View Full Version : Will Grbac succeed or fail in Baltimore?...

Chiefs Pantalones
07-19-2001, 10:07 PM
Just curious as to what everyone thinks...

Why will he or won't he succeed, will he win over the fans, will he give Bmore back to back Championships, etc?


and if no one wants to discuss this, thats fine. If you guys feel this has been beaten into the ground, I'll delete this topic, if ya'll want me too.:D

I'm a nice guy:p

keg in kc
07-19-2001, 11:58 PM
Well, Cody, let's compare the2000 Chiefs with the 2001 Ravens and see what we find:

The Baltimore defense (and special teams, as well) is clearly better than the Chiefs of last year, so there's no need to touch on that.

Running Back

Tony Richardson, Kimble Anders, Mike Cloud, Frank Moreau and Donnell Bennett vs. Jamal Lewis

Advantage Ravens right?

Not so fast, my friend!

Lewis is a good runner, however there are two legitimate concerns:

1) He's clearly an injury risk.
2) He's simply not a good receiver (27 receptions in 2000). This fact is further evident in one important statistic, in all of 2000 he had 17 carries and 3 receptions on 3rd and 4th down combined. That's about 1.25 per game. Compare this with some other NFL backs from last season:

Eddie George had 37 carries and 16 receptions, 3.3 touches/game.
Marshall Faulk had 19 carries and 17 receptions, 2.5 touches/game.
Edgerrin James had 39 carries and 15 receptions, 3.4 touches/game.

Our guy Tony Richardson had 29 carries and 17 receptions, 2.9 touches/game.

Fact is, Lewis just didn't get the ball after second down. Our new starting back, Priest Holmes, had more touches on 3rd down than Lewis did last year, 10 carries and 13 receptions.

Consider this, as well:Ravens | Keeping Eyes Open for RB?

July 7, 2001 10:52:05 PT According to SportsLine.coms Len Pasquarelli the Baltimore Ravens may keep their eyes open for a veteran running back in the coming weeks. Rookie Chris Barnes is currently the top backup to starter Jamal Lewis and the Ravens only have undrafted rookie free agents Derek Homer and Aaron Kernek behind Barnes.
I wonder if they're looking for someone who can catch...

In any event, I think about it this way: conventional logic would say that the RB situation in Baltimore is a lot better than it was in KC in 2000, but there are problems there if you look carefully. Lewis is not a capable reciever, IMHO (also check his college receiving numbers...), and there's questionable depth, at best, at RB following the departure of Holmes.

I say advantage Baltimore, but not by as wide a margin as most would think. Lewis will run for yardage, but he won't be as good a safety valve for Grbac while under pressure as T-Rich was last season.

Wide Receiver

Derrick Alexander, Sylvester Morris and Kevin Lockett vs. Travis Taylor, Brandon Stokley and Qadry Ismail.

Advantage KC, by about the same margin as Baltimore won the RB battle, in my opinion. I wouldn't consider either team to have a particularly strong lineup at WR, although Derrick Alexander gives KC the edge.

Tight End

Tony Gonzalez vs. Shannon Sharpe.

Again, advantage KC, but Sharpe is still a good one.

Offensive Line

Jeff Blackshear, Tim Grunhard, Victor Riley, Will Shields and John Tait vs. Mike Flynn, Edwin Mulitalo, Jonathan Ogdon, Leon Searcy and Kipp Vickers.

I say that's a push, although it's difficult to completely gauge Baltimore's line without being entirely sure who the starters are...

Coaching/Offensive Coordinating

Gunther Cunningham and Jimmy Raye vs. Brian Billick and Matt Cavanaugh.

I'm biased, obviously, but this is the one place where I see Baltimore as having a clear-cut advantage over KC.

So, all-in-all, in my opinion, Elvis had a slightly better array of (receiving) weapons at his disposal here in Kansas City than he has inherited in Baltimore, and I will say, without reservation, that he will come nowhere close to repeating his 2000 numbers, in large part because of the fact that the Baltimore offense will be far more balanced than the Raye-Gun Chiefs of 2000, which will result in more team success but fewer personal accolates for Elvis.
So,considering all of those factors as well as my personal experiences and observations of Grbac, I predict this for Elvis in 2001:

He will finish the season with less than 3500 yards passing, 20-25 TDs and 15 interceptions, and, although he will have played well, he will not be returning to the Pro Bowl (Trent Green, with 3800 yards passing, 30 TDs and 12 interceptions will keep him out). Baltimore will finish 10-6, but fall short of winning a second Super Bowl. How Baltimore will respond to Grbac depends entirely on how well he manages his ego speaking with the media, and how well the team responds to him in the locker room, and I don't care to venture a guess as to how all that will play out. I will say that I think it's entirely possible that they can fail to win the Super Bowl and Elvis still survive, if, and only if, he can keep his foot out of his mouth

07-20-2001, 12:21 AM
The reason being................
Trent Dilfer took them to a big game......and helped to win them that game. Trent did what he could with that offense with what few offensive weapons they had, yet the offense didn't score. Everyone blamed this on Trent and now come to find that he WINS the quarterback challenge.......something I KNOW Elvis could not do. Turns out it was pry the recievers and not Trent. Well, I think those are some big shoes to fill.......and Elvis will not be able to do anything more with a weak offense than the better man could.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-20-2001, 12:34 AM
Very good take, I applaud you!!


is seriously impressed!:eek:

I'm not being biased, either, but I think Elvis will dictate how Elvis does. And I think(as you put it) he will end up putting his foot in his mouth, because thats the Elvis we all know and love. He will never change, IMO.

"I wasn't throwing the ball away, I was throwing it to Sharpe but he didn't run fast enough...er something"


07-20-2001, 12:44 AM
The problem with Grbac isn't a talent or ability issue. His problem is decision making. Too often times he forces balls into tight spaces and or double coverage. Sometimes, he doesn't even look when throwing an out route. He gets on hot streaks, and they abruptly end when he throws an interception and it gets returned by a safety he obviously didn't see for a touchdown. Grbac also benifited from Gonzalez making some pretty unbelievable catches on overthrown balls. I don't see him getting very good numbers this year, unless he truely learns from his past mistakes.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-20-2001, 12:57 AM
When Joe Seahawk gave us the link to the Ravens BB earlier on, I took my time to browse and see what the fans of Bmore think of Grbac, it turns out, they sound alot like us former-Grbackers...in denial.:eek:


admits he was wrong about Grbac

07-20-2001, 01:09 AM
I'm with you Cody. I really supported Grbac while he was here (which any fan should), and I still am appalled by the way most fans treated him during his tenure. But I am glad he's gone. I am once again optimistic about Trent and company. Maybe I'm in denial again, maybe I'm just a fan... Then again, maybe the Chiefs will go undefeated and surprise the universe. :) :D

Chiefs Pantalones
07-20-2001, 01:22 AM

Thats what I was about to post.

That I respect the Ravens fans (like you said, they are supporting him, like we did when he was a Chief) all they are doing is being fans. Some of us supported him, not all. I think its going to be the same way in Bmore. Some support him, some don't. Poor Elvis...he thought he was leaving Kansas City but so far KC has followed him. Must of broke a mirror.

This is going to be tough for Elvis, IMO, the fans won't except anything but back to back. And if Elvis doesn't deliver, there will be crys for Dilfer, IMO.


pressure...no pressure, all he has to do is win the Super Bowl:rolleyes:

ps. those are actually Sharpes words, BTW. but he was not being sarcastic, like me.

