PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Schedule VERY tough in '01


KCJohnny
08-05-2001, 03:57 PM
This is my own subjective accounting, BTW. Only 3 teams have more .500+ opponents and the Chiefs face a league high 7 playoff teams. KC is tied with 5 other teams with 10 games .500+ opponents and 7 games vs playoff teams. Only Minny, TB and Indy have harder schedules.

The real kicker is that the two easiest schedules are given to DENVER and WASHINGTON (?????? go figure)....


Still, I see the Chiefs between 9-7 and 11-5.

Now do you see the urgency to defend Arrowhead this season? Some of these road games are murder.

KCJ
'Nother season, same situation: tough schedule, and the Chiefs 'dogs most of the games...

KCJohnny
08-05-2001, 04:00 PM
http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/ce/feat...2189_59,00.html

alanm
08-05-2001, 04:16 PM
While we have one of the toughest scheduals AGAIN in all of the NFL I'm starting to believe that from year to year every team is different and you can't draw conclusions from the previous year. A Superbowl Champion can fall to the bottom of the division in the blink of the eye these days. And pond scum suckers can win Superbowls (Witness St. Louis) Untill the games begin we just don't know what kind of team KC is going to field. But I'm starting to believe that we will have a good team and I feel that the Defense will be a thing of beauty. But then I think Nebraska will win the Nat'l Championship also. :D That tells you what kind of homer I am.:rolleyes: :D

KCJohnny
08-05-2001, 04:21 PM
Alan,
That is the reality of parity in the modern NFL.
Who else would have predicted the rise of Atl, Tenn, Balt, NYGs, and StL to the SB, and the emergence of Indy and NO and as serious contenders?

What is scary is that Marty has inherited arguably the most talented team and the easiest scedule, and that is a formulae for success if I ever saw one. DV inherited the league's softest scedule the year he won his ring...

KCJ

alanm
08-05-2001, 04:34 PM
John, You still have to play good football. And who actually knows how tough Washingtons schedual turns out to be untill the year is over. I honestly wouldn't be suprised if Baltimore went 5-11 or so or went back to the SB. I don't know what the odds are in Vegas on the Chiefs for the SB. But if I were there I would slap down $50 on the Chiefs as confidently as I would any other team.

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 07:41 AM
I just can't believe the donx get the 2nd easiest schedule in the NFL. And Marty gets the first.
I agree, this could all go haywire in the Brave-New-World of parity, but there is plenty of fodder for speculation about tough schedules. Some teams are tough at home no matter how they are playing that season record-wise.
My bottom line: The Chiefs need to defend Arrowhead manfully (a minimum of 6-2) to have a prayer at play off time.

Darn the donx,
KCJ

kcred
08-06-2001, 07:52 AM
KCJ - Being the stat man that you are, I am surprised I have to point out to you, if you take the Broncs and Raiders record from the schedule twice each, and conversely the Chiefs from theirs, the Chiefs schedule is slightly easier than either of them. There is not much you can do to a schedule that includes 46-18 against them in their own division, and unless anyone can figure out how to avoid playing them, lower teams have to have a harder schedule. The only thing I can't figure is how the Donx get the Cowboys, and miss the Eagles, while we have the Eagles, but not the Cowboys.

Mile High Mania
08-06-2001, 07:57 AM
KCJ... Denver has to play sub .500 teams like KC, Seattle and San Diego twice. That doesn't improve your strength of schedule.

Then, consider that the AFC West is playing the NFC East this year... Denver has the Cardinals and Cowboys, two sorry teams. But, they also play Giants and Washington (although Washington kinda sucked last year - again not improving their strength of schedule).

**sidetracked**Washington does not have the most talented team. Look at their offense, Davis is all they have. Westbrook is recovering from injury. Jeff George? Look at the other WRs and the TE? Their defense was pretty good last year, but that's it. They have not improved the offense.

Anyway, non AFC West/NFC East competition for Denver:
Colts (tough), Baltimore (tough), Patriots (eehhh, average), Miami (tough).

So, there are two reasons that Denver has an *easy* schedule, they play 3 teams twice in the AFC that sucked last year and they have the luxury of playing two crappy teams from the NFC East.

In contrast, KC plays two teams twice that rocked the AFC West last year (even if you swept Denver).

The bottom line is.... just don't look at the "stats", break it down.

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 07:58 AM
Rich, I agree that the AFC West is the main reason our schedule is so tough, but that is also the reason I am so optimistic about the '01 Chiefs. Historically, we have dominated the West, even more than Denver. In fact, since 1990, there is no team in the AFC West that we do not own a winning record against. Our problem has always been playing good teams on the road, and that could be a problem again this year. Nobody in the West scares me except maybe the Bolts, because nobody will be taking them seriously. The Bolts could shock everyone.

I see the Chiefs splitting with Oak and Den, sweeping Seattle and SD. If Gannon gets injured, KC sweeps the Raidas. If Tomlinson/Flutie/Norv get the Bolts going, the Bolts could sweep us. It will be a very fluid season IMO.

