PDA

View Full Version : Were the stooges the worst ever coaching staff ever?...


Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 12:09 AM
Or should we let Johnny decide for us?:D

CG

;)

Rausch
07-14-2001, 12:17 AM
THey won more than 5 games....Bad?

Yes.


Unprepared?

Yes.

Over-exerted?

Yes...


Worst ever?

No....that distinction goes to the father of the gentleman now coaching our Special Teams......:rolleyes:

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 12:17 AM
What the heck, I voted yes.

CG

doesn't let a bunch of morons get away with ruining my teams season (staff)

Rausch
07-14-2001, 12:40 AM
they definitely underachieved, but not the worst ever.....They allowed a team capable of soo much more to be mediocre....that is why they have been replaced.


But there were NUMEROUS coaches who failed to even come CLOSE to the disapointment of last year. Many a Chiefs staff has failed to reach seven wins....Ugly as last year was, it was not the worst.....






Admit it, the Rams thrashing still feels goooooooooooooooooooood.....:D

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:10 AM
I am not sure he meant what he wrote Brad, I think he meant for the Chiefs and if that is the qualification then it might be a very close one between this staff and the one that Ganz had. The rest of the awful Chiefs teams never had the talent to do any better. The two coaching staffs that I believe made the teams worse than the talent they had on the roster were Ganz and Gun. Interestingly both of those guys were amongst the best coordinators at their respective areas. I think the focus that made them great defensive and special teams coordinators may have been their downfall as head coaches. I believe Buddy Ryan is another example of this imperative at work.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 01:18 AM
Thanks Jim, that is what I mean't.

Logical
07-14-2001, 01:40 AM
Cody why don't you edit to say;

Were the stooges the worst ever Chiefs'coaching staff?...

Chiefs Pantalones
07-14-2001, 01:58 AM
there ya go, Jim. It won't let me edit the title that you see on the main page.

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 08:41 AM
There won't be any statistical way to support your claim, Cody.

16-16 puts Cunningham at #3 on the Chiefs' all-time head coaching winning %.
And he and Jimmy Raye assembled the most productive KC offense since the '67-68 seasons.

They outscored their opponents over the two-year span, led the NFL in red zone scoring %, finished second in takeaways and points scored by the D and STs in '99, finished 5th in passing offense in '00, swept the arch-rival donkeys two years in a row (that in itself is proof that they are far from worst), added many strong young players to the roster, and sent a nice handful of players to Hawaii.

Now, did they disappoint? You betcha.

Are they the worst?
Not if you look at their actual record critically instaed of emotionally.

KCJ
Chiefs fan

NaptownChief
07-15-2001, 08:59 AM
KCJ,

I'm sure you have heard the old saying : "There are lies, damn lies and statistics..."

IMO that statement couldn't be more fitting to this situation.

Luzap
07-15-2001, 09:21 AM
KJC,

You talk statistics and hurl any positive quote you can find at us about Gun and his coaching staff.

It's fine that you're supporting people you like. As a character and a person, I also like Gun.

It is absolutely over the edge, however, to totally ignore the game day decisions made by gun. Everything from the gameplanning to the clock management was a fiasco that left amature fans like myself screaming from our seats. If we can see these obvious blunders, then a professional NFL HC should be able to see them, fix them, and never permit them to re-occure.

This is the real indictment on Gun ~ He never fixed these Game Management problems

Luz
acknowledge this kjc, or forever lose your credibility...

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 09:42 AM
Refer to reply #8.
KCJ

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 09:46 AM
Who is ignoring game-day decisions?

Not me.

Anybody who suferd the Star BB last year KNOWS I was calling for Gun's head early and often. But that still does not make him the worst coach/staff of all-time by ANY objective standard.

It is YOU who risk credibility by castigating a .500 staff with many strong accomplishments as 'worst ever.'