07-20-2001, 01:56 AM
keg in kc= excellent post, covered most of the bases with that post, DEF was not included and I see your reasons why considering their DEF. Elvis will surely have some success in Balt., how much? Who knows. He will have some moments that we all are famaliar with. One thing I find interesting about Grbac being Balt. QB is that Shannon Sharpe hasn't brought his big mouth out about repeating yet. I really think Sharpe wanted Dilfer back in Balt., he has seen Grbac play firsthand and I am sure he has some very serious concerns about his QB. I remember a answer from aquestion to Shannon just after Grbac signed. He was asked if he thinks Grbac was an improvement for the team. His response was something like if we get to the SB and win then it is an improvement, if not then it was the wrong personnel move. In my eyes Grbac already has legitimate problems with his only proven veteren reciever and more and more it looks like Grbac will never be totally accepted where ever he goes and for him and his fragile personality he will never find the success that he is looking for.

aturnis= I agree with you somewhat. I believe Trent Dilfer is a reason that the Ravens won the SB but the biggest reason was the 2000 Raven DEF which by all means was arguably the best DEF of all-time

Cody= I agree he will never change.

mmccann2333=I agree with you in terms of football perspective about Grbac, when you add the whole personality complex that he has into the equation he doesn't look even worth anything to a team IMO with his "I didn't do it" attitude.

Mark M
07-20-2001, 06:01 AM
Well, I'm going to go against the grain here a bit.

I think EG will thrive in Baltimore for a couple of reasons:

1. Billick does wonders with QBs. Look at Minnesota. Granted, they've got Carter and Moss, but Billick seems to be one of those guys that can read what a QB is capable of and put him into a situation where he will succeed.

2. The defense. They will keep games close and make it so that EG never has to play catch up. We've all seen how the guy responds in two minute drills.

3. Physical ability. The Ravens have never had the kind of arm that EG has ... as much as he makes mistakes, you can't deny that he does have a cannon.

Of course, this all assumes that he learned from his past mistakes and keeps his yapper shut. The Ravens had some incredible chemistry last year, and getting rid of Dilfer will hurt that. Say what you want about Dilfer, but he is a genuinely good guy who gets the support of his teammates (although the fans hated him. Why I'm not sure. He's not flashy, not the second coming of Unitas, but a great leader.) Elvis needs to step up and be a leader without bad mouthing his teammates or wearing, say, a NY Yankees cap in an interview (similar to wearing an Indians hat while here in KC).

If he just does his job, he'll be the perfect fit, IMO.

~~Thinks Baltimore was made for Elvis.

07-20-2001, 06:22 AM
Grbac will be fine. The Ravens will not ask him to win games; they will just ask him not to screw up. The pressure that he had in KC will not be there in Baltimore. True, Grbac will not have Gonzalez, which will hurt him a bit, but the Ravens Defense is the engine that drives that team. Trading Grbac for Dilfer is not a downgrade.

Grbac leaving KC for Baltimore is a win/win situation. The well in KC was so poisoned that Grbac would never have been accepted, even with another Pro Bowl season. He gets a fresh start in Baltimore, in a system that fits his skills quite nicely.

KC also wins. Not just because a large percentage of the fan base despised Grbac, but because Grbac would have been a terrible fit with the new up-tempo Offense coming to the R&G.

Expects Grbac to shine in Baltimore.

07-20-2001, 06:39 AM
Most of it has already been said, but I agree that Grbac should succeed. I've allways been of the opinion that Dilfer and Grbac were very similar. Good physical talent, but suffered from making bad decisions in critical situations.

If Dilfer could perform with that team, I think Grbac could and should do the same since the team has not changed appreciably.

It will be interesting to watch from afar and see what happens on this BB should Grbac perform well.

Bob Dole
07-20-2001, 06:42 AM
SI's Dr. Z seems to agree with Mark and Gaz.

When asked whether Brad Johnson or Elvis would help their team the most, he responded:

<i>I think Grbac will have a better year because he'll be in a better offensive system, getting better coaching.</i>

Of course, Bob Dole thinks that Elvis would receive better coaching if he signed with the Katy High Tigers...

Mile High Mania
07-20-2001, 07:55 AM
Here's my take on Grbac...
This is a tough question because (a) it depends on how you define success and (b) not many teams have been able to successfully defend their SB titles in back-to-back years.

Grbac will be a success if he greatly elevates the Raven's passing game compared to 2000, and doing so not at the expense of the running game.

Don't judge Grbac on whether or not they win another SuperBowl (like Sharpe will do), b/c he can only control the offense... not the defense or special teams.

So, on offense, if the Ravens are able to maintain the consistency of the 2000 running game while greatly improving the passing game and scoring ... Grbac is a success.

Last season, the Raven QBs amassed the following stats:

504 attempts and 287 completions (Dilfer 134 of 226)
3102 passing yards (Dilfer 1502)
20 TDs and 19 Ints (Dilfer 12 / 11)
43 Sacks (Dilfer 23 sacks)

So, if Grbac can do better than the combined QB numbers and get a li'l help from the O-line in the sacks department... he will be a success.

It is very hard to win one SB, much less two in a row. So, it is very unfair to say "Hell, even Dilfer won one with this team... Grbac sucks if he doesn't win one this year."

2001 will be the season that the Raven's offense will have to match the Raven's defense in production. They won't have such an easy road....

07-20-2001, 08:07 AM
If anything short of winning the SB is a failure for Grbac, then there is a good chance he can not succeed.
Winning back to back SBs is a tall order especially in this era of FA.

Perhaps the question should be can Elvis achieve a high level of play in BMore?

To that question, I say yes.

Elvis will benefit from good coaching for the first time in his career as a starter.
With Jamal Lewis as his RB, his play fake will be even more effective, because Lewis is a decoy that can not be ignored.
With defenses frozen by the play fake, it will give his receivers an opportunity to get open, and Elvis can hit the open receiver.

Finally, unlike KC last season, the onus of winning will not fall on Elvis' shoulder.
With the Raven defense, Elvis and the offense will be able to get out to early leads, and with Billick as HC, they will not go into a protect mode to maintain that lead.

He won't put up the kind of numbers that he did last season, but he will be more effective, and efficient.

07-20-2001, 08:10 AM
And it will sting, a little.

Fat Elvis
07-20-2001, 08:17 AM
Personally, I hope he falls on his ***, not for his sake but for the fans. The Ravens fans have already assumed that they will repeat and are talking three-peat. They are far more annoying and less articulate than our beloved Broncos and Raiders fans. They consider, "F#%& b%#@$ mwahahaha," to be a complete sentence.:rolleyes:

07-20-2001, 08:20 AM
If anyone has leared anything on this and the Star's BB, it's that those that have serious dislike for EG will determine him a failure regardless of his performance.

Realistically, if Baltimore goes back to the playoffs and they play well, win one or two playoff games with EG at the helm, he would have to be seen as successful with Baltimore.

07-20-2001, 09:13 AM
IMHO, EG does have some talent, but it is his whinny attitude and always wanting to blame other people for his mistakes that is going to keep him from ever being what he truly wants to be and that is successful. His teammates will learn this if they don’t already know it and they will not respect him for it. If your teammates do not respect their so-called leader then that leader can not be successful.

To address another matter, you do not have to cheer for and like every player on a team to be called a true fan. I consider myself a very devoted Chiefs fan, but I was against EG ever coming to Kansas City. I did not think he had what it took to be a starter and I still think that he would be better off as backup. For the sake of Baltimore I do hope that the coaches can do better job for EG then Kansas City was able to do.

07-20-2001, 09:18 AM
So in short, LoudMouth, what you're saying is there's really nothing that EG can ever do that will measure success in your book because of your perception of his 'attitude'?