KCJ

Mile High Mania
08-06-2001, 08:01 AM
I can agree with some of that - it should definitely be an interesting season for the AFC West. I am hoping that Gannon misses a few games, though. *note* I'm not wishing injury, just a 14 day stomach virus or something.

I'd like to see Hoying get in there and choke it up.

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 08:05 AM
MHM:
I see what you mean. Still, how'd the league come to the conclusion that the donx had the #30 strength of schedule?

I disagree about Washington. They could put a ravenish D on the field this year and require only 13-14 ppg to win. They will also force a ton of turnovers and play field position. Sound familiar? And Jeff George has not only Westbrook, but Clemson top WR Rod Gardener and our very own Kevin Lockett. They have Stephen Davis, Bennett and Ki-Jana Carter. The Skins are loaded on defense and with the #31 toughest schedule, I expect them to compete for a Division title.

Chiefs are the *unknown* variable in the AFC WEst this year that could change the Division's entire dynamic...if they turn out crappy, that helps Denver and Oakland; if they turn out powerful (they should) then the competition will be ferocious for the Division Crown.

KCJ

htismaqe
08-06-2001, 08:25 AM
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that KCJ mentions Donnell Bennett when defending the Washington offense...

Proctor, Washington won't have a Raven-ish defense, they have zero in the middle of the D-Line. Bruce Smith is past his prime. They don't have very good Linebackers, but Arrington is finally coming into his own. They have great d-backs, but even the best get burned when there's no pressure up front.

The Washington offense is PATHETIC. They have Jeff George, period. No receivers. One of the best backs in the league is going to forced, BY MARTY, to share time with Donnell Bennett!!!

Washington will probably go 9-7 and get beat in the first round of the playoffs. Pretty safe prediction for a Schottenheimer team...

keg in kc
08-06-2001, 08:43 AM
I'd agree with Parker, although I'll be less anti-Marty about it.

No way will they be anywhere close to the level of the Ravens. They have no defensive tackles. They're questionable at defensive end. They do have two good OLBs (Barber and Arrington), but they don't have much at MLB. They're questionable at Safety, and while I like Champ Bailey a lot, neither Donovan Greer nor Darrell Green are anything to cheer about at CB.

Bad interior line, lackluster ends, a weakness at MLB and unspectacular safeties generally equal poor run defense, and that in a division that's predicated on running the ball (Emmitt Smith, Thunder & Lightning, Duce Staley & McNabb)...

As for the offense, they're really, really hurting on the O-line, first of all. They have no real NFL quality guards. They're decent at Center and tackle. They have Stephen Davis at running back, a stud, both nothing behind him or at fullback. They have Michael Westbrook, who's streaky at best when healthy, and then Kevin Lockett, and then not much else at WR, although Gardner will eventually be a good one IMHO. They have a decent TE. They have Jeff George, and that's it. Their backup QB situation is arguably even worse than ours.

Not good for a division that has two very strong defenses in Philly and New York, although they might be able to do something against Dallas and/or 'zona.

I'd say Marty has at least as much of a reclamation project in DC as DV does here. There's really not that much in place on that team, and they're really hurting along both lines, which are, IMHO, the most important positions on the field.

Not a rosy picture.

BroncoFan
08-06-2001, 11:03 AM
Does it really matter? Chiefs weren't going to win much this season anyway. In fact, I would think that you chiefs fans love this "tough schedule" bull****. Now you have your excuse. Now you can cry about your schedule all season while the Broncos and Raiders are kicking ***. I love Chief fans.

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 11:53 AM
1. PLEASE tell me, oh PUH-LEEEEZE oh wise one, how Donnell Bennett is a liability as a FB leading for Stephen Davis??????
2. The Skins had one of the top defenses in the NFC last year, so why all the handwringing about defense? As though Marty knows nothing about defense?
3. Westbrook, Lockett and Gardener are at least as good as DA, Slymo and Mayes.
4. Raye was OC for the NFL's 5th most productive passing game last year.
5. In 12 years as a head coach, Marty produced ONE losing season, at 7-9.

KCJ
Trying to use facts more than adjectives, which is against the PPL

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 12:10 PM
According to official league rankings, Washington's D was ranked 4th in the NFL.

I would hardly be alarmed about my defense if I was a Skins fan.

KCJ

KCTitus
08-06-2001, 12:26 PM
According to offical league sources, the new DC in Washington is Kurt 'soft zone' Schottenheimer and Ray Rhodes is no longer with the team.

If I were a skins fan, I'd be scared to death.

alanm
08-06-2001, 12:31 PM
John, We were 5th in the league in passing due to necessity because we didn't have a running game.

KCTitus
08-06-2001, 12:55 PM
1. how Donnell Bennett is a liability as a FB leading for Stephen Davis??????

I think we both know that your listing of 'offensive weapons' in 'Stephen Davis, Donnell Bennett and Ki-Jana Carter' is not the same thing as saying that Donnell Bennett will be the lead blocker for Stephen Davis. The latter would indicate that DB will not get the ball 27 times for 24 yards on critical 3rd down situations, the prior otoh, does infer that. If Marty and Raye hold true to form, the 27 for 24 might just repeat again this year.

