a good personality and everyone likes him. That is important.


John in the next one I perceive it differently than you. I see Tony saying that Gunther came on board with a good veteran players just like Vermiel will. That is not saying Gun got good players it says he inherited good players just like Vermiel. Which indicates Tony is not saying Gun built the team up, sorry.

He then gives Gun and his coaches a very lukewarm send off with his statement that the team decided to get rid of them, which says to me that he did not follow the reasons completely but that (based on the first sentence) they made a positive step forward by hiring Vermiel and that he is now enthused, thus "With Coach Vermeil, we will be great!" His last sentence seems to say that DV has the ability that last years coaches did not to use the talent properly!

Question: Tony, how do you think the Chiefs will be this year with new coach Dick Vermeil?

Tony Gonzalez: With Coach Vermeil, we will be great! His reputation speaks for itself. The thing with him is that he has a team with a lot of veterans on it. He can come in and do what he needs. We were a good team the last two years and for some reason they decided to get rid of the coaching staff and bring him in. So he has a lot to work with. I can see that in him.


Johnny sorry dude but read the last two sentences in the next quote, it is clear he thinks the Chiefs are better off under DV than they were with Gunther and that the change to DV will give the team better results. Again sorry!

Question: What's the biggest difference between last year under Gunther, and this year under Vermeil?

Tony Gonzalez: They have totally different philosophies. Gunther was more strict, like a General. Dick is looser and lets you be more of an individual. You aren't dealing with as many rules and are in charge of being a professional yourself. He isn't as strict and expects at this level we can do things ourselves. I think that will give us better results.

OK I will have to give you the next one on how he likes Jimmy Raye. However, unlike you it is clear he feels Saunders will do just as well and also finish with a top 5 offense. I still hate Raye and am delighted he is gone but you were right with this point and it is clear in the following quote.

Question: How much of a improvement is Al Saunders over Jimmy Raye?

Tony Gonzalez: I don't know if there is any. Raye had one of the top 5 offenses in the league. I am a fan of Jimmy's -- look what he did for me. But Al is good and has coached me before. He will pick up where Jimmy left off and will have this squad one of the top five in the league too.

Finally John it is clear that Tony does not share your doom and gloom about the Chiefs defense for the upcoming season or he would not have closed with the following statement unless you believe he means the Chiefs are going to finish 0-16 or 1-15, cause that is the only negative that would shock the world, and actually based on the preseason sports rags that would not either.

Tony Gonzalez: Thanks for listening to me everyone. I hope you enjoyed yourselves, if not we can do it again sometime. Watch the Chiefs this year -- we are going to shock the world! Bye

John we are old buds but I do not see that Tony said anything good about Gun, yes he did about Jimmy Raye but not Gun. I believe you had your wishful thinking hearing aides or glasses on during that interview.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 01:35 AM
some very good points.



I will say however, that while it seems only myself and Proc seem to be able to admit a positive influence on the Chiefs relative to Gun's tenure, it also seems most others are polarized and belive only all ill of him. The man did do some positive things in KC. HOWEVER, a 7-9 record shows more negative than positive...


I think that between the passing of DT, Gun's insistence to spend insane hours relative to the team, and his own fear of failure, he did not perform to his capability.


THis is his fault, and his alone. I will make no mistake about that. But the man did show the ability to dominate stronger opponents, did show the ability to rally the troops in seemingly unwinable situations, and did seem to surprise teams we should not have.

THe problem was consistency. He and his team were not consistent. He was replaced, and I agree it was a good move. I do however, reserve the right to praise the man for the positives he did bring to the team during his tenure. He did have positives. No one else seems to note that....:confused:

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE
some very good points.

.......... But the man did show the ability to dominate stronger opponents, did show the ability to rally the troops in seemingly unwinable situations, and did seem to surprise teams we should not have.

THe problem was consistency. He and his team were not consistent. He was replaced, and I agree it was a good move. I do however, reserve the right to praise the man for the positives he did bring to the team during his tenure. ........

Brad,

I agree with what you said above, in fact some of the positives I will agree on were the ability to rise to the occasion for some of the better teams, and in fact those did not always turn out as victories. He also instilled during his first season a pride in being a Chief to many players that had disappeared during Marty's final season.

Unfortunately I believe his self centered public relations during the last season did a lot to destroy that, so that positive has a yin and yang aspect.