KCJ
The only thing I'm ignoring is the bald prejudice against the official record

NaptownChief
07-15-2001, 10:00 AM
The "official record" doesn't show how a Tony Richardson could rip off 2 or 3 six to ten yard runs only to have a Mike Cloud, Frank Moreau or Donnell Bennett be quickly shuffled in to replace him. The "official record" won't show his clock management skills being on par with your typical 7th grade coach. As for a .500 record being proof that they can't be the worst of all time is BS...Who is to say that this team would not have been .650-.750 with virtually any other staff? If this staff coached the 85 Bears and brought them down to a .500 record, would that still be valid proof that they weren't the worst of all time?

stevieray
07-15-2001, 10:11 AM
Nap, if you challenge me, and I respond, have the courtesy to return the favor.

milkman
07-15-2001, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by jl80
KCJ,

I'm sure you have heard the old saying : "There are lies, damn lies and statistics..."

IMO that statement couldn't be more fitting to this situation.

Absolutely the perfect saying, Nap.

Let me add my own quote.
"Stats don't mean jack to me."
From my own personal wisdom.

NaptownChief
07-15-2001, 12:46 PM
Stevie,

I wasn't attacking you, I was just curious who you thought was worse...

McKay's group looked much worse on the field but that was an expansion team back in the day where you didn't have the abiltity to buy quality free agents...

Sorry for the snub...

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 12:59 PM
1. Stats DO mean things (you are welcome to your own personal 'wisdom') and ALL NFL professionals refer to them religiously, INCLUDING Dick Vermiel (go to his columns online) and the league awards players for most yards, TDs, points, sacks, etc... You can't get around it.

2. This is an internet BB, and there are no games being played now. Stats are at least an objective way to discuss things. Unless you just want to gush about your subjective feelings and call them facts.

3. Go to Tampa Bay, Cincinnatti, Indianapolis, or New Orleans and cry the blues to those fans about 'worst all time coaching staffs.' They'll laugh in your face.

Gun and his staff IMPROVED a 7-9 team coached by the NFL's 2nd winningest active coach. Like it or not, he was far from worst. And for a lot of you, he is the convenient scapegoat for all things that went wrong.

KCJ

stevieray
07-15-2001, 01:02 PM
It's all good.

Logical
07-15-2001, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by KCJohnny
1. Stats DO mean things (you are welcome to your own personal 'wisdom') and ALL NFL professionals refer to them religiously, INCLUDING Dick Vermiel (go to his columns online) and the league awards players for most yards, TDs, points, sacks, etc... You can't get around it.

2. This is an internet BB, and there are no games being played now. Stats are at least an objective way to discuss things. Unless you just want to gush about your subjective feelings and call them facts.

3. Go to Tampa Bay, Cincinnatti, Indianapolis, or New Orleans and cry the blues to those fans about 'worst all time coaching staffs.' They'll laugh in your face.

Gun and his staff IMPROVED a 7-9 team coached by the NFL's 2nd winningest active coach. Like it or not, he was far from worst. And for a lot of you, he is the convenient scapegoat for all things that went wrong.

KCJ


Come on this thread is not about Gun KCJ, you are off track and the point would be if you wanted to talk about Gun is that he did not replace them after they were shown incompetent as a staff of coordinators in 99. I cannot support you on this idea at all. In my opinion this coordinator staff was the worst staff for the Chiefs ever. Only Frank Ganz staff came close!

ChiTown
07-15-2001, 01:23 PM
KCJ

Ignorance must truely be bliss (and I'm not talking about the Wolfman, either). While watching the Chiefs over the last 2 years has been painful for +90% of all fans, you have seemed to revel in the mediocrity. The facts are that the Stooges inherited a team that could have competed for the plaoffs, and woefully failed to accomplish that goal. In fact, they looked as bad as the Frank Ganz/John Mackovic Teams of the 80's. Fan support was starting to crack at the seal and Gun (as the leader - a joke), had no ability to lead with a vision. The decision to fire the Stooges was by far one of the best Carl has ever made. OTOH, the decision to hire Gun and keep the incumbent Stooges was one of his worst.

Your undying support for Stoogedem, while admirable, is obviously wearing thin on the Planet Faithful.

Chi
~Rarely amazed, but flabbergasted by this one

stevieray
07-15-2001, 01:29 PM
We got close a few times...And with gun, we knew we had the talent...We are all tired of watching the team shoot itself in the foot. The staff did it...Grbac did it...And say what you want about the 4k...