2. The Skins had one of the top defenses in the NFC last year, so why all the handwringing about defense? As though Marty knows nothing about defense?

Again, there's a difference between Ray Rhodes and Kurt S. I think we can once again agree on that 'fact'.

3. Westbrook, Lockett and Gardener are at least as good as DA, Slymo and Mayes.

True, but the QB has to get the ball to these guys and Im going out on a limb here in saying that Washington's OL is in severe dissarray. Lost both starting OG's to FA and the LT is coming off a torn ACL.

4. Raye was OC for the NFL's 5th most productive passing game last year.

True again but without context. This was the result of teams taking the play action fake which had been established the prior season when KC far and away ran more than anyone else in the NFL and still had one of the worst producing running games. Had the teams not gone for the PA fake, KC wouldnt have been as 'prolific'. Again, though, let's look at who's going to be throwing the ball in Washington.

5. In 12 years as a head coach, Marty produced ONE losing season, at 7-9.

True again, but without context...so many winning seasons, but so many playoff losses and first round exits. This due to the fact that he changed his game plan going into the playoffs and he played not to lose rather than to win.

Trying to keep the 'facts' in perspective and in the proper context.

htismaqe
08-06-2001, 01:30 PM
1. PLEASE tell me, oh PUH-LEEEEZE oh wise one, how Donnell Bennett is a liability as a FB leading for Stephen Davis??????

Titus said it, but it's worth repeating. Nowhere did I say anything about lead blocking. Donnell Bennett is a liability because Marty will give him the ball 3 consecutive times in a Goal to go from the 1 yard line and the Redskins will end up with 3 points to show for it.

2. The Skins had one of the top defenses in the NFC last year, so why all the handwringing about defense? As though Marty knows nothing about defense?

That was Rhodes, now it's Kurt. They lost a key FA on the D-line in Stubblefield.

3. Westbrook, Lockett and Gardener are at least as good as DA, Slymo and Mayes.

Westbrook is still recovering from a serious injury, Gardener is a rookie, and Lockett is a former KC wide receiver. All of them have alot to prove. Until then, I'll stick with DA and the group we have...

4. Raye was OC for the NFL's 5th most productive passing game last year.

Yep, and they were ranked near the bottom in rushing. A balanced offense wins playoff games. Has a Raye-coached offense ever won a playoff game? Certainly not in Kansas City. Of course, someone already mentioned that the concept of context is foreign to you.

5. In 12 years as a head coach, Marty produced ONE losing season, at 7-9.

9-7 is not a losing season. It's simple math. I did however, predict a first round playoff loss. In Marty's "infamous" 12 years he may have had ONE losing season. He also had FIVE playoff victories.

Johnny, I am using the facts. I'm probably looking at the same media guide you are. The problem is that I'm looking at them IN CONTEXT.

MrBlond
08-06-2001, 01:31 PM
I think KCJ may be right. I like Washington to win their division. they may run roughshod over Dallas, Philly(overrated IMO), and the Giants. They could very well go 12-4, 13-3. Marty will get the most out of this team of castoffs, he always has.


Unfortunately for Washington fans he will choke in the playoffs. His conservative approach that wins more then loses during the course of a season will put his team in the position of being beaten by a lesser opponent geeked up to play. The Browns were much better than the Broncos, the Chiefs far and away better than the Colts. We had beaten the Bills during the reg. season before the playoff loss. His band of stooges will CERTAINLY be outcoached in crunch time. His Elvis clone of a QB will cost him as well. I like Marty, and give him all the credit for turning the Chiefs around, but his faults as well as his strengths are well chronicled.

htismaqe
08-06-2001, 01:37 PM
Blond,

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think you're WRONG about the Eagles. They have a top 5 defense with possibly the best group of young linebackers in the game. Their D-Line is incredible with Corey Simon inside starting to come on. Their secondary is solid with a strong veteran presence.

Their offense did well last year without a top-tier wide receiver. Na Brown is getting better, and Todd Pinkston is getting better with experience. Add Freddie Mitchell to this group and it starts to look dangerous...don't forget, they played the way they did last year WITHOUT Staley, who is dominant.

All in all, if the offense comes together, the Eagles are one of the top teams in the NFC, easily the equal of a team like St. Louis who has just as many, or more, questions on defense.

MrBlond
08-06-2001, 02:00 PM
htismage,

No offense taken. I have been wrong before. I am not saying they are a bad team, I just don't think they are a top tier team yet. I don't like their recieving core. Staley has an injury question to answer. Reid is wearing two hats now, and what effect will that have? some coaches can handle that effectively, Shannahan comes to mind, and some can't(Holmgren and the Tuna come to mind). I like McNabb, but 1 year doesnt make him Elway yet. Again they are good and look to be headed in the right direction, I just don't rate them as a contender yet.

htismaqe
08-06-2001, 03:10 PM
I think their defense makes them a contender automatically, IMO. They retained everyone from last year and they're all 1 year older.

McNabb not only performed last year under pressure, but he now has the experience of carrying the team under his belt, something that a team with a healthy Duce won't need him to do.

The only question mark in my mind is the play of the WR. If they gel, this team most likely will be Super Bowl bound.