He was and probably will always be a great defensive coordinator, and the love for the Chiefs and his players as positives also cannot be denied.

But honestly I cannot think of any other positives about him as a head coach. I would be happy to listen to others that you might be able to point out so I can let you know if I agree. There is a good chance that I will. Unfortunately to me one of his most positive characteristics as a person "loyalty" is his worst negative as a head coach. At least two the three Stooges should have been released after 99 when he did not do that I knew he was in deep trouble.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 02:07 AM
I think Gun was both soo surprised and so elated to just RECIEVE a head coaching job that a lot of details escaped him. He was still warm with the glow, so to speak, his first year.

Second year he realized he failed. That simple. A man like Gun only see's his own failings and thinks that he himself can turn the ship around. Not so. His clout with Carl was obviously not much to speak of, and the situation was one where i think he might have WANTED to have more input into player/personel but that just was not going to happen.


I think a continuation of the Coach/GM rift that seemed obvious during the Marty/Carl years was a battle easily won by Carl when dealing with a first year head coach who was too ecstatic with the position. Gun just had no leverage in the signings dept and Carl did what Carl thought was best despite his HC's philosophy.

This is the nature of Carl. I do think Gun could make a great HC, but it is essential that he learn from his mistakes, learn that he himself is not the driving force alone for wins, and learn that more time does not equal more trophy.....

Logical
07-14-2001, 02:15 AM
Brad,

I agree with every word of your last post. I too hope he learns from the experience and is given another chance someday.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 02:26 AM
Sorry to state my opinion, but I don't think Gun will get another opportunity to be a HC again, but thats my opinion.

CG

maybe for high school?...nah!:D




nice guy, bad head coach

Rausch
07-14-2001, 02:54 AM
love something, and then devote your heart and life to it.



Then fail.


I'm not saying Gun didn't, but I CAN see possibly why he did, and empathize enough to wish him both well and another chance.



I do believe he has it in him, i really do. I also realize that people make mistakes and the character of a person is judged upon how they respond to them.



I really do wish him well. It didn't work out here, but have no doubt, that man truly did want it to...

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 03:02 AM
Good point, Brad. But do you think a GM on any NFL team will give this guy another shot? Do you think any GM will care what kind of heart he has or etc.? Its about winning, and thats something Gun couldn't do, and thats why Carl went out and got DV.

Could Gun possibly do it with another team? Sure. But will he get the chance, is the question.

The odds are against him because of the debacle with the Chiefs, IMO, and thats what teams will judge him on.

DaWolf
07-14-2001, 03:12 AM
I have no doubt that Gunther wanted with all his heart to give Kansas City something special. I have no doubt that Gunther had more room in his heart for the fans of Kansas City and wanted to do it more for them than any other coach you could find on this earth. While he was here, I have never hoped for a coach to succeed more than I did with Gunther.

But football is a harsh sport. The team wasn't consistent, they regressed, and Gun started making less sense every week. Frankly I feel he would still be here today if he had had the guts to fire Kurt Schottenheimer and Mike Stock after year one. And to a lesser extent Jimmy Raye. He did not. It was his house of cards, and it collapsed on him.

Arivaderchi Gun, enjoy coaching linebackers. Hello Coach Vermiel, you had better produce...

Rausch
07-14-2001, 03:14 AM
Coaches win and lose Cody, it's the character of that person who ultimately determines weather or not that Coach gets chance no 2.....


Look at DV and his INSISTENCE on character. If it was not important, he would have signed Garner over Holmes in a heartbeat.

Character is what makes champions, not talent. Talent is all over the NFL, character is what makes them Champions....

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 03:19 AM
Yes, I know that, Brad. But it was DV that said that you have to have talent on your football team to win Championships and the coach and coaching staff has to utilize that talent.

The Rams didn't win the Super Bowl soley because Faulk and co. had great character...they had great talent too. Thats whats hard to find, the combo of character and talent.



ps. What coaches like Gun have gotten second chances in the NFL (Not For Long)

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 03:21 AM
And with that, I'm going to bed now, I'm starting to talk in circles.:D

CG

makes no sense when sleepy


good night Brad, D, etc.

Logical
07-14-2001, 04:10 AM
Cody,

Look no furhter than KC for your answer, Marv Levy.

Did not produce in KC was let go and several years later is hired by Buffalo to go on to 4 SBs even if they were losses.

