View Full Version : Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article On Vermeil

The Bad Guy
08-06-2001, 09:19 PM

Vermeil hoping to work his magic with the Chiefs
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Aug. 5, 2001
River Falls - If history is any barometer of Dick Vermeil's magical healing powers, then the Kansas City Chiefs should be in the Super Bowl in the next year or two.

Just look at the facts.

It took Vermeil five years to turn a Philadelphia Eagles squad that had not had a winning season in 12 years into a Super Bowl participant in 1980.

When he returned to coaching in 1997 after a 14-year hiatus, it took him just three years to turn the St. Louis Rams from one of the worst teams in football to Super Bowl champions.

So why shouldn't everyone in Kansas City - Vermeil's new home after coming out of retirement one year after the Rams' Super Bowl - expect that the miracle worker can turn these Chiefs into a winner in a year or two?

"I don't mind," Vermeil said of living up to the standard he has created for himself. "Our goal is to do things successfully faster than how anybody else does it. As a coaching staff, we talk about it all the time: we want to do it faster than other people.

"If we have good enough players, we'll do it. If we don't have good enough players, we won't do it because I'm not a magician."

A winning way
Chiefs general manager Carl Peterson might disagree about Vermeil's powers of prestidigitation since he witnessed firsthand how the Eagles were transformed into winners. The two first joined forces in 1974 at UCLA, when Vermeil was named coach, and then moved on together to Philadelphia.

Ever since Vermeil abruptly retired from the Eagles after the '81 season and Peterson moved on to become the GM in Kansas City in '89, Peterson has been trying to lure Vermeil to the Chiefs. It wasn't until an informal discussion over a glass of wine Dec. 9 at Peterson's house that the possibility of being reunited truly arose.

Vermeil, just 11 months into his retirement from the Rams, was in Kansas City with his wife for a charity event. Peterson took the opportunity to see probe Vermeil's mind.

"So, do you miss it?" Peterson bluntly asked Vermeil between sips of wine.

Vermeil didn't have a chance to answer. His wife, Carol, blurted out, "Yes."

After digging a little deeper, Peterson found that Vermeil, 63, wasn't satisfied being out of football and missed the personal relationships he forged as a coach. It wasn't long before Peterson fired Gunther Cunningham and worked out an agreement that Vermeil would return to coaching with a three-year contract and the assurance that he could stay longer if he wanted.

"I've known the guy so long," Peterson said. "He is a coach. That's his being, his essence. I had to remind him of that."

Left too soon
Vermeil admits that his retirement from the Rams was premature. At the time, he was caught up in the emotion of the Super Bowl championship and thought it was a good time to step away. The Rams were concerned about losing offensive coordinator Mike Martz, so they didn't stand in Vermeil's way, immediately promoting Martz to head coach.

As he stood in the hot summer sun over the weekend at the Chiefs' training camp site on the University of Wisconsin-River Falls campus, Vermeil reflected on how happy he was to be back in football.

"I was out one year and it makes you appreciate the camp a little bit more," Vermeil said. "Like I've said a thousand times, if I'd known I was going to come back I would have never left. Why leave a good football team?

"But when I left, I left with no intentions of coming back. I was sincere and maybe a little hasty in my decision and maybe a little emotional. But that's my nature."

Vermeil liked the idea of rejoining Peterson in Kansas City. He had someone he knew and trusted in the front office, and he was familiar with the team and organization from his days as a color commentator for Chiefs exhibition games.

What's more, he was not entering into a situation as dire as when he first joined the Eagles and the Rams. The Chiefs haven't been to the playoffs since '97 but they won seven or more games in each of the last three years (7-9 in 2000) and aren't considered bottom-feeders.

Upgrading the roster
Vermeil recognized that the Chiefs needed a better quarterback and so he let Elvis Grbac go and traded a first-round draft choice for Rams backup Trent Green. He was unable to upgrade his receiver and running back positions significantly and will have to hope newcomers like rookie receiver Marvin Minnis, free agent receiver Tony Horne and veteran running back Priest Holmes can complement Pro Bowl tight end Tony Gonzalez.

"He (Green) doesn't have Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt to throw to, but we'll have some good players who will emerge at those positions," Vermeil said. "But maybe not of that stature."

On defense, the Chiefs return most of their starters from a unit that ranked 18th in the league last year. Through free agency they have added veteran safety Jason Belser, defensive end Rich Owens, cornerback Taje Allen and punter Dan Stryzinski, but they will have to rely on former Denver coordinator Greg Robinson's expertise to make up for a lack of impact players.

This team might not have the talent necessary to compete for the playoffs, but Vermeil has invigorated it with his upbeat personality and enthusiasm for the game. When players see his Super Bowl ring, they know he can back up his words.

"Obviously, the man knows a lot about football; that's why we respect him," defensive end Eric Hicks said. "We know that if we follow what he says, we have a good chance of getting to where he's been. So I don't see why you wouldn't listen to him."

08-06-2001, 09:42 PM
I know this subject has probably been brought up b4, but I have to give my .02 worth since I know somebody is keeping track.....

I feel worse about DV taking the reins then I did Gun.

As God is my witness I will be happy to buy everyone here a beer when proven wrong (SB appearance), but I really wonder if DV was fortunate enought to take a bad enough team with lots of draft picks and good coaches (Martz) to the SB.

If DV doesn't take the Chiefs to the playoffs I vote for getting rid of him and Peterson.

Sorry, I am not getting any younger.


08-06-2001, 11:02 PM
You mean get rid of them if he doesn't take us to the playoffs this year? I wouldn't put that on him this year because first he has to clean up the mess Gunther left and aquire more playmakers to complement the offense. He definitely must be in the playoffs next year, and a serious contender by year 3. If we stay stagnant during that span, I see no reason to keep any of them around...

08-07-2001, 09:40 AM
He and his coaches may have coached like a mess, but the level of talent was brought forth by the current GM. The talent blame can go no further than CP, IMO.

08-07-2001, 09:49 AM
I dont question Vermeil's legacy. He has an impressive resume. But so does Don Shula. Why hire a 64 year old man to engineer what really is a rebuilding project?? He doesnt have the draft picks to turn this team around as quickly as he turned the Rams around. Plus, he PROBABLY wont luck out and discover an MVP in a supermarket (Warner). And finally, Priest Holmes is no Marshall Faulk. Yes, Vermeil will change the attitude, make some of the foolish penalties go away, and bring a breath of fresh air to the organization. Will he win??? I seriously doubt it. Without Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk, the Rams are a .500 team. With Trent Green, they were less than .500.

A team on the verge of becoming a "bottom feeder" took a hell of a chance by trading its top two picks for a backup QB and a 64 year old head coach. I think those moves will set them back. It just seems like this organization is desperate for 8 wins and will do anything to get those 8 wins.

08-07-2001, 09:59 AM

Nice picture, who is the box?


I know this is going to kill you but what do you think CPs 5 best decisions have been?

08-07-2001, 10:48 AM
Damn Pack, Are you just naturally depressing? Or do you have to work at it? ;)

08-07-2001, 10:52 AM
Rams draft. The Rams had some of the worst drafts in NFL history before Vermeil showed up. Eddie Kennison, the Felony thug from Nebraska, you name it. Only after Vermeil showed up did hte Rams go. Vermeil will turn things around.

08-07-2001, 11:05 AM
I think people in KC love to overstate