The only other NFC team with less question marks to me is the Bucs and they always seem to choke at the worst possible moment. They remind me of some of Marty's Chiefs teams actually...

I'm NOT sold on St. Louis like all of the media. Their defense is going to have to really come together to overcome the loss of Carter and the fact that they have 7 new starters, 3 of which are rookies...

KCJohnny
08-06-2001, 04:59 PM
This is easy.
I feel guilty because its such a set up for the spike...

1. Bennett will be used as a FB to lead block in Wash. And even if he gets the rock, last year was a fluke and YOU KNOW IT. Bennett is a career 3.8 rusher and he earned that average plowing between the tackles, not on sweeps and tosses.
2. This is EASY! So what if RR is gone; so is Norv Turner! He is replaced by one of the finest engineers of defense in the league, Marty Schottenheimer, lil bro or not. The Skins D will not fall substantailly below their 4th best placing with marty as HC. CONTEXT.:D
3. Opinion. The Skins will have a strong receiving corps.
4. This is REAL easy. By you guys' logic, a poor rushing attack = a 4,300 passing attack????? Hello?? The Bolts had no rushing attack last year. Where was their 4,000 yd passing attack??? It is ALL THE MORE IMPRESSIVE WHEN A TEAM CAN SUCCEED WHEN THE OTHER TEAM KNOWS FULL WELL WHAT IS COMING. And that is hogwash about teams getting juked by play-action for 270+ yds per game...
5. How many coaches even GET to the playoffs 11 out of 13 tries??? 3 AFC Chapionship games, two 13-3 seasons, etc... YOU may not respect him, but you are in the minority. The rest of the league holds Marty (and Dennis Green and Jim Mora) in VERY high regard.

As for Philly, they will NOT be competing against a last place schedule this year like last year. I think they are an up and coming team, but not SB material.

KCJ
Context expert

keg in kc
08-06-2001, 05:38 PM
I'll only address the two points that I feel are worth addressing.


2. The Skins had one of the top defenses in the NFC last year, so why all the handwringing about defense? As though Marty knows nothing about defense?

Here's their first problem:

DE: Dorian Boose, Marco Coleman, Roderick Kelly (R), Kenard Lang, Bruce Smith, Eric Stevenson (1),
DT: Michael Bankston, Terry Brandt (R), Delbert Cowsette (1), Jerry DeLoach (1), Mario Monds (R), Dan Wilkinson

Here's their second problem:

S: Martavius Houston (1), Jason Kaiser, Sam Shade, Josh Symonette (1)

And here's their third problem:

MLB: Robert Jones, Kevin Mitchell

Now, they do have a few strengths - Marco Coleman and Kenard Lang are decent ends. Lavar Arrington and Shawn Barber are good OLBs, and Champ Bailey is one of the best CBs in the league.

However, they're weak up the middle, at DT, MLB and at S. That's a big, big problem at this level.


3. Westbrook, Lockett and Gardener are at least as good as DA, Slymo and Mayes.

What happened to dealing with facts instead of adjectives? Well, here's some numbers to crunch:

Westbrook: 220 receptions for 3616 yards (16.4 avg) and 20 TD
Lockett: 87 receptions for 1164 yards (13.4 avg) and 4 TD
Alexander (TE): 113 receptions for 1217 yards (10.8 avg) and 9 TD.
Gardener: Rookie
Redskin totals: 420 receptions for 5997 yards and (14.3 avg) 33 TD.

Alexander (WR): 376 receptions for 6367 yards (16.9 avg) and 36 TD
Gonzalez: 261 receptions for 3041 yards (11.7 avg) and 24 TD
Mayes: 145 receptions for 1823 yards (12.6 avg) and 16 TD.
Chiefs totals: 782 receptions for 11,231 yards (14.4 avg) 76 TD.

I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Mile High Mania
08-06-2001, 06:47 PM
Hmmm... me thinks that KCJ likes Marty about 10X more than I liked Elway, which is an incredibly scary freaking thought. It's damn near impossible, but I think it's true.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 07:40 AM
Yes, the #s say that the Chief receiving corps is more experienced.
What is a receiving corps without a QB?
Care to post Jeff George's career #s vs Trent Green's?
I didn't think so.

As for the Skins D, if anybody but Marty was coming in there to take over, I would concede that the Skins interior is vulnerable, but Schottenheimer has built too many great defenses for me to concede that. And Marty built his the old fashioned way, through the draft and player development. Very few of KC's big hitters over the years were imports. And even the guys he did import like Hasty and Collins played their best football for him.

MHM: I really like Marty, but I do not regard him as a god. For 10 years I rooted for him in KC, and there is bond there, a wish for success, but my loyalty is squarely behind the Kansas City Chiefs.

KCJ

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 07:45 AM
What is a receiving corps without a QB?
Care to post Jeff George's career #s vs Trent Green's?
I didn't think so.

Historical #'s dont mean JACK this year. Please dont sit there and say that JG is better off than Green. There is absolutely no way to defend that statement, and no, last years stats or the year before that or the year before that does nothing to solidify that statement.