It wasn't enough.

old_geezer
07-15-2001, 01:51 PM
I just think I'll let my signature speak for me. :D

alanm
07-15-2001, 02:19 PM
No Gun wasn't the worst of all time. I don't think anyone implied that he was. Is he the Chiefs worst choice as HC? No he wasn't and he won't ever be the worst. But Gun lost control of his team last year and it showed. As for statistics in general, You can take your statistics and shove em up your a$$ :D

Gaz
07-15-2001, 02:44 PM
Stats DO mean things

No, they really do not mean things. This is a popular misconception, similar to the misconception that opinion polls are an accurate, unbiased measure of public opinion. Statistics [with public opinion polls being one example] can, when properly used, indicate relative magnitude and track trends over a large sample size. However, statistics do not mean things at all.

Statistics are an attempt to compare two or more things by throwing out whatever parameter the statistician considers irrelevant. It is the aspects of picking and choosing that make statistics so subjective and also so prone to abuse. We have seen both subjectivity and abuse of statistics in abundance on various BBs.

The fundamental thing about statistics is that they are not reality. They are not even a close representation of reality. They a merely a linkage between vaguely similar things, achieved by throwing out data in order to make the mathematical manipulation feasible.

You can compare Manning and Favre statistically, but you have to throw out the supporting team, the coaches, the wide receivers, the field conditions, the opponents, the score of the game, the QB’s physical condition, the weather, the play selection and every other single variable that cannot have a number attached to it. Finally, you arrive at a ratio that allows you to say that Manning is better than Favre, or Favre is better than Manning, depending on how you cooked your numbers.

Some folks come onto the BB and hurl meaningless statistics like “winning percentage in the first two years as a HC” thinking that it supports their position that Coach A is superior to Coach B. This is the abuse that I spoke of earlier. The list of factors thrown out to achieve a statistic of “winning percentage in the first two years as a HC” is enormous.

Statistics measure trends and large changes in magnitude, not fine detail. Also, statistical analysis requires a HUGE sample size or the standard deviation becomes so large as to make your analysis laughable.

Do not accept any public opinion poll unless you can read how the questions were actually stated. And do not accept any statistical analysis unless you know what data the statistician tossed in order to reach his/her numbers.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hoping to banish some popular misconceptions about statistics.

KCJohnny
07-15-2001, 02:57 PM
To YOU they may mean nothing, but to the millions of us who depend on stats to one degree or another, they mean SOMETHING.

And comparing OPINION POLLS (gimmee a break, Gaz!) to actual achievements is a stretch of credibility.

Analysis is not confined to statistics alone, but they play a major role. Againm if they are MEANINGLESS, why do people like Dick Vermiel track them so meticulously?

And the whole point of this thread topic was to take a broad swipe at KCJohnny, which some of you have done (now don't you feel better? Especially you who cannot resist mentioning your anuses in a public forum?). The whole idea of "worst ever" is a completely subjective category utterly undemonstratable by the facts defined by statistics and other data.

There is no proof that Gun and his staff was the worst ever; there is ample proof that he took a potentially playoff caliber team and achieved average-to-above average results.

KCJ
Has an opinion, just like you

old_geezer
07-15-2001, 03:28 PM
KCJohnny

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. :)

Two points to ponder; If you look at the poll results you will see that the majority of the people on this BB share your opinion (sort of). Most of us think he was one of the worst, but not the worst. Secondly, on your infatuation with stats - I have been told by many wise men (hey, they were teachers and bosses, they must have been wise) that you can beat a stat into confessing anything. In other words, you can twist your stats to support whatever result you would like. I like results much better than stats. :cool:

milkman
07-15-2001, 04:06 PM
Johnny,
Your stat mongering doesn't represent the truth anymore than my subjective opinion, which I have never claimed to represent the facts.

All you are are trying to do with all stats is twist to support your opinions.

Under Gun I saw a team that was losing games they could have, and probably should have won.
I don't need stats to support this.
Unlike you I'm not afraid to express an opinion unless I have some kind of stat to back it up.