On a side note, how long have you personally known Elvis?

07-20-2001, 09:26 AM
I think Elvis will be as successful there as he was here. Close to .500, no playoff wins, bonehead plays in the field, good stats, alienated teammates, poor clock managment, and injury-prone. IF he does succeed beyond my meager expections, the reason will be his supporting cast. After watching every game he ever played for the Chiefs I am positive about one thing: Grbac does not elevate the play of his team. He does not make those around him better or inspire confidence. If Baltimore won the Superbowl with Trent Dilfer, they certainly can win it all with Grbac. That is no testement to Grbacs talent.

Fat Elvis
07-20-2001, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus
If anyone has leared anything on this and the Star's BB, it's that those that have serious dislike for EG will determine him a failure regardless of his performance.

Realistically, if Baltimore goes back to the playoffs and they play well, win one or two playoff games with EG at the helm, he would have to be seen as successful with Baltimore.

The fans and even his teammates (esp Sharpe) have said that anything less than a repeat and Elvis is considered a failure.

07-20-2001, 09:35 AM
Sharpe...the perfect example of a player with a poor attitude, yet I consider him to be quite successful.

Fat Elvis: did you note the word 'Realistically'? I expect Balt fans (just like KC fans) to expect a SB win and the players to say that now, however after the season, a 'realistic' or objective review might not have such a grandiose goal to measure success.

Baby Lee
07-20-2001, 09:45 AM
I think Elvis will be as successful there as he was here. Close to .500, no playoff wins, bonehead plays in the field, good stats, alienated teammates, poor clock managment, and injury-prone. IF he does succeed beyond my meager expections, the reason will be his supporting cast. After watching every game he ever played for the Chiefs I am positive about one thing: Grbac does not elevate the play of his team. He does not make those around him better or inspire confidence. If Baltimore won the Superbowl with Trent Dilfer, they certainly can win it all with Grbac. That is no testement to Grbacs talent.

In summary, all past Chief's failures fall on Grbac's shoulders, all past Chief's successes are attributable to everyone but Grbac. Who could leave behind a fan base that can demonstrate irrefutable logic like that?

07-20-2001, 10:16 AM
Don't you just love the mindset JC? And these same people label the man a traitor because he got fed up with the BS and left. I'll be curious to see how long the Green honeymoon lasts. Since I'm seeing a 6-10 season, I'm betting boos will rain by midyear.

As was said earlier if you solely define sucess by a SB win, than 30 of the 31 QB's 'suck' every year. Since he <b>finally</b> has a coach with a clue on offense, a RB to help him and a decent defense to back him up I expect EG to be a sucess. I'm guessing something around 3000+ yards and a deep run in the playoffs is in the offing.
Will he and Balt win the SB? I don't know but I wouldn't bet against them. And if he does will he direct an 'up yours' to KC? I wouldn't blame him if he did.

Mark M
07-20-2001, 10:27 AM
(sniff ... sniff)
Methinks I smell a Packfan in LoudMouth. Be careful. ;)

The fact is, people who hate Grbac always will. Some that liked him no longer will now that he's gone. If he wins it all they will say he got lucky, if he loses they will say I told you so.

I find the question of his success in Bmore interesting enough to comment upon, but when all is said and done I could honestly care less. I'm a fan of the Chiefs, not of individual players.

~~Believes he has spotted a troll in Chiefs clothing ...

Clint in Wichita
07-20-2001, 10:27 AM
Keep in mind that the Raven offense was absolutely pathetic last year, up to and including the postseason. Trent Dilfer was asked not to lose games, and he didn't.

Grbac, on the other hand, has made a habit of going out and LOSING games that were within KC's grasp...and with offensive weapons that were superior to Baltimore's last year, and will be again this year.

Billick may be a great offensive mind, but clearly Al Saunders is as forward-thinking as any offensive mind in the NFL, and he just might have the talent to do most of what he wants...Billick does not. If BB opens up the playbook because of his new "star" QB's so-called talent, he will be making a huge mistake, and will quickly crawl back into the offensive shell he was in all of last year.

I personally think that Grbac will become very, very average at best. (23-24 TDs, 15-16 INTs, 3,300 yds.) Trent Green, if healthy, will blow him out of the water mentally, physically, and statistically.

IMO Dilfer is just as physically talented as Grbac, and much more intelligent. If KC had signed him instead of Green, I'd still consider it an upgrade.

Clint in Wichita
07-20-2001, 10:38 AM
The Grbashers were right, and the Grbackers were dead wrong. IMO Elvis' absence in KC proves this.

If EG was as good as some seem to think he is, CP would've coughed up the money. After all, no skilled GM would let a "franchise" QB just walk. Some say the fans drove him out of town, but if that's the case, he's a head case. Donovan McNabb was booed mercilessly by Philly fans (probably the toughest fans in the country in ALL sports) after being drafted, but won them over with his skill and leadership. IMO KC fans are no harder on their local athletes than Philly. No one is. They booed Mike Schmidt (SP?) for God's sake!

Either Grbac is not as good as advertised, or Carl Peterson is a total moron letting a "bada$$" QB leave a QB-starved team.

07-20-2001, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
Either Grbac is not as good as advertised, or Carl Peterson is a total moron letting a "bada$$" QB leave a QB-starved team.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Grbac was neither as good as the GrBackers believed, nor as bad as the GrBashers proclaimed.
And CP isn't a total moron.

The question, for me, remains, why is CP still here?

07-20-2001, 10:53 AM
Im allways interested in that assertion, Clint. Right about what? Wrong about what?

Any skilled GM would not endanger the entire teams future for one person, nor would any skilled GM pay the ridiculous contract that Grbac was demanding. It's a nice circular reasoning, I see you've learned from Ken well.

I think you should acknowledge that there is nothing Grbac will ever do, including winning a SB this coming season, that would cause you to give him credit for anything.

07-20-2001, 11:02 AM
A Packers fan not a chance.

As for knowing EG personally, I wouldn’t give him the opportunity to spit shine my shoes. But, you do not have to know EG personally, to know that he is a sniffling cry-baby that places the blame on his teammates. All you had to do was listen to his post game interviews when they lost due to his incompetence, he could never face the fact that he lost the game on his own many times. Yes, Sharpe has a poor attitude but in a different way, he just believes he is above all.

KCTitus, if by chance EG does happen to amaze me and pull a SB out of his arse, I will gladly admit that I am wrong………but I am sure that will be a snow ball chance in hell!

Carl Peterson, is a dumb a$$, what was he thinking when he first signed EG anyway.

07-20-2001, 11:10 AM
LoudMouth: That's interesting. Since I've only been able to read his comments via the Internet rather than the post game interviews, I must not get the full story.

Maybe you could enlighten me, a poor out of towner, about these comments. Please save the 'I cant catch them as well' comment as that was 3 years ago. If you're relying on that to base your opinion, then I think I know where you stand as well.

I seriously doubt Baltimore will win the SB with or without EG altogether this year. Having said that, Im objective enough to realize that EG's performance should not solely be based upon that goal.

Since you're new here, I'll will say that many, Clint is a good example, have so much personal stock invested in EG's failures that they cannot give him credit for anything he might do good. There was a comment made prior to last season by those that dislike EG intensely that EG wouldnt throw for 4000 yds and if he did, he would be an 'elite' QB. Well we know what happened and there was a lot of backtracking on that.

Maybe we could meet in the middle of the road here and say that he's not great, but at the same time he's not a pathetic loser that couldnt play football to save his own a$$.

07-20-2001, 11:16 AM
Personally, I like Elvis.