Not only does it take a QB, but it also takes an OL of which the Skins dont have. George just recently had elbow surgery, Green is playing more and more in camp. I would say those two facts alone mean that KC's in a better position.

Two words for the Skins D: Kurt Schottenheimer.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 07:57 AM
Titus, keep your shirt on. I was merely responding to Kyle's post of the Chiefs receiving corp #s vs the 'Skins. I personally disagree with your take on George. Although I never have appreciated his personality or ability to lead, he is one of the top QBs year in and year out, and puts up huge #s every where he goes.

I'll take the Skins D over the Chiefs D this year.
Two words for the Skins D:
MARTY Schottenheimer.

KCJ

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 08:03 AM
I think the term you're referring to is Journeyman QB. George suffered miserably in Oakland w/o an OL and that's the situation he's going into this year with Redskins. To say he's a 'top' QB year in and year out is a stretch of immense proporitons.

The fact that you ignore this and 'dont consider Plan B' after George goes down is quite telling. Husak and Rosenfels--uh-huh.

You go ahead and enjoy the Skins D this year, I know several things we'll see over the course of the year. Key 3rd and longs given up in critical situations, personal foul penalties extending drives and failure to stop a team after Marty has given the ball up rather than going for the first down and killing the clock.

I'll try to keep my shirt on, if you try to pull your head out of the sand.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 08:06 AM
On second thought, do what ever you want with your shirt.
And we'll see how all the smaque evaporates when the Chiefs go to Washington Sept. 30th. Just make sure you come back and take it like a man, OK?

KCJ

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 08:09 AM
A man--you mean someone who acknowledges the reality of the situation instead of dreaming up apocalyptic scenarios of doom?

Ok...I know you have a lot of personal stock invested in that game so I'll let you fire away should KC lose. I know one thing though. Marty will take that team nowhere. We all know it.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 08:17 AM
We ALL know it?
I bet Daniel Snyder and about 1 million Redskins fans don't "know" it.
Marty has made winners everywhere he has gone. And you don't KNOW that the Redskins won't go to the SB. Dick Vermiel endured similar negativity when beginning in StL with a 9-23 record, and then paydirt. Marty is as good a coach as Vermiel and the '01 Redskins are in much better shape than the '87 Browns, '89 Chiefs or the '97 Rams were when they got their new coaches.

Care to make a prediction for KC at Washington SEP 30?

KCJ

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 08:24 AM
No, they dont and it's unfortunate. I have to laugh when I hear them on the radio.

Back in 1988, just after Marty was hired, I remember hearing a Cleveland fan calling into a local KC radio sports show saying, 'Dont believe the hype, He'll only break your hearts'.

I dismissed it then and continued to do so until the middle of the 1998 season. In the end, I have to admit that lone voice in 1988 was right. I was wrong--see how easy it is to say that?

Marty has not made 'winners' everywhere he's gone. Care to tell me how many SB's he's been to? and how many he's won? I thought so.

Vermeil has proven that he can finish the job. Marty has proven that he folds in the most critical games and plays a style of football that has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

A prediction for KC/Washington:

Win or Lose, KC Johnny will be here talking smack about how Marty's team 'outplayed' KC.

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 08:57 AM
Johnny,

Take a look at Jeff George's career WIN/LOSS numbers...you put way too much emphasis on completions, touchdowns, and the like, and fail to notice that the guy is a LOSER TO THE BONE. Period.

It's just exactly like your defense of Elvis and Jimmy Raye. I hate to agree with Packfan, but "he's never won a playoff game"...

I hope that the Chiefs win against Washington, however, if the Redskins win it still doesn't mean **** to me. Marty's career regular season winning percentage is impressive. He's also 5-11 in the playoffs and has never won a Conference Championship game. Only Chuck Knox holds greater distinction.

I have every confidence that they'll never see a SuperBowl as long as Marty is coach. In that aspect, the FACTS speak for themselves.

California Injun
08-07-2001, 09:13 AM
Cut and Paste (part 1 of 528)

Since Washington has the EASIEST schedule and the Chiefs have one of the HARDEST, I can take solace when the author of this thread starts waving his Three Stooges doll throughout the 2001 season.

Conversely, should Washington fall on their collective arses, my Dickie V cabbage patch will be front and center for Redskin Fan to admire.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 10:16 AM
from KCTitus:

Marty has not made 'winners' everywhere he's gone. Care to tell me how many SB's he's been to? and how many he's won? I thought so.

By your definition, only the coach who wins the Super Bowl is a winner and the other 30 are losers. Geez, I guess Marv Levy should give his yellow sports coat back to the HOF.

This is an absurd definition of winner IMO. Marty has had some bizarre turning of events in the post season, although you experts won't admit it. A winner is a guy who WINS MORE THAN HE LOSES. THAT IS ALL I SAID.

Parker, I see you're already providing cover for KC should we lose in Washington. Class.

And Titus, nice prediction. What a risk-taker you are.

My prediction: Washington 16, KC 13 and NO, I won't like it!

KCJ

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 10:26 AM
By your definition, only the coach who wins the Super Bowl is a winner and the other 30 are losers. Geez, I guess Marv Levy should give his yellow sports coat back to the HOF.