Rausch
07-15-2001, 04:56 PM
the answer lies in the middle...


Stats ARE the truth, but not the whole truth about a player. Stats ignore strength of opponent, offensive line, and other intangibles that Gaz mentioned. I would say stats are 33.3% of the truth. Grbac had great stats last year, but I would only rate him a Good qb. Not great, but the type of player who if played 11 years would probably make 2 probowls. Stats proved he could produce, but they didn't mention his inability to throw a quick 5 yard out without it being 6 for the other team, or his terrible 2 minute drill, or his lack of leadership.

He can throw the ball extremely well; but as Jeff George, Lawrence Phillips, Eric Warfeild, Dale Carter, Ryan Leaf, and (early)Karry Collins displayed, talent alone does not make a great player.

If you don't have the head game to match the physical gifts you are only half a player. Stats tell about your positives and rarely mention the negatives of a productive player, not necessarily a great player.

Rausch
07-15-2001, 05:01 PM
"Under Gun I saw a team that was losing games they could have, and probably should have won.

I don't need stats to support this."

This is true. I do believe it was due more to the loyalty of Gun to his incompetant stooges, whom he probably believed would improve along with the players on the team. They did not, so the team did not, and his career did not.


I still support and like Gun, but the Stooges threw the rope over the tree and he walked right onto the platform....

California Injun
07-15-2001, 05:05 PM
Here's a stat;

The San Diego Chargers beat the Kansas City Chiefs for their ONLY victory in the 2000 NFL season.

Try spinning that one....

Rausch
07-15-2001, 05:21 PM
The chargers were a FAR better team than their record, and the Chiefs had the ability to raise or sink to the level of each opponent for 16 weeks...


That falls to bad coaching to me. You can't have swept last years Broncs and beaten the Rams and (should have) beaten the Titans and not have talent. They had the talent to make the playoffs....

Gaz
07-16-2001, 07:08 AM
And comparing OPINION POLLS (gimmee a break, Gaz!) to actual achievements is a stretch of credibility.

Opinion polls and footballs statistics use the exact same mechanism: a statistical analysis of sampled and pared-down data. This is not a "stretch of credibility," but an understanding of the mathematics behind sampling and statistical analysis.

There is a place for statistical analysis, provided you understand where the numbers came from and exactly what you are doing with them. Sample size and discarded variables are crucial to understanding and accepting any statistical analysis.

Statistics are a tool to enable us to compare apples and oranges. Statistics are not apples, nor are they oranges. Statistics are mathematical models, with no juice, stems nor seed. That understanding is critical to the valid use of statistics. Without it, you are simply parroting meaningless data and pretending that you are eating an apple.

xoxo~
Gaz
Stat geek.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
07-16-2001, 07:52 AM
One thing I learned long ago....

Never argue mathematics with a math major or an engineering major.

Engineers work with statistics as a part of their work. If X amount of stress is put on Y joint then you have failure Z amount of the time.

<i>(Historical data to base MY observation on, germain to the discussion only to qualify my response.:D ) </i> My father was an engineer with the State Highway Department for 42 years, so even though I'm NOT an engineer nor do I play one on TV, I'm familiar with all sorts of "slump tests", which test concrete to see stastically how much a specific viscosity of concrete will shrink as it dries, and how long (statistically) asphalt will last if you allow X amount of cars to drive on it, given an average weight of car and an average speed....

milkman
07-16-2001, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE
"I do believe it was due more to the loyalty of Gun to his incompetant stooges, whom he probably believed would improve along with the players on the team. They did not, so the team did not, and his career did not.


I still support and like Gun, but the Stooges threw the rope over the tree and he walked right onto the platform....

Brad,
One of the prerequisites of being a good HC is being able to put a good coaching staff in place, and firing those coaches that are detrimental to the team's success.
For his failure in this area alone, I would qualify him as a bad HC.

Again I ask, why does everyone seem to think that Gun was such a good DC?
In that capacity, he was inconsistent, at best, and should have sent up a red flag as to his qualification to be a HC.

That inconsistency also seemed to be a reflection of his personality, as well.

Under no circumstances should he have been hired to be HC.
That is one of CP's most glaring mistakes.