I also wish him luck with the Ravens.

I am a fan of the chiefs and hope we devour every foe.

From the top of my head, I can't think of any player that doesn't have their strengths and weaknesses and Elvis is no exception.

I have always felt that he was a Pro Bowl caliber player and could put up Pro Bowl caliber numbers. How was I wrong in this?

From the top of my head, however, I can't think of any other KC player that was treated so poorly by the fans. Elvis is good enough to choose to play elsewhere and he has made that choice.

I can find no good reason to continue to castigate him or defend him, other than to express my amazement at the obstinateness of some fans.

anxiousely awaiting to see if green is a pro bowl caliber qb...

07-20-2001, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Luzap

From the top of my head, however, I can't think of any other KC player that was treated so poorly by the fans.

Ever hear of Steve Bono or Lin Elliot? Gosh, I hope neither one of those guys got their feelings hurt.

Clint in Wichita
07-20-2001, 12:04 PM
Generally, when a player gets his arse ripped wide open again and again and AGAIN by the fans and local media, there is a reason. I'm sure there are a few examples where the bashing was unjustified such as during the draft, but there aren't many.

I don't think Grbac was singled out for no good reason.

I'm with Luzap...I'm going to drop the subject unless by some miracle KC and Baltimore meet in the postseason. EG isn't worth the wear and tear on my keyboard!

07-20-2001, 12:12 PM
I'm sure that EG will succeed in Baltimore. Prove to his teammates that he is a whiner, direct Baltimore to the playoffs (but not a SB this year), cause division in the locker room because of some stupid comment yet unmade and finally that by his own actions off the field, prove to be a low-class individual.

I don't wish him harm or to fail, he'll do that on his own. I can always admire a person with class for that reason. But it's hard to admire someone with no class even if his accomplishments are great :)

07-20-2001, 12:20 PM
quote from Loudmouth "Carl Peterson, is a dumb a$$"

...and disputing with Titus....

~If this isn't packfan...it could be his illegitimate brother. ;)

Lightning Rod
07-20-2001, 01:40 PM
E.G. is in somewhat of a no-win situation. Balt. Due mostly to an outstanding defense won the big one last year. While their D should again be well above average it is unlikely to have them play to the same level this year as they did last. We have seen it several times with the Chiefs. It is just human nature to coast a little after a great year. Elvis again IMHO has more physical talent than does Dilfer but, things more difficult to measure such as heart and people skills may be lacking. Again most people think Balt won it all inspite of Dilfer and their offense last year. This will lead the Balt fans to find anything short of another SB victory as a step back. Not really fair but that is the way it is.

07-20-2001, 01:41 PM
Okay, since I am a newbie I do not know if being Packfan’s illegitimate brother is a good thing or a bad thing. So, I am going to step out on a limb here and say it is probably a bad thing. None the less if Packfan look at CP as an idiot then he has to have some smarts. CP has really proven himself worthy of being known as a keen guy. Lets start with the hiring of Steve Bono, then we can go to the hiring of Elvis, then we can go to the fact that he hired Gunn. Gunn was a great guy, just not cut out to be a head coach. These are just some of the recent idiotic things that he has done…. Should I continue pointing out the obvious?

07-20-2001, 01:42 PM

07-20-2001, 01:48 PM
LoudMouth: yes those are obviously bad things. Did CP do a stupid thing by letting EG leave?

07-20-2001, 01:51 PM
He'll be as successful as he was here and about as popular.

Look at it logically, as far as the Baltimore O goes, he's working with less talent than he had here. WRs anyway. So he'll have to rely on his talent more...which is limited, much as I hated to admit that when he was here...and when you throw his stupid comments into the fire, well, I just don't see him taking them back to the SB because I don't see their D being as dominant as last year...

If Grbastard is going to bad mouth TG, the best TE in the game, imagine what he'll will do to lesser receivers when they fail to catch his under, over, allover thrown balls...

Bitter? Still? you bet....f him.

07-20-2001, 02:19 PM

Its not a bad thing to be compared to me. Just read some of my posts and you will see why.

Things I stand for:

1. Rebuilding means rebuilding. Get rid of Peterson and start over

2. Build primarily through the draft

3. NEVER trade first round picks for QB who has been FREE twice in his career and is 8-11 as a starter

4. The Chiefs are closer to the bottom then they are to the top. Only the Bengals, Seahawks and Bears have Non-playoff win streaks longer than the Chiefs.

As far as regulars on this board, here is the lowdown:

Cannibal: Very knowledgable, tells it like it is
Gaz: Football savvy, understands the game, professional
Clint: Knows football
Mark M: Knows football
KPhobia: Good guy, argues with facts
Luzap: Your hard pressed to get anything specific and football related from him. Doesnt understand the game very well
Titus: More concerned with your english and previous quotes than debating the current topic. Kind of a loser being that he has printed and saved 100% of my posts from the last three years. Has vowed five times to never speak to me again
Injun: Idiot
Bliss: Rarely shows up after Chief losses. Likes to talk about alot of things unrelated to the Chiefs/NFL. Big time Bobby Knight fan
Milkman: Knows football

What will happen eventually here, is that you and I will be accused of being one in the same by some of our brighter posters (Luzap, Bliss, Titus). You will also see that I support MOST arguments with sound facts. I would like to see that out of more posters, but the facts speak for themselves. Its hard to argue that the Chiefs have the best fans in the NFL when 15,000 of them dont show up for a December game last year. Yet, somebody will come back and try to argue that by bringing up the Packers or Broncos fans.

If you are going to bash Peterson, be ready to support it and be ready to be called names and threatened with the "ignore" feature thats on this board. "Ignoring" you means never seeing any of your posts. Can you believe it? A football chat room that allows one to ignore someone elses opinion.

Go figure.

07-20-2001, 02:20 PM
Letting EG go was the smartest thing CP ever did!

07-20-2001, 02:20 PM
JCJohnny, ck_IN,

Please give me one reason to have any mindset other that Elvis is an avg. to poor QB. If that reason is a stat, I will post side by side comparisons to Jeff George, Scott Mitchell, etc. I don't think Elvis sucks because he has not won a Superbowl. I don't put all the blame on him. But as the QB he deserves criticism for the teams poor showing and his poor performances i.e.. 5 yards short with no timeouts, etc. As for having a vested interest in his continued mediocrity, Titus is right. I have bashed E.G. for the last 3 years. if he becomes a top-flight QB(winning in the playoffs, making crucial plays in tight situations, LEADING by example) I will look like I didn't recognize a talented QB right in front of my eyes. But Backers have a vested interest as well. If he fails in Baltimore where he has almost every advantage(great defense, solid RB, good coaching, 2 games each against cincy and pitt, jax) Backers may also look foolish.

07-20-2001, 02:25 PM
Okay, now I can say that is might be an honor to be called Packfans illegitimate brother! Let people think that I am Packfan, at least it will keep them guessing.

07-20-2001, 02:55 PM
Will Grbac succeed or fail in Baltimore?...

Who cares!?! :p

He probably will be successful only because he is a much better QB then Dilfer but then again, he is a Raven so Who cares!

07-20-2001, 02:58 PM

Grbac basically left on his own. He made obscene contract demands forcing Peterson to cut him. Carl wanted him back! You read where some of the guys on here claim that its all planned out: Trade for Vermeil and then Vermeil goes and gets the QB he wants in Trent Green. REALITY is that Peterson and Vermeil wanted to keep Grbac. Remember all the quotes from Vermeil on how great Elvis is?? If Peterson didnt want him, he would have cut him long before the March 1 deadline and signed some other journeyman instead of bending over and taking one from the Rams.