Marv Levy has been to the SuperBowl 4 times in a row. He is very deserving of the Hall of Fame. The Bills lost in the post season because they played some very tough teams (and because Ronnie Harmon takes payoffs...***rose bowl***cough***).

By the way, I never said anything about winning a SuperBowl. Marv Levy may have lost, but he got there. Marty never got there because he was too bull-headed and because he changed his game plans in the playoffs.

This is an absurd definition of winner IMO. Marty has had some bizarre turning of events in the post season, although you experts won't admit it. A winner is a guy who WINS MORE THAN HE LOSES. THAT IS ALL I SAID.

5 wins, 11 losses. According to your definition, Marty is not a winner. Sorry, KCJ.

Parker, I see you're already providing cover for KC should we lose in Washington. Class.

Covering? See it the way you want. Like I said, I hope KC wins every game this year. I couldn't give ONE GOOD **** about the Redskins.

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 10:32 AM
By the way, KCJ, you can't compare Marty to Marv. Marv has coached 7 different teams, in different leagues, and had in-season and post-season success in all of them. No, he hasn't won a Super Bowl, but he has won other successes.

Marty has really won nothing, except regular season games. And I love how you call it "some bizarre turning of events". Most people call it "poor coaching".

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 10:38 AM
By your definition, only the coach who wins the Super Bowl is a winner and the other 30 are losers. Geez, I guess Marv Levy should give his yellow sports coat back to the HOF.

It's hard not to choke on all these foreign words in my mouth, but I'll thank you for not doing that in the future.

I dont deem Marty a winner with KC when you SQUANDER, not once, but twice, home field where KC had an unbelieveable advantage. You dont lead a team to a 13-3 season and then look pathetic and listless in the post season. Im sorry, the regular season team and post season teams were two different teams. Why? Because Marty went away from his regular season playbook for the 'dont lose' playbook of the playoffs.

Marty has been successful at regular season, but a miserable failure in the post season. THAT is a fact.

Marty has had some bizarre turning of events in the post season, although you experts won't admit it.

Maybe in Cleveland, but in KC, he fell victim to his own poor decision making. In 1995, he tried to rely on a shaky kicker and Bono rather than his running game, which was having very good success that day. After the first couple of missed FG's, I would have been going for it on 4th downs rather than wasting a down on a FG attempt. Marty didnt and paid for it. In 1997, Marty also made another questionable decision in going with Elvis instead of Rich and after having ripped at 25yd run, pulled Greg Hill for the remainder of the game.

I have said about 15 different times, that making predictions of a game 3 weeks into the season is ludicrous when we have yet to see this team take a single snap. I will watch the team actually perform a couple of snaps before reaching a conclusion. You are a better man than I because you demonstrate an unwillingness to rely on anything objective to make your prediction. That's fine, I guess, but Im not going to play that game until I have something tangible to back up my prediction.

Last, you will enjoy it if Washington wins, dont try to state otherwise. Why else would you be running smack after that game. Remember asking me to be around to 'take it like a man' afterwards?

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 11:58 AM
What I'll enjoy is not the Chiefs losing but you PPL guys being wrong about Schottenheimer.

As far as Marty being snake-bitten, we've hashed it out a million times, ad infitum, and you still think that Marty missed the FGs, Marty who fumbled at the goal line (Byner), Marty was knocked out of the game in the 2nd quarter (Montana), Marty dropped a TD pass at the end of the half (Anders), Marty called for holding (SZott) when Lowery hits the game-winner (Miami), Marty who was down by contact when a Dolphin "stripped" the ball (Miami, Marcus Allen), Marty who was shoved out of the endzone in mid-air (Gonzales), Marty who was called for holding (Denver), and Marty who missed the tying and winning FGs (Indy).

Marty IS responsible for his team, granted, just as Cunningham was. I wonder if you all will be so scrutinizing should Vermiel "choke" when/if he loses a game and misses the Super Bowl, which makes him a "loser" (your words, not mine).

KCJ
Seeing double with this hinged-standard

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 12:08 PM
What I'll enjoy is not the Chiefs losing but you PPL guys being wrong about Schottenheimer.

If Marty takes Washington past the first round of the playoffs, you have every right to tell me I was wrong, but, as I'm now repeating for the THIRD time, the Chiefs-Redskins game now or later this season doesn't prove a damn thing. Here's what I said, and I quote: have every confidence that they'll never see a SuperBowl as long as Marty is coach.

As far as Marty being snake-bitten, we've hashed it out a million times, ad infitum, and you still think that Marty missed the FGs, Marty who fumbled at the goal line (Byner), Marty was knocked out of the game in the 2nd quarter (Montana), Marty dropped a TD pass at the end of the half (Anders), Marty called for holding (SZott) when Lowery hits the game-winner (Miami), Marty who was down by contact when a Dolphin "stripped" the ball (Miami, Marcus Allen), Marty who was shoved out of the endzone in mid-air (Gonzales), Marty who was called for holding (Denver), and Marty who missed the tying and winning FGs (Indy).