So your belief that it is unlikely to happen is probably true, but, it has happened before and it will happen again.

By the way for another example look to last years Super Bowl Champion Head Coach, a failure before and then another chance. Or how about Shanahan a miserable failure in Oakland, but a second chance and two SB victories with Denver. I could name more but I think you get the idea.

Rausch
07-14-2001, 04:13 AM
suprising source of unexpected back-up...:cool:

milkman
07-14-2001, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by stevieray
That crap is getting old milkman. Your hate for the previous staff is well documented. Give it a rest. Worst ever?...get real.

stevie,
When Johnny stops splashing this BB with his obsession of all things Marty/Goonther/Raye, then I'll give it a rest.

We've had this discusion before.
As I've told you before, there wasn't anyone that wanted to see Goonther succeed more than I did.
First, he was the Chiefs HC. He loses, we all lose.
Second, he went to high school here in Lompoc. Imagine the civic pride this town would have had if he had taken the Chiefs to the SB.
Everyone in this town would have jumped on my bandwagon.

Finally, I didn't hate Goonther.
I hate the pimping of Marty/Gun/Raye that Johnny does.
They're failures, move on.

milkman
07-14-2001, 08:51 AM
I disagree with everything after the first paragraph.
Gun may not have had control of personnel decisions, but it seems pretty clear that his input was weighed in the decisions heavily.
Why else would CP be drafting and signing the players that fit into Gun's mold.
Gun failed because he is not suited for the job of HC.
I still don't get why so many people think Gun was such a great DC.
He was, at best, inconsistent in that capacity as well.

I will give credit for the one thing he did right.
He did seem to have an eye for talent.
I think that Sly, Bartee, Wesley, Dennis, and to a lesser extent, Moreau, will al prove this in the years to come.

NaptownChief
07-14-2001, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by stevieray
That crap is getting old milkman. Your hate for the previous staff is well documented. Give it a rest. Worst ever?...get real.

Stevie,

If you don't think they were the worst ever, I challange you to name a staff that was worse and give me your thoughts as to why....

stevieray
07-14-2001, 10:51 AM
John Mckay coaching the TB Buccaneers....how many games in a row did they lose?

I'm not trying to defend the old staff...The problems they created have been discussed at LENGTH. And most of it was DEAD ON. I was as frustrated as the next guy. It didn't work out. I look at it like Grbye...Not here anymore, whining over and over about it is a waste of time and energy.

Cormac
07-14-2001, 11:09 AM
Brad and KCJ,

Without having read all of the replies.......Gun and co. did some good things for the Chiefs. Gun made the gutsy move of playing 3 rookies in the defensive backfield as well as SlyMo at WR etc. I liked the draft we had with him at the helm. I give him a lot of credit for picking SlyMo (who I hope can bounce back) and Wesley in particular. Bartee and Dennis might also both turn out to have been good picks. Gun tried his butt off for the organisation, is by all accounts a great guy, and behaved with utmost dignity when he was dismissed.

But.....

Any team that hangs its head like the Chiefs did last season, that loses 6 in a row, and 9 overall to teams like SD, SF, Atlanta, NE has way underachieved. This team was far too talented (could easily have been 2-0 over Indy and Tenn) to fall on its face like that. I see no way that Gun could have turned that around heading into this season which IMO would have put us in serious danger of only winning 3-4 games. Nothing on this team improved during his tenure. We found out how good our passing game could be, but only because we could no longer run the ball, and couldn't defend worth a crap, so we were frequently playing from behind. Our one dimensional offense also meant we couldn't run out the clock which also cost us some games. Any coaching staff that reduces a decent team to such uncoordinated play, bereft of passion, deserves replacing.

And.......

If DV's staff goes 16-16 in the next 2 seasons and shows a similar lack of passionate play in finishing 2 games worse in the second season, being the only team to lose to an otherwise winless team, and canning their only MNF appearance in absolutely embarassing fashion, believe me, they will draw the wrath of the fans too, including me. Speaking for myself, I am not playing favourites here. I liked Gun too. I are merely pleased that I no longer have to suffer through watching a dis-interested team fail to realise their talent by playing under an incompetent coaching staff.

JMO :cool:

stevieray
07-14-2001, 11:13 AM
To me, this just another version of Gannonstalker.

I agree with milkman...let it go...All the good, bad, and ugly from the past make the franchise what it is today, just like our own lives.