So the move your applauding Carl for is a move he really didnt want to make.

BTW, I am on record (just ask Titus) that the Baltimore Ravens do NOT win a playoff game this year, keeping Grbac's streak alive (7 year vet, no playoff wins). The guy is a loser. Has everything physically, but seriously lacks the mental toughness and the heart that a winner requires.

Dakota Chief
07-20-2001, 03:03 PM
After watching this "RUM-HEAD" the last several years, I know he'll find a way to lose the big game. Just as we observed here. His new and more pressing problem is that his defense (R. Lewis etal) will probably take him out back and shoot him, as a result of his mental errors.:cool:

07-20-2001, 03:10 PM

" Kphobia, I am going to log back in under another name. "


07-20-2001, 03:11 PM
I actually agree with the last line of your post. Grbac has the physical tools to be a great QB, but he lacks the mental toughness, Intestinal fortitude and physical toughness to live up to expectations. Some people thrive under pressure and some choke. While the Elvi was here, i supported him because he was the QB of the Chiefs and for that reason only. I was pissed about the way he left. He was looking for a fat payday. Yes he had a good statistical year, but he chose to take his ball and look for the payday....I hope he strains a labia in week one and sits on the bench until week 8 nursing it.

CP has made some desperation moves. I don't think anyone disputes that. Moves like bringing in Perriman, Carlton Gray, elliot, the barefoot blunder, etc...have all been bad moves. However Hind site is 20-20...You also have to give him credit. He has found some gems in the rubble as well, with my best current example being Hicks.

I just don't think it does any good to harp on the turds when we can look for the diamonds. I don't agree with every move the Chiefs make, but I have no choice but to tollerate them and hope for the best.

Carl isn't responsible for soft zones, play calling, and playing "not to lose" at the end of games.

~enough already.

07-20-2001, 03:18 PM

Agreed about Carl. Hicks is a great pickup, ditto for Shields, Grunhard, Szott, Dale Carter, DT, Derrick Alexander, Rison (for a year), Gonzalez, ect. He has made some great moves. HOWEVER: MOST GMs get fired with the recent record Carl has had. Plus, it doesnt look promising for the Chiefs anytime soon. One would think that the departure of Marty was the time to rebuild from Carl on down.

Carl isnt responsible for play calling, soft zones, ect, but coaches decide on what plays to call based on ability. It is my opinion that Carl Peterson hasnt provided the coaches with the necessary talent to move ahead of .500. Bam Morris?? Steve Bono?? Elvis Grbac?? Lew Bush?? Carlton Gray?? These are just a few of the stiffs that didnt do squat before they got here, but for some reason, Chief fans expect them to be hall of famers when they get here? Then blast the coaches when they are not.

Either Carl Peterson has a lot of Chief fans snowed or we have some of the dumbest fans in the league.

07-20-2001, 04:50 PM
First, I am not here to defend CP.
I still don't understand why he stll has a job.
However, when it comes to the Chiefs record in the playoffs, the responsibilty for that lands on Marty's shoulders.

Com'on, whether or not CP provided enough talent for the Chiefs to get to the SB is a debate for another thread, a debate I would fall on yor side on, but he did provide enough talent to beat the Colts in '95. A couple of other wins were there for Marty, but he couldn't do it.

Why couldn't he do it?
Because he's afraid of losing?
Billick went to the SB with a similiar team to Marty's. Why was he able to do it?
Because he's not afraid of losing.

As a prime example, the TD pass to Sharpe, deep in their own territory, 3rd and long, with a QB that is primarily asked to not lose games.
Would Marty have made that call in the same circumstance?
Not a snowball's chance in hell, because he's afraid of losing.
Billick took the risk, because he's not afraid of losing.

07-20-2001, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Gaz
Grbac will be fine. The Ravens will not ask him to win games; they will just ask him not to screw up. The pressure that he had in KC will not be there in Baltimore.

First of all, for most of her career in KC all we did was ask her not to screw up. But she did... all the time.

Also, the pressure on Girlbac in B-more will be a hundred times higher than it was here in KC. They are the defending SB champs, the only thing they changed was adding Girlbac and Leon Searcy [which is an upgrade]. Girlbac actually has a better team than Dilfer did with the addition of Searcy. If they don't win the Superbowl it will be all Girlbac's fault [right or wrong] that is how it will be.

The eyes of all football fan's [millions] in the country will be on Girlbac every week to see if she screws the SB champs out of a repeat.

She has an infinite amount of pressure to deal with in B-more.

07-20-2001, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by milkman
Billick went to the SB with a similiar team to Marty's. Why was he able to do it?


Billick has the best defense in NFL history at his disposal. Not to mention an excellent probowl caliber RB, [who's not ready to retire].

That's not a very good comparison.

07-20-2001, 05:21 PM
When I say that the teams were similiar, I'm not saying that the Chiefs were a SB quality team, but they did play similiar styles.
Win with defense, ask the offense to minimize mistakes.
What I'm getting at is, despite the Chiefs lack of talent offensively, they did have enough talent to win against teams like the Colts, if they would have at least taken some risks on offense.
Billick took risks.
Marty never did.

07-20-2001, 05:25 PM
I disagree.

Lin Elliot has to make field goals. He had three shots and missed them all.

Elliot sucked arse in Dallas, and sucked all year in 95 for KC. Bono was a career backup.

That is a lack of talent and I didn't even mention the other skill positions.

Blame it Marty all you like if it makes you feel better. But he's been gone for three years and we still have the same problems we did while he was here.

Fat Elvis
07-20-2001, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Dakota Chief
After watching this "RUM-HEAD" the last several years, I know he'll find a way to lose the big game. Just as we observed here. His new and more pressing problem is that his defense (R. Lewis etal) will probably take him out back and shoot him, as a result of his mental errors.:cool:

Dakota Chief, I think your post is entirely inappropriate saying that Ray Lewis, et al will take Grbac out back and shoot him.

We all know Ray Lewis prefers to stab his victims in the parking lot.

07-20-2001, 05:34 PM
"Lin Elliot has to make field goals. He had three chances and missed them all"

That goes to my point about Marty and risks. As soon as the Chiefs got into FG range, Marty's whole plan was to position the ball for the FG atempt. He wasn't trying to get first downs and continue drives, and ultimately to score TDs, so much as he was trying to give his kicker the best opportunity to make FGs.
A losing strategy, especially with Elliot, who's shortcomings you've already pointed ot.

07-20-2001, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by milkman
He wasn't trying to get first downs and continue drives, and ultimately to score TDs, so much as he was trying to give his kicker the best opportunity to make FGs.

Actually you're wrong again.

He did try to score, but everytime we tried Steve Bono threw to the other team.

No coach could have won the Superbowl with that team. I am sorry if you feel differently, but I'd bet my life on it.

The talent was lacking. Marty's conservative approach is what got them there in the first place. If they had taken more risks I assure you they would not have went 13-3. They were lucky to go 13-3 in the first place. They won like 5 games on the last couple of plays that year.

The strongest part by far on that team was the O-line. O-lines don't win championships, they never have and never will. [And don't try telling me Dallas' O-line won those superbowls. While I agree that they were a major contributor, they also had three hall of famers at the big 3 positions.]

07-20-2001, 05:52 PM
Once again, I'm not debating whether or not the Chiefs have had the talent to go to the SB, I have said that they didn't.
What I'm debating is whether or not they had the talent to win against Indy.
They did.
And those passes were only a half-hearted attempt to get first downs.
Their primary goal was to get the in a position favorable to the kicker.
And, given how poorly Bonehead was playing that day, why the hell didn't Marty replace him sooner?