It WAS MARTY put us in a position where ONE missed field goal, ONE holding penalty, ONE dropped pass, ONE bad call, or ONE fumble cost the game. Period. The players have to execute, but Marty CALLED THE PLAYS. 3 runs up the gut and a punt WON'T CUT IT IN THE PLAYOFFS. Show us your laundry list of "could-haves should-haves" all you want, but it all boils down to the fact that running out the clock on a 17-14 lead DOESN'T WORK. You BUILD a lead, you don't HOLD it. A good coach never stops trying to score. By that definition, Marty wasn't a good coach.

Marty IS responsible for his team, granted, just as Cunningham was. I wonder if you all will be so scrutinizing should Vermiel "choke" when/if he loses a game and misses the Super Bowl, which makes him a "loser" (your words, not mine).

You damn bet I will. I don't hold Vermeil to any different standard than Marty. Nothing short of a Super Bowl berth will be good enough for me. I never said Marty was a loser, by the way...

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 12:10 PM
What I'll enjoy is not the Chiefs losing but you PPL guys being wrong about Schottenheimer.

Ok, then that has no bearing on the Sept 30 game. Why are you asking for predictions on that game? For me to be wrong about Marty, would mean he would have to take the Skins to the SB. He aint gonna do that.

I really hate to repeat myself incessantly but since you fail to carefully read my post, let me point out again what I said:

but in KC, he fell victim to his own poor decision making.

I bolded the key phrase. Note: I dont blame him for missing the FG, I blame him for the decision to go for it after his kicker had missed 2 already.

Last, in all of my posts, I have yet to post the word 'loser', so once again, I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth. Stuff that are in italics are actually your statements that I am referencing.

Fat Elvis
08-07-2001, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by KCJohnny
What I'll enjoy is not the Chiefs losing but you PPL guys being wrong about Schottenheimer.

As far as Marty being snake-bitten, we've hashed it out a million times, ad infitum, and you still think that Marty missed the FGs, Marty who fumbled at the goal line (Byner), Marty was knocked out of the game in the 2nd quarter (Montana), Marty dropped a TD pass at the end of the half (Anders), Marty called for holding (SZott) when Lowery hits the game-winner (Miami), Marty who was down by contact when a Dolphin "stripped" the ball (Miami, Marcus Allen), Marty who was shoved out of the endzone in mid-air (Gonzales), Marty who was called for holding (Denver), and Marty who missed the tying and winning FGs (Indy).

Marty IS responsible for his team, granted, just as Cunningham was. I wonder if you all will be so scrutinizing should Vermiel "choke" when/if he loses a game and misses the Super Bowl, which makes him a "loser" (your words, not mine).

KCJ
Seeing double with this hinged-standard


KCJ-

When you have that many "flukes," they no longer qualify as flukes--it becomes a pattern. The pattern is a result of Marty coaching his team to "not lose" rather than go out and win.

King_Chief_Fan
08-07-2001, 12:14 PM
Let's see... When Marty's team loses, not his fault... he didn't drop this, and did not drop that...did not kick this etc. ya, ya, ya.

When his teams win?... he did not catch this or that, did not kick this or that. So.........Marty's win?

He doesn't get credit for wins, if he is not credited with losses.

Fan

Hoping KCJ doesn't wear his redskin jersey to Chiefs game.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 12:32 PM
Titus:

from KCTitus:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty has not made 'winners' everywhere he's gone. Care to tell me how many SB's he's been to? and how many he's won? I thought so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By this definition, if Marty has NOT made winners, he has made losers, no?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

KCJ

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 12:34 PM
KCJ,

It's not black and white. Just because they're not "winners" doesn't make them "losers"...

It makes them mediocre...

I NEVER felt like the Chiefs in the 90's were losers. I also never felt like we had a chance to go all the way. We were a team of "also-ran's"...

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 12:37 PM
For futher clarification to that point, you'd find it in my post following you assumption that's what I was saying. What I said was:

Marty has been successful at regular season, but a miserable failure in the post season. THAT is a fact.

And I stand by those words. That's not calling him a loser.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 01:46 PM
You still have not clarified the statement "Marty has not won everywhere he has gone."

He went to two AFC Title games in Cleveland, 1 in KC, had a pair of 13-3 seasons, etc...

Now, every year there are 30 teams that will not win the Super Bowl. That does not make them 'losers' or 'also rans' IMO. And mediocre teams do NOT compile .640 winning %s over a decade. Sorry!

KCJ

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 02:01 PM
He went to two AFC Title games in Cleveland, 1 in KC, had a pair of 13-3 seasons, etc...

And with no Super Bowl berths, he continues to be an "also-ran"...

Now, every year there are 30 teams that will not win the Super Bowl. That does not make them 'losers' or 'also rans' IMO.

EVERY year, one of those teams is the Chiefs. Since Marty became a head coach, 15 of those 30 teams have gone to a Super Bowl. Kansas City isn't one of them.

And mediocre teams do NOT compile .640 winning %s over a decade.

5-11 in the playoffs IS mediocre, at best.

KCJohnny
08-07-2001, 02:04 PM
Well as long as you want to create this artificial distinction between the regular and post season, you have a point.