Changes aren't permanent, but change is..

Rausch
07-14-2001, 11:24 AM
"Finally, I didn't hate Goonther.
I hate the pimping of Marty/Gun/Raye that Johnny does.
They're failures, move on."


I will agree that Gun, and Raye under him, were failures. There were definitely positives, but they failed to turn this team around.


Marty was not a failure. He wasn't a champion, but also not a failure. He and......uh.......uh......I think Stram are the ONLY coaches to even bring respectablity to Arrowhead. Marty deserves to be remembered. Gun might not, but Marty does.



On a side note, this "Marty can't win the big one" BS really ticks me off. Somehow Dennis Green and his traveling band of playoff pretenders manage to sweep the season with ease(same as Marty's Chiefs) and loose in the first round(Most often Marty's Chiefs) and yet this CLOWN somehow get's super bowl hype every year. Why is it HE doesn't get the "can't win the big one" label but Marty does?

:confused:

milkman
07-14-2001, 12:31 PM
Brad,
Johnny and I have argued about Marty and his record many times before.

My take on Marty is fairly unpopular, but I remain steadfast in my belief that when a coach wins as consistently as Marty does in the regular season, but fails miserably in the playoffs, then he is a failure, period.
There is no middle ground in this for me.

As far as Dennis Green is concerned, he falls into the same category, IMO.
I just don't care about him, though, since he isn't the coach of the Chiefs.
If he were the coach of the Chiefs, I would be just as critical, and would be looking forward to the day he was finally canned.
I do feel sympathy for the Viking fans.
I understand completely what they are going through.

Actually, if you could combine Marty and Denny, you'd have the near perfect coach.
Any mad scientists out there?:D

philfree
07-14-2001, 01:05 PM
Without reading all the posts just let me say that it wasn't Guns personnel decisions that was his downfall but rather his overall game plan and game day decision making. His biggest personnel screw up was when he made TRich the RB he didn't have a back up FB incase Bennett got hurt. His other big screw up was not hiring better assistant coaches. I could be wrong but I'll go out on a limb and say that's the way alot of fans feel.

PhilFree :cool:

philfree
07-14-2001, 01:08 PM
Oh yea, and that stupid kicker. Bad personnel move!

PhilFree :cool:

California Injun
07-14-2001, 09:19 PM
Dennis Green.... the black Marty Schottenheimer.

Brock
07-14-2001, 11:43 PM
How original.

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 02:07 PM
Phill,
I agree with you. Gun should have picked up a FB off the waiver wire or taxi squad and kept TR plugging awat HB. And the decision to go for it on 4th down at goalline was questionable (at Tenn) although the tape shows that if Cloud follows his blocking instead of trying to cut back, he's in and KC wins. Worst of all was that horrid soft zone that most teams abused us with while dinking us to death (ATL, NE, Oak).

Still, when I look at the 1998 Chiefs, the '99-00 are superior in my book.

Its all water under the brigde now, anyway. The (short) Vermiel era is underway and the Chiefs-as-we-knew-them (both bad and good) are gone.

KCJ
Vindicated by the Ravens' world championship

Logical
07-15-2001, 02:19 PM
Hey Johnny, since you are back on now and never had a chance to respond before I thought I would repost this for you, what do you have to say about my opinions of the interview below


Originally posted by Logical
First, thanks DaWolf,

Now to my perspective on the interview:

First a big slam on Grbac especially the part I have bolded:


Question: Do you think the passing game will be successful with the addition of Trent Green? Why?

Tony Gonzalez: Yes. I think so! He is an awesome QB. Incredibly accurate and can move in the pocket. ]The best asset he has is the ability to lead the players on the team. He has a good personality and everyone likes him. That is important.


John in the next one I perceive it differently than you. I see Tony saying that Gunther came on board with a good veteran players just like Vermiel will. That is not saying Gun got good players it says he inherited good players just like Vermiel. Which indicates Tony is not saying Gun built the team up, sorry.

He then gives Gun and his coaches a very lukewarm send off with his statement that the team decided to get rid of them, which says to me that he did not follow the reasons completely but that (based on the first sentence) they made a positive step forward by hiring Vermiel and that he is now enthused, thus "With Coach Vermeil, we will be great!" His last sentence seems to say that DV has the ability that last years coaches did not to use the talent properly!

Question: Tony, how do you think the Chiefs will be this year with new coach Dick Vermeil?