I just hope that bringing DV out of retirement wasn't another, especially at the price that was paid.

Gaz
07-16-2001, 08:10 AM
I do not mean to paint myself as a statistics expert. I am not. True, a solid grounding in statistical analysis is a basic requirement of the Engineering curriculum, but perhaps someone with a deeper statistics background could do a better job of illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of statistical analysis than I can.

It might interest [read: concern] some of you to know that we do not have good equations to derive the ultimate tensile strength of 0.250 diameter 7075—T6511 aluminum bar as 78,000 pounds per square inch in the transverse longitudinal direction. We use that because we have tested a bazillion bars and that is the statistical value we accept, given a confidence level of about 95%. Even though we realize that 78KSI is a value arrived at via statistical means, we accept it because of the HUGE sample size available to us . I contributed a few data points of my own during stress-testing [the very definition of boredom] at good ol’ WSU.

xoxo~
Gaz
Startled by many a [b]CRACK when the bar let loose.

Packfan
07-16-2001, 08:16 AM
funny how the "stooges" were scooped up by other teams in the NFL. Raye and Shott are in Washington and Goonther is in Tennesse. If they were the "worst ever", I doubt they would be employed in the NFL right now. Gunter certainly wasnt head coaching caliber, but the "worst ever"??? That might be stretching it a bit.

Remember Chief fans, you must have talent first. The Chiefs dont have a lot of that. Vince Lombardi couldnt win with what Gunter and the stooges had last year.

Lightning Rod
07-16-2001, 08:20 AM
THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From TASS

Spoken in his best Russian Accent...

Another great victory today for the Soviet Racing team. The soviet Race car showing great skill and supreme Soviet technology came in second place today at the vodka 500. The Sorry American team came in next to last.

Long live the Motherland!!!!!!!!!!





Oh, did they forget to mention it was a 2 car race?


Rod- likes stats too but they can be rather misleading.

Lightning Rod
07-16-2001, 08:34 AM
FWIW-
I think the were a poor staff. Not the worst ever. Ganz probably gets that title but I really don't remember the Wiggins era so it is tough to tell. The stooges took a playoff caliber team and made them slightly less. By comparison. Marty took a pathetic Ganz team and immediately made them competitive. Any of you old timers remember how bad Wiggins was? I remember the Chiefs were pathetic but, I was not really enough of a fan back then to remember.

milkman
07-16-2001, 08:34 AM
PacFan,
Gun was hired as a position coach, a job that his is most quilified for, IMO.

As for the Stooges, as I told KCJohnny, they were hired by Marty, the idiot that brought them to KC in the first place.

I know you disagree with me on this, but Marty is not a great HC. Hiring these guys again just substantiates my position, IMO.

Gaz
07-16-2001, 08:51 AM
If they were the "worst ever", I doubt they would be employed in the NFL right now.

Disingenuous at best, Packfan…

Kurt was again given a job by his brother. Raye was hired by the guy who gave him the OC job to start with. You imply that the NFL scarfed up these hot ex-coaches, when that is clearly not the case. Let us [generously, I think] assume that you simply mis-spoke and did not intend to make them appear more desirable than they are.

I would have given Gunther a shot at DC in KC, but there was clearly too much blood in the scuppers for that to occur. Gunther was a terrible HC, but I liked him as a DC. I do not believe that Gunther will ever hold the HC position again. As far as HC is concerned, he deserves the “Stooge” appellation, IMO.

xoxo~
Gaz
Doubts the NFL is fighting over Raye and K. Schottenheimer.

milkman
07-16-2001, 08:56 AM
Gaz,
Perhaps yo can provide an answer.
Why is Gun considered a good DC, when his defenses were inconsisent?

Gaz
07-16-2001, 09:05 AM
I can give you my personal opinion.

I liked Gunther’s approach to Defense. Take the battle to the Enemy, instead of the watch and react stuff. Gunther’s consecutive blitz calls against Buffalo, with our backs to our own goal, still warm my heart to this day. But I must admit that his Defenses were sometimes inconsistent. I would not say that Gunther was a GREAT DC, but I liked his style.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would trade Gunther for Robinson, if he could.

milkman
07-16-2001, 09:14 AM
I can accept that.
But Robinson's style is similiar.