Unfortunately for you, that distinction doesn't exist. The same 53 guys that get you to the playoffs (the league's best teams) are the same 53 that play IN the playoffs.

KCJ
Conceding on a technicality

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 02:33 PM
Well as long as you want to create this artificial distinction between the regular and post season, you have a point.

Artificial? Last time I checked, 31 teams played regular season games. 12 teams played in the playoffs. Seems like a very real distinction to me...

Seriously, "artificial distinction"? Are you serious? If so, you just undermined about everything you've ever said. It would be really hard to take you seriously if you're serious about this one.

The same 53 guys that get you to the playoffs (the league's best teams) are the same 53 that play IN the playoffs.

So once again you're blaming the players for the playoff losses but crediting Marty for the regular season wins? I just can't understand your logic here. Maybe because there isn't any?

KCTitus
08-07-2001, 02:40 PM
You still have not clarified the statement "Marty has not won everywhere he has gone."

You know, John, It's odd. If I didnt know any better, I would say that you were deliberately misquoting me.

I never said this either and you and I know that. I said:

Marty has not made 'winners' everywhere he's gone.

and further clarified that by stating, for the 3rd time now:

Marty has been successful at regular season, but a miserable failure in the post season. THAT is a fact.

If you cannot understand these two statements, then Im sorry, but I would appreciate it if you could refrain from misstating what I have stated.

I wanted to go back to something you said about Marty and Defense....here's a little blurb from the game summary of the 1995 playoff game against Indy:

Indianapolis came right back with an impressive 18-play, 77-yard drive sparked by Harbaugh's 18-yard scramble. A 4-yard run by Lamont Warren on fourth-and-inches and a 14-yard interference penalty against James Hasty led to Floyd Turner's 5-yard scoring catch and a 7-7 tie.

The Colts kept the ball for 8:40 on that series against the AFC's top-rated defense. It was their longest TD drive of the season.

Yep. That's the Marty defense we've all come to know and hate.

Packfan
08-07-2001, 02:49 PM
Titus says that Marty has been a "misserable failure" in the playofss and calls is a "fact".

Sounds more like an opinion to me. Isnt Titus the guy that always get his panties in a bind when other people call their opinions facts?? I thought so.

Marty has been to (and lost) three AFC Championship games. After not making the playoffs three of the last four years, I think Chief fans would give their left teste to lose three AFC Championship games in the last five years or so. You have to win a playoff game or two to get to the conference championship.

Not a total failure, IMO, as some people think.

htismaqe
08-07-2001, 02:51 PM
Somehow, I don't find your drivel surprising Packfan.

You'd be the first person bashing Marty if you thought it served your anti-Peterson diatribe. As it is, it serves your purpose to support Marty because it serves your anti-Titus diatribe.

You are the ULTIMATE fence-rider.

California Injun
08-07-2001, 02:55 PM
It's this "technicality" that will haunt the Redskins fans until Marty retires/quits.

Schotteheimer is Mr. Ejaculation of the NFL.

He strokes you during the regular season getting the fans all worked up and sporting woodies for a Super Bowl run. Then the play-offs start and its.... S-P-L-U-R-T!!!!!!

Premature coitus interruptus. The fans get embarrassed and Miss Lombardi jumps out of bed leaving us spent, exhausted, and in the fetal position snoring up a storm.

Let Marty "get jiggy" with the Redskins fans. I'll take my chances at satisfying Miss Lombardi from a guy whose resume shows his prowess with the "ladies". (i.e. Philly and St.Louis)

keg in kc
08-07-2001, 03:58 PM
I'll ignore the smack in between and get back to the points being discussed earlier:

John, you say the Chiefs receivers are more experienced but not better than the Redskins receivers. Okay, answer these questions:

1) Michael Westbrook vs Derrick Alexander: Who is better? (I say DA, Westbrook has had 1 800+ yard season in 6 years, while DA has had 6 800+ yard seasons in 7 years).
2) Kevin Lockett vs Derrick Mayes (I say push)
3) Tony Gonzalez vs Stephen Alexander (uhm, yeah)

So I want you to explain to me how, exactly, the 'skins receiver corps is better than the Chiefs. Note I haven't been taking shots at Marty, so you can leave all that "rah rah" b.s. out of your responses to me. To be honest I don't care about Marty, I'm simply talking about DC personnel. (btw, I'm not bringing Gardner and/or Minnis into this discussion because I have no idea what these guys will do as rookies, and I'm focusing on facts, not conjecture).

Beyond that, your reply that Marty would make the defense better despite a huge hole in the middle is ridiculous. That's not a shot at Marty, that's just making a realistic statement because you know as well as I do that having no DTs, no quality MLBs and 1 safety is going to hurt, regardless of who the coach is. Come on John...

And we'll see how all the smaque evaporates when the Chiefs go to Washington Sept. 30th. Just make sure you come back and take it like a man, OK?

John, are you a Redskin fan now? That sounds an awful lot like smack from a Redskins fan. I might expect that crap from some Donko or Faider fan, but to hear that sort of thing coming from a supposed Chiefs fan is kind of odd....