Tony Gonzalez: With Coach Vermeil, we will be great! His reputation speaks for itself. The thing with him is that he has a team with a lot of veterans on it. He can come in and do what he needs. We were a good team the last two years and for some reason they decided to get rid of the coaching staff and bring him in. So he has a lot to work with. I can see that in him.


Johnny sorry dude but read the last two sentences in the next quote, it is clear he thinks the Chiefs are better off under DV than they were with Gunther and that the change to DV will give the team better results. Again sorry!

Question: What's the biggest difference between last year under Gunther, and this year under Vermeil?

Tony Gonzalez: They have totally different philosophies. Gunther was more strict, like a General. Dick is looser and lets you be more of an individual. You aren't dealing with as many rules and are in charge of being a professional yourself. He isn't as strict and expects at this level we can do things ourselves. I think that will give us better results.

OK I will have to give you the next one on how he likes Jimmy Raye. However, unlike you it is clear he feels Saunders will do just as well and also finish with a top 5 offense. I still hate Raye and am delighted he is gone but you were right with this point and it is clear in the following quote.

Question: How much of a improvement is Al Saunders over Jimmy Raye?

Tony Gonzalez: I don't know if there is any. Raye had one of the top 5 offenses in the league. I am a fan of Jimmy's -- look what he did for me. But Al is good and has coached me before. He will pick up where Jimmy left off and will have this squad one of the top five in the league too.

Finally John it is clear that Tony does not share your doom and gloom about the Chiefs defense for the upcoming season or he would not have closed with the following statement unless you believe he means the Chiefs are going to finish 0-16 or 1-15, cause that is the only negative that would shock the world, and actually based on the preseason sports rags that would not either.

Tony Gonzalez: Thanks for listening to me everyone. I hope you enjoyed yourselves, if not we can do it again sometime. Watch the Chiefs this year -- we are going to shock the world! Bye



John we are old buds but I do not see that Tony said anything good about Gun, yes he did about Jimmy Raye but not Gun. I believe you had your wishful thinking hearing aides or glasses on during that interview.

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 04:07 PM
Jim, you are forgetting one BIG thing: the bulloney I am contesting is the planet party line that ALL the Chiefs players were convinced that Gun and Raye were incompetent boobs, which, coming from the mouth of the Chiefs' all-round best player, one cannot draw any such conclusions.

And the comment about "General" Gun vs. "easier Dick" is totally a style question. Gonzales believes his teammates can succeed on a longer eash of discipline, but you seem to forget the mess this team was in after the '98 season and the huge turnaround in focus and attitude that happened in '99.

You and I just disagree. My point is demonstrated abundantly by Gonzales' comments. Whether you consider it praise or not, it is anything but criticism, especially his remarks about Raye.

And Tony does not even mention the defense, so I don't know where you get that. I am not predicting doom and gloom (10-6) but this defense is a far cry from the KC defenses of '90-97.

KCJ
My opinions are just that, MY opinions

DaWolf
07-15-2001, 05:51 PM
"We're still running around in our pajamas and haven't played a game yet, but the thing that's most exciting to me is that I think this [Chiefs] defense is going to be very, very good. ... Offensively we're going to be sound."
-- Al Saunders, Chiefs offensive coordinator, WHB 810

http://www.pitch.com/issues/2001-07-12/couch.html

:)

Rausch
07-15-2001, 06:10 PM
I would call DV anything but laid back or easy going.



He is infamous for military style training camps that almost caused mutiny in St. Louis, and his attitude mellowed A LITTLE his third year. His camps were still long, still rough, just not as much so as before and this still felt like a break to his players. He let up....

This does not mean that he's like Shanarat who often doesn't practice in pads or have long camp hours....


Most often the stricter and more desciplined coaches are the winners. Jimmy Johnson, Parcells, etc. were all strict. The problem is when you fail to win games people don't buy your sermons anymore. If the team isn't buying in to what you're trying to do it doesn't matter what style of coach you are...

California Injun
07-15-2001, 06:15 PM
Brad,

I thought the Chiefs players "bought into" Gunther's sermon in 2000 when he cried like a baby and wanted to quit on the team.

Well, maybe the players didn't shed tears...

Rausch
07-15-2001, 06:24 PM
I think they understood why he said what he said, I don't think that they necessarily cared for the way it was said. He got the point across, but I don't think that motivation was his strong point in 2000....