07-20-2001, 05:55 PM
The coach put them into position to win the game, bottom line.

07-20-2001, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Cannibal
The coach put them into position to win the game, bottom line.

From where I sit, the coach put them into position to lose.

His playoff record speaks for itself.

07-20-2001, 06:14 PM
His playoff record with free agent rejects, bad draft choices and players that nobody else even wanted speaks for itself actually.

Many of those players from that team aren't even in the league anymore despite being young enough to still play for crying out loud.

07-20-2001, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Cannibal
His playoff record with free agent rejects, bad draft choices and players that nobody else even wanted speaks for itself actually.

Many of those players from that team aren't even in the league anymore despite being young enough to still play for crying out loud.

He still found a way to get these teams to the playoffs, even earn Homefield advantage twice. Why couldn't he find a way to win a playoff game?

He played in fear of losing at playoff time.
That's my story anI'm sticking to it.

As someone else pointed out a couple of weeks ago, my hatred of Marty is well documented.
So I believe that we will have to agree to disagree on this.

07-20-2001, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by milkman
He still found a way to get these teams to the playoffs, even earn Homefield advantage twice.

That literally is testament to how a good a coach he is.

How anyone could get some of those "teams" to the playoffs is simply incredible.

Marty has made mistakes, everyone does. But he has gotten a very bad rap for things that aren't all his fault. Many coaches would've quit the Chiefs much sooner than he did if they were forced to try and win with what he was provided.

We still don't have a legit feature back, or second receiver [many would argue that Alexander is a true second receiver] and he's been gone for three years. Plus, we really don't know if we have a legit QB yet, Trent's gotta prove that. If he doens't, then we'll still have a hole at QB. For 12+ years this team has been lacking some of the most important players on the field.

Oh well, let's just continue to bury our heads in the sand blame the people that are no longer here. I guess it's easier that way.

07-20-2001, 07:19 PM
We agree on CP.
He should've been out of a job in KC years ago.

My problem with Marty isn't that he lost playoff games.
My problem with Marty is that he lost playoff games that he should have won, and how he lost those games.

Playing not to lose is a sure formula for losing.

07-21-2001, 09:29 AM
Anyone else coaches the losers that Marty had and they dont make the playoffs. Bono, Lake Dawson, Sean LaChappel, Derrick Walker, Greg Hill??? You expect a playoff win with that garbage?? If so, then the talent the Chiefs have today (Green, Gonzo, Holmes, Alexander, ect) should be enough to get to the AFC Championship.

Cannibal is right. You take points anyway you can get them in the playoffs. Especially with the defense the Chiefs had. Elliott (whom Carl Peterson signed) had three chances to tie that game. He missed all of them. I doubt the players in the locker room were pissed at Marty. From what I hear, Elliott didnt even go to the locker room. He went right from the field to his car.

How many more losing seasons do you want before you realize that Marty was a damn good coach and the real problem lies in the front office (Carl)?

07-21-2001, 10:01 AM
Marty was a very good regular season coach.
He got teams to overachieve in the regular season, but his game plan became even more conservative in the playoffs.

To win in the playoffs, you have to score points.
You can't win when you average something like 13 points.

And I say, once again, I didn't expect him to get to the SB with the talent he had, but he could've won against some of the teams he lost to, like the Doplphins when Lowery missed a kick, or the Colts.

Why does it always come down to missed kicks, or alledged bad calls with Marty.

At some point you have to point he finger atthe coach when your team consistently blames these kind of things for losses.

As a coach at playoff time, Marty sucks.
He sucked in Cleveland. He sucked in KC.
He will suck in DC.

Clint in Wichita
07-21-2001, 04:08 PM
IMO there really is no such thing as a "good regular season coach" or "bad playoff coach", etc. It takes the same EXACT qualities to win regular season games and postseason games. You can't expect a coach to change what the team had been doing well at the last minute, just for the playoffs.

Scoring in the NFL, like every other major sport, tends go down during the postseason. Marty could've been more aggressive, but it probably would've bit him in the arse with guys like Bono and Grbac "leading" the offense.

Marty's postseason failures are a direct result of the pathetic offensive talent provided by Peterson & not his coaching style or ability. Had Byner not fumbled the ball on the one yard line, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

Schottenheimer made 2 critical errors during the '97 playoff game. One was starting Grbac, and the other was going for that fake FG that the announcers were discussing before the ball was even snapped. IMO the first mistake was probably caused by CP interfering with Marty's job, and the second was a result of a feeling of desperation...knowing that Grbac could not get the job done without the aid of trick plays and lady luck.

IMO it was Marty that gave the Chiefs their great run in the early/mid 90s, not Peterson.

I wanted CP to be fired and I wanted Tom Donahoe brought in. It will be interesting to see how Buffalo improves in relation to KC.

07-21-2001, 04:20 PM
I can't remember who, but someone brought an instance of a former player complaining about Marty's propensity to add plays for the postseason and becoming more conservative.

If there is no such thing as a good regular season coach and a bad playoff coach, why have coaches like Marty, Denny Green and Chuck Knox enjoyed so mch regular season success, yet fail so miserbly in the postseason.

And once again, had Byner not fumbled, the Browns wold have only tied the score.

Elway vs. Marty in OT.
My money is on Elway in that matchup.

California Injun
07-22-2001, 12:16 AM
Marty's philosophy was quite simple. If the game was close, his offensive game plan sucked. Hence, the Chiefs were never going to jump on teams early UNLESS the opposing teams turned the ball over.

If the Chiefs got a 7-10 point lead then he folded the playbook and relied on his defense.

If the Chiefs got behind by 7-10 then (gasp!!) you'd actually see a downfield pass longer than 12 yards.

Where Marty screwed himself in the post-season was by banking on those turnovers for good field position. What he still fails to grasp is that the other play-off teams know this and hang onto the ball better.

No freebies = no quick/easy scores on a short field. So he plays the field position game with his punter and special teams.

If you think about it, the Chiefs were a blocked punt (by Cash) away from losing to Pittsburgh in the 1993 play-offs. A quick check of the Chiefs offensive numbers under Marty.

1990 - 16 = (L)
1991 - 10 = (W)
1991 - 14 = (L)
1992 - 0 = (L)
1993 - 27 = (W)
1993 - 28 = (W)
1993 - 13 = (L)
1994 - 17 = (L)
1995 - 7 = (L)
1997 - 10 = (L)

Hmm.... outside of that 10-6 win over the sorry-arsed Raiders in 1991, it seems the only victories by KC were when they scored 27 and 28 points

Average Marty-led teams points in those 7 losses?

11.1 a game!!!!

Yep! It was just plain bad luck that the Chiefs lost those games. (Oh, and we had horrible talent right?)

07-22-2001, 04:07 AM

Albert Lewis blocked the kick...:D

I do see your point. But also don't forget that the Titans advanced due to a questionable latteral, and the Lambs advanced due to a botched IR call against the Bucs. Denver advances against us after HORRIBLE officiating, and let's not forget "the fumble" in cleveland....

07-22-2001, 06:12 AM
Sure, other teams have had bad breaks in the playoffs. It happens at times.
But when a time fails to win playoff games as consistently as the Chiefs did on "bad breaks" or "poor officiating", then one has to, or should at least begin to wonder if the responsibility for the playoff losses doesn't actually lie elsewhere.
As far as I'm concerned, that resposibility falls to Marty, and his failure to recognize that the offense needed to make more than a minimal contribution to the cause.