This is not an endorsement of Robinson.
I am not excited about Robinson at all.

But trading Gun for Robinson would really be nothing more than an even trade.

Gaz
07-16-2001, 09:25 AM
I agree that Robinson and Gunther’s styles are similar. The difference is that I like Gunther. All things being equal, as they seem to be with Gunther Vs Robinson, that balls-out Buffalo Defensive stand is the tiebreaker.

However, I have always admired Robinson’s willingness to blitz anytime, anywhere. My concern is that constant blitzing makes you vulnerable to the big play. But since we just finished two years of giving up big plays, that concern should be minor.

xoxo~
Gaz
Letting emotion cloud the issue.

FloridaChief
07-16-2001, 09:26 AM
Milkman--

One thing you have to remember is that Gun was DC at the time that Marty started his “Push” to get over the playoff hump. Of course, he did this by hiring the all-too-well-known thugs and locker-room cancers in what appears to have been a desperation move to bring a Super Bowl to KC. Many of those FA players were Defensive-types. This is what Gunther had to work with in the latter portion of his DC tenure.

I don’t remember the D’s of 96-97 being too inconsistent, btw, but I could be off base here as 1)- I was living overseas during a good portion of that time and actually didn’t see many of the games; and 2)- My memory’s not the best…

[

KCTitus
07-16-2001, 09:30 AM
Im not sure if everyone's talking about the same thing. I have seen several posts that lead me to believe that some are taking this in different ways.

If the question is 'worst ever in the entire NFL', the obvious answer would be no. However, how does one compare such a thing. Stats cannot do it alone, because of many factors, most notably would be on-the-field talent and rule changes along which inevitably bring about a different style of game.

If the question is 'worst ever Chiefs staff', again I would probably say no. I would give that honor to Ganz and his bunch for taking a team which eeked into the playoffs the previous year and went 3-13 the following year.

If the question is 'worst in the NFL last year', I would say definately. There was probably no other staff which cost the team 3 games last year. I dont follow all others as closely as the chiefs, so feel free to point out others that might be worse last year.

Proctor:
I've enjoyed your proclamation of objective use of stats all they while using the club of 'subjective opinion' on naysayers. I especially liked this quote:

Stats are at least an objective way to discuss things. Unless you just want to gush about your subjective feelings and call them facts.

There is NOTHING objective about your selective useage of certain stats. Stats are not facts, they are mathematical measures. They offer no proof of anything. Your conclusions are shaded by your bias. It's best just to be up front about it--I really think this is what the main problem is here.

King_Chief_Fan
07-16-2001, 09:31 AM
Was Gun and his staff the worst at managing some of the best talent in the NFL.

Gimme a oh yeah if that is the case.

If Johnny thinks stats matter, then that means no change would have been necessary?

If .500 is good enough for you Johnny, you will love the Redskins this year.


Still not convinced that KCJ is a Chiefs fan

milkman
07-16-2001, 09:32 AM
Florida,
My memory is not the best either, so I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall a defense that was up in '95 and '97, and down in '96 and '98.

Perhaps Johnny could provide some stats! :D

Skip Towne
07-16-2001, 10:24 AM
I might as well get my .02 in here. The head coaching job requires different skills than that of a position coach. The head coach needs to be an administrator, or a CEO type. A position coach needs to have specialized knowledge of a single area of the game. Two entirely different job descriptions. There have been many very good assistant coaches " Peter Principled" into the HC job. Frank Ganz Sr. is the poster boy for this phenomena.

Rain Man
07-16-2001, 06:59 PM
Any staff headed by Rich Kotite will hold the title of 'worst staff' based solely on Kotite's presence. That guy was so incompetent that Kurt Schottenheimer could feel superior to him.

The nightmare scenario: Rich Kotite as head coach and GM with Paul Hackett running the offense and Kurt Schottenheimer running the defense. In ten years, that staff would have ten #1 picks, which they would use to draft 9 centers and a punter. We would then applaud the punter as a good pick, but only if he can tackle.