He tried to be Marty, and it didn't work.



If they did buy into it, they'll WORSHIP DV!


:rolleyes:

milkman
07-15-2001, 07:27 PM
How do you figure that?

Brian Billick was an offensive coach that, despite talent on the offensive side of the ball, took risks on offense in an effort to score points.
He adapted to the talent he had on his team.

An offensive coach that won a championship with defense.

Marty never adapted to the talent he had, and couldn't win with defense, even though he was a defensive coach.

He never took risks on offense, and never seemed to grasp the concept that, in order to win he had to score points.
He was a coward. Afraid to take chances in order to win, which ultimately led to losses.

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 09:17 PM
Sorry, Milk.
We've hashed this out before.
IMO, the team the '00 Ravens most reflect are the '69 SB Champ Chiefs who did it with a lopsided blend of rushing and defense, very much like the current Ravens Champs.

Feel free to disagree, I feel totally vindicated and am enjoying the Ravens' championship tenure that should be even sweeter in '01 with Elvis getting them a bit more offense.

KCJ
Lover of the SB champ Chiefs

milkman
07-15-2001, 09:26 PM
Cal Injun,
A perfect example of the spin that Johnny weaves.

Johnny,
When the hell exactly did we start discussing the Ravens as vindication for how you feel about the '69 Chiefs?

To some extent I would agree with you on that.

But we've been discussing recent Chiefs here.
I didn't see the '69 Chiefs enter the discussion until youlast post?

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 09:31 PM
Vindicated by the Ravens, ie, in this sexy pass-pass-pass world of the Ramcos, the Neanderthal approach of the Ravens wins the Championship against a team that beat the sexy offenseof Minny 41-0. And remember, Baltimore set an NFL record for least points allowed while enduring a 5-game drought of NO TDs.

Marty had such a team in '93, '95 and '97, but for kickers and refs, we'd all be be bragging about them.

KCJ
Would buy Milk a drink if I could

Logical
07-15-2001, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE
I would call DV anything but laid back or easy going.



He is infamous for military style training camps that almost caused mutiny in St. Louis, and his attitude mellowed A LITTLE his third year. His camps were still long, still rough, just not as much so as before and this still felt like a break to his players. He let up....

This does not mean that he's like Shanarat who often doesn't practice in pads or have long camp hours....


Most often the stricter and more desciplined coaches are the winners. Jimmy Johnson, Parcells, etc. were all strict. The problem is when you fail to win games people don't buy your sermons anymore. If the team isn't buying in to what you're trying to do it doesn't matter what style of coach you are...


Brad,

I am cofused by this post did you mean to address it to someone else? I have never said that DV was not going to bring discipline, in fact when he was first anounced I was on here saying that I believed all the stupid penalties went with the Stooges passing.

Perhaps you were meaning to speak to KCJ

milkman
07-16-2001, 06:29 AM
Johnny,
I would agree that Marty did have such teams in '93, '95 and '97.
I'll even agree that if some kicks were or calls had not gone against, he might have gotten more out of those teams.

But I don't blame those kickers or those bad calls for the Chiefs playoff failures.
I blame Marty.
His ultraconservative, cowardly approach put the Chiefs in position to lose those games on missed kicks and bad calls.

As I've said many times.
Billck won because he wasn't afraid to takes risks on offense.
Marty lost because he was afraid to take those same type of risks.

KCJohnny
07-16-2001, 01:31 PM
I just think its cool that a team went 5 games without scoring an offensive TD and still won the SB.

KCJ
Enjoys watching the conventional wisdom getting flushed

KCJohnny
07-16-2001, 02:20 PM
I just think its cool that a team went 5 games without scoring an offensive TD and still won the SB.

KCJ
Enjoys watching the conventional wisdom getting flushed

keg in kc
07-16-2001, 07:42 PM
This is a hit-and-run post. ;)

First of all, this thread is ridiculous. Just because Gonzo has the class and professionality to not badmouth the old staff does not mean he's giving them a stamp of approval, and I think you're more than intelligent enough to recognize that, John. The players that people respect and love, like Tony, are generally the kind of players that don't trash outgoing coaches and players, so the idea that he's "praising" simply because he's not saying bad things is a stretch, to say the least.

Second, about how much you enjoy "watching the conventional wisdom getting flushed," consider this:

The Ravens scored 343 points in 2000 (that's 12 less than the pass-happy offensive juggernaut that was the 2000 Chiefs).