07-22-2001, 10:44 AM

07-22-2001, 10:48 AM
Marty is gone, has been for three years.

We still have not won a playoff game.

We still have no RB.

We still have no primetime legit # 1 receiver. [DA is a true # 2 guy]

We still have no franchise QB.

We still have no field goal kicker.

We still have an incomplete team on the field with players that should be backups in starting roles.

We still have cap problems galore.

Bottom line... Blame Marty all you like, but the Chiefs problems over the last 12 years have one common theme [Carl Peterson].

07-22-2001, 10:55 AM
If Green and Holmes do not pan out, once again we are RIGHT BACK where we started.

If this happens, I will be highly pissed.

Nelson Muntz
07-22-2001, 11:32 AM
actually Brad it was Keith Cash who blocked that punt in the Pittsburg game.

07-22-2001, 01:40 PM
It's allways been an interesting argument from those with 'wood' for Marty. How is it that he can be an 'excellent' coach but fail when coaching is at the utmost importance.

If the teams he had we're as bad as has been pointed out, how did they go 13-3 twice? They had to have done something right. Why is it that when the game became more important, KC fell flat on it's face. True, the players were not HOF quality, but they were playing well THAT year together.

In 1995, Indy was w/o Faulk at RB and had Jim Harbaugh at QB. Are you telling me that with KC's defense, and mediocre offense, that KC was so bad they shouldnt have beaten Indy? might wanna pull the head out and re-think that one.

In 1997, KC lost to the eventual SB winners and it was a close game. Would Gannon have made a difference. Doubtful since it was Marty calling the shots. If anyone cares to remember, Greg Hill ripped off a 25 yd carry in one of the first plays of the game--he did not touch the ball again until inside 2 minutes left in the game. Is that Hill's fault, Peterson's fault or Marty's?

07-22-2001, 02:22 PM
You haven't reading Johnny, Cannibal and Pac's responses.
We have been the unfortunate recipients of bad luck and bad calls. The fact that we couldn't score any points had nothing to do with poor coaching in those games, because Marty was a great coach that somehow got the team to play way over their heads in the regular season, just to get the team into the playoffs.

Of course that doesn't explain why the team suddenly became the victim of their total lack of talent when the postseason rolled along.

How could I have ever questioned the football god that is Marty?

07-22-2001, 02:36 PM
In My opinion:

93 we lost Joe. We weren't playing inspired ball before he left, but you could have looked at the Oilers game the same way. Joe does/did not loose championchips. I believe if he finishes that game, we win.

95 terrible QB, TERRIBLE kicker. Overrated team. My personal opinion is that team should not have been 13-3, and probably got as far in the playoffs as it should have. Although, we should have lost to a better team. Whomever didn't just lack talent became invisible in that game. Choke.....plain and simple. Players lost that.

97-the only playoff game I feel the CHiefs have ever honestly been shafted. That was terrible, and Grbac played a marvelous game until he totally unraveled in the last two minutes. Still, it should not have come to that. Marty's not so sly sneak with our punter didn't help. I honestly believe that sentimentality towards an elderly Elway led to that loss. Terrible officiating, cought Broncos with vasoline and yet no repremands, and terrible officiating.

The only one of those games I felt Embarrased the Chiefs was 95, the other two our boys played their hearts out. I'll never be ashamed of that...

07-22-2001, 03:07 PM
The 1995 game against the Colts was the most painful chiefs game I ever watched. Bono threw 3?4? interceptions. With QB performances like that, it gets pretty hard to loosen the rains and let the offense flow.

Grbac... had he not been plowed by that mammoth from Pittsburgh, would be our starting QB today... that play ruined his KC career. His career in Baltimore isn't going to be all that some think it is... he went from throwing to TG and DA to throwing to Brandon Stokely and Shannon Sharpe, although he does have a better tailback in Jamal Lewis.

Oh well... the scars heal eventually.

07-22-2001, 03:22 PM
reared it's ugly head in 97...I suppose it was lurking under the surface for quite sometime. Marty said he was done. Two years later...Skins?

All I know is that he could not get us over the hump, with or without talent. When coaches of a rival team saw us a team who didn't play to lose, I believe they were NOT intimidated, even if we had an awesome D.

Was Marty the answer...no.
Was Gun the answer...no.
Is DV...we don't know. Therefore, no one else knows. The only advantage we have at this point.

07-22-2001, 06:11 PM
Is Carl the answer?

An obvious... NO

07-22-2001, 06:16 PM
Guys it really is simple.

We had bad football players. Seriously, so many of them aren't even in the league anymore.

We played conservative football and that was good enough to win some regular season games against sh!tty teams.

When it came time to play good teams in the playoffs, we were exposed as frauds.

Until Peterson puts a complete team on the field it will remain that way no matter who the coach is.

I find it hard to believe that you guys can't see this.

We've got backups as starters all over this team. Is it any wonder that we always go 9-7? Come on!

07-22-2001, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by duncan_idaho
Grbac... had he not been plowed by that mammoth from Pittsburgh, would be our starting QB today... that play ruined his KC career.

The play that ruined his career in KC was when he decided his best option with time running out against Denver was to throw the ball to someone other than Tony Gonzalez. January 4, 1998 was the day when most people saw Grbac for what he was and is: A big strong-armed geek who folds like a 5 dollar suitcase under pressure.

07-22-2001, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Cannibal
We played conservative football and that was good enough to win some regular season games against sh!tty teams.

When it came time to play good teams in the playoffs, we were exposed as frauds.

So the Colts were a better team?

07-22-2001, 06:53 PM
They had the better defense, QB and field kicker that day that's for damn sure.

You guys keep saying we had these "13-3" teams as though we had talent.

Let me remind you that we won 4 or 5 games on the final play or two in 95, and at least 3 maybe 4 in 97.

Both of those teams were 9-7, 10-6 teams in reality. We just got some lucky breaks.

We were never true "contenders", to think so is delusional.

It's painfully obvious...

California Injun
07-22-2001, 10:42 PM
The Colts also had the better OC in 1995. Hackett was the one that choked in the booth in '95 and again in '97 when his attention was elsewhere (remember the USC interviews?)

Marty gagged in '95 by allowing Bono to play with his sprained thumb in -10 degree conditions. Maybe he had Deberg flashbacks of '90 but at least Steve's finger was on his NON-throwing hand!

Couple that with Hackett's inability to see Marcus Allen just KILLING the Colts and we deserved to lose that game.

'97 was a slanted game with the officiating but Stoyo's re-kick was very makeable. (From 42 instead on 32). It's not like he hit a 42 yarder and then had to boot again from 52.

Popson had a brain fart on that final drive by not stepping out of bounds. But then if Stoyo's original FG was good, then Marty would have sat on the ball and threw Pete in there for a 40+ yarder to win it.

Given the Chiefs rich history of clutch FGs in the play-offs, Stoyo would have shredded our hearts by shanking the stupid thing.

07-23-2001, 06:22 AM
We played conservative football and that was good enough to win some regular season games against sh!tty teams

Let me remind you that we won 4 or 5 games on the final play or two in 95, and at least 3 maybe 4 in 97.

Excluding the 'sh!tty teams' comment, these are true statments, KC did play very conservative football which kept the game close and then won it in the end of the game. The PROBLEM that some dont wish to remember was that KC didnt do that in the playoffs.

In 1995, Marty decided to throw the ball rather than run. Regardless of the talent level, he went away from his gameplan, and as I later heard, was notorious for changing his playbook going into the playoffs. At the very least, KC should have played the same game that they did in the playoffs, EVERYONE knew that Elliott was struggling going into the last 2 weeks of the regular season. He was missing xtra points with regularity those last two weeks--a good sign that you're not going to win with your FG kicker if he cant make 20yd fgs. Again the talent that was on the field for Indy and Pitt that year was not 'great' either. KC could have competed against those teams and won had KC played it's game that they played during the season.

In 1997, KC had beaten that team before at home. Same place, same team, different day. Greg Hill rips off a 25yd run to begin the game and doesnt touch the ball again until inside 2 minutes left in the game. Regardless of what you say about Hill, he started hot and they should have kept giving him the ball until Denver stopped him.

What was painfully obvious to me while watching those games was how differently KC played in the playoff game as opposed to the regular season. Is that saying KC should have won the SB those years, definately not.

Baby Lee
07-23-2001, 08:31 AM
It takes the same EXACT qualities to win regular season games and postseason games.

As much as I love Marty, and as much as I hate the 'Boys, that is not an accurate statement. Teams like the Cowboys and 49ers clearly had an 'extra gear' come playoff time. How many times would we punk a Dallas, SanFran, Pittsburgh, GreenBay, etc. in the regular season, then watch from the couch as they punked their playoff and/or SB opponents?

07-23-2001, 12:12 PM
I guess now that Marty is gone were going straight to the Superbowl:rolleyes:

Oh wait a second, he's been gone three years but for some reason we're basically the exact same team we were when he left three years ago... gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

It's like talking to brick wall around here...

07-23-2001, 12:46 PM
Cmon Cannibal, Marty may have been gone but his influence was still here because his staff was still here. They type of players that KC went after and they style of offense remained the same.

I will say this about Marty, had he been HC the last two years, in 99, KC would have won the Jan 2 game and lost in the first round of the playoffs, and Marty would have coached the team to a 10-6 record last year and lost again in the first round of the playoffs--Marty would have won those 3 games that the coaching staff lost last year.

07-23-2001, 02:16 PM
To think that Marty is the reason we have this lack of skill position players, or the reason we have the cap problems we have, or the reason we still don't have a complete team is denial IMO, or else naive.

07-23-2001, 04:27 PM

Its easy for MANY chief fans to blame players/coaches who are no longer with the organization. You try pointing out to them that he had Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Dave Krieg, Lake Dawson, Brett Periman, Sean LaChappel, Jonathan Hayes, Derrick Walker, Chris Penn, Harvey Williams, and Greg Hill as his main group of offensive players during his tenure. Not exactly a who's who list of hall of famers here. IMO, this is a bunch of dog sh!t crap when it comes to moving the ball and scoring some points. Marty was a miracle worker. HE is the one who turned around the KC Chiefs. Sure, Carl hired him and drafted DT, that certainly helps. But there arent many coaches out there that could get the Chiefs to the playoffs year in and year out with that sorry group of castoffs.

Fans that think differently simply dont understand the game.

If it was Marty's fault for Elliott missing all those field goals, then whos fault is it for the piss poor kicking game the Chiefs have had since his departure??? Kickers are point makers/field position makers. Its one of the most important positions on the team. Carl has given it as much thought as who the waterboy is.

If the Packers cant win the Super Bowl this year, I am hoping the Redskins do and finally put to rest this assisnine argument about Marty's coaching ability.

It takes talent, first and foremost, to win super bowls. Holmgren is a great coach, but you think the Packers win the super bowl with Bono instead of Favre and with Brenston Buckner instead of Reggie White?

07-23-2001, 05:45 PM
It takes talent, first and foremost, to win super bowls. Holmgren is a great coach, but you think the Packers win the super bowl with Bono instead of Favre and with Brenston Buckner instead of Reggie White?

I couldn't agree more.

If Holmgren did have to use Steve Bono and Brenston Buckner you can damn sure bet these same people would be blaming Mike Holmgren, rather than the person who brought in Bono and Buckner for Holmgren to use.

To take it a step further.

Would Bill Walsh have won the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc? NO

Would Shannahan have won the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc.? NO

Would anyone win the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc.? NO

07-23-2001, 07:21 PM
You guys aren't reading a damn thing we're saying.
I said it over and over again, and I'm going to say it one more time.

I didn't expect Marty to win the SB with the talent he had, but I did expect him to win a playoff game or two, against the likes of Indy in '95 and SD in "93(?).
I did expect him to try and score TDs, rather than always be so willing to settle for FGs.
I expected him to attack the defense aggressively when in scoring position.
I wanted a play to win philosophy.
I didn't want a ****in' coward that was afraid of losing.

You want to blame a lack of talent on CP, fine, I agree.
But Marty gets the blame for the cowardly game plans.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-23-2001, 08:30 PM
I think you're all wrong.

It was not Marty's fault.

It was not Carl's fault.

It was that danged 'El Ninyo.


07-23-2001, 08:35 PM
I have already responded to the "play to win" philosophy.

It's hard to "play to win" when you lack talent.

Our conservative gameplans were divised because of our lack of talent.

The Browns scored A LOT in the playoffs under Schottenheimer.

Although, I do think Marty's choices at OC left a lot to be desired. Hackett was horrible.

07-24-2001, 05:56 AM
To think that Marty is the reason we have this lack of skill position players, or the reason we have the cap problems we have, or the reason we still don't have a complete team is denial IMO, or else naive

Marty did have personnel control starting in the 1996 season. If I recall that's when KC started signing some of their biggest malcontents and cap problem children.

Please dont absolve Marty. He was as much a part of the problem.

As far as this silly win the SB talk. There's not a single person on this BB who is saying that KC should have won the SB in 1995. NO one is saying that. Should they have beaten the Colts or Steelers? I tend to think so had KC played the SAME style of football they played in the regular season.

Geez, talk about talking to a brick wall.

07-24-2001, 06:27 AM
Not according to Carl Peterson.

He has stated that he has always been in control of personell.

And even if Marty was in control from 96 to 98, that still gives Peterson the vast majority of the crappy players we've had while he's been here.

07-24-2001, 06:32 AM
For someone who dislikes/distrusts Peterson, you sure put a lot of 'faith' in those words. If Peterson were truly an egomaniac wouldnt you expect him to say that?

Prior to the 96 season, both Peterson and Marty signed new deals. As part of Marty's deal, he had more control over new personnel. Yes, Peterson did ultimately sign the players, but Marty did have an influence on who KC picked up.

Im not willing to absolve Marty of his share of the blame as some here. It's obvious from his coaching and FA signings in Washington.

07-24-2001, 11:04 AM
I fully admit that Marty has made bad decisions in the playoffs.

But overall, the reason we are in the position we are in now, and the overall talent level of the team over last 12 years, and the horrible cap problems we have endured, is strictly the fault of Carl Peterson.

Peterson should have left with Schottenheimer 3 years ago.

07-24-2001, 11:10 AM
Until Carl puts a complete team on the field, we'll always go 8-8 to 10-6 and either not make the playoffs, or lose in the first round.

07-24-2001, 11:12 AM
Is something wrong with the BB?

I posted replies but they did not go to the top and did not say that I responded last.

07-24-2001, 12:03 PM

07-24-2001, 06:15 PM
We are not that far apart, really.
I agree with everything you said in post #102.

07-24-2001, 07:06 PM

At least you admit that Peterson sucks.

Especially when the evidence is clear.

07-24-2001, 10:36 PM
I've been on the fire CP bandwagon for a couple of years.
My disdain for Marty is greater, whereas you disdain for CP is greater.

I was one of those dreaming of a scenario where CP got fired, and Jeff Diamond was hired to replace him, as were you, if my memory doesn't fail me (not altogether unheard of).