That's over 21 points per game.

Baltimore was 1-4 in those 5 games without an offensive touchdown that you seem to admire for some reason.

Yes, that's right sports-fans, they won the Super Bowl despite going 1-4 in 5 games without an offensive touchdown, not because of it. Maybe we should balance those 5 games without an offensive touchdown with the 6 games where the Ravens scored over 27 points, all of which they won, of course.

Color me strange, but I admire the team that went 6-0 when they scored 27+ more than I admire the team that went 1-4 while kicking a lot of field goals...

Just to reiterate, in games where they scored less than 20, the Ravens were 4-4 (Chiefs 1-7) and in games where they scored 20 or more they were 8-0 (KC was 6-2).

Conventional wisdom says you win when you outscore the opponent.

Conventional wisdom says you'd better score more than 20 points in a game and keep the opposition below 20.

John, your "wisdom" just got flushed. ;)

KCJohnny
07-16-2001, 08:04 PM
Kyle,
I'm glad you ran after you hit, because that was weak.

As a matter of fact, you made my point for me profoundly. The Ravens actually had a D that was able to keep them afloat when the points weren't coming.

Just to reiterate, in games where they scored less than 20, the Ravens were 4-4 (Chiefs 1-7) and in games where they scored 20 or more they were 8-0 (KC was 6-2).

Sure helps to have a top notch defense, huh?

KCJ

keg in kc
07-16-2001, 08:29 PM
Apparently I was wrong, John, you don't seem to be intelligent enough to grasp simple concepts.

The Ravens actually had a D that was able to keep them afloat when the points weren't coming.

Once again, let me reiterate the point I clearly made in the last point. The 5 games you mentioned, the games "when the points weren't coming" as it were, the Ravens were 1-4.

1-4.

If you think going 1-4 is staying "afloat" then there clearly is no point in wasting my valuable time with you. Their "top-notch" defense didn't do them a whole lot of good when the offense was putting 3s on the board, as the record indicates.

There are two lines in the NFL which determine success:

1) You score more than 21 points per game.
2) You hold your opponent to 17 points per game or less.

That is the "conventional wisdom" you attempted to "flush".

You failed.

Miserably.

It's great to have a top-notch defense, but football is a game of balance. You must balance the run and the pass, something the Chiefs have been unable to do. You must balance the strength of the offense and the defense, something the Chiefs have been unable to do. We're never good in all facets of the game, and that's why we're perennial bridesmaids.

If you're happy being an "also-ran" fine. By all means stick to your proverbial guns.

I want more, as I've said for months. Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Having a balanced team average to excellent in every facet of the game (including special teams) wins championships, and that is exactly why the chiefs didn't win one in the 90's. There was always a weakness.

The Ravens?

Excellent defense, strong at nearly every position.

Above average offense despite weakness at quarterback. Very good running backs, average to above average wide receivers, excellent line.

Excellent special teams, with an excellent kicker and an excellent punter.

A balanced team in every way, shape and form.

Zebedee DuBois
07-16-2001, 08:35 PM
GET BACK TO YOUR BOOK

just kidding, welcome back

:D

keg in kc
07-16-2001, 09:04 PM
Thank you Zeb. I needed that. :D

A post or two in a week isn't too bad, but I can't let myself get sucked back into following the board regularly.

Back to work!

John, you have a reprieve, for the time being.

Logical
07-17-2001, 12:34 AM
Keg,

It was nice hearing from you, and your point was right on and always has been. Either Defense less than 17 allowed or offense of more than 21 on average equals winning a lot of games if you get both you have dynamite.

KCJohnny
07-17-2001, 06:42 AM
Kyle is getting a little saucy these days.
Whatsamatter, friend?
The point I was making is that in some of those Raven wins they scored UNDER 20 and still won, something the '90-97 Chiefs did with regularity.

KCJ
Intellectually challenged

Otter
07-17-2001, 12:53 PM
http://www.creakyjoints.com/creakyjoints/graphics/images/desktops/thumbnails/deadhorse_thumb.jpg

California Injun
07-17-2001, 07:51 PM
Funny, I coulda sworn the Ravens scored 21, 16, and 34 points during their Super Bowl run.

That's almost 24 points a game if you average it out.

But why offer statistics to support my statements when it was the Ravens "D" that won it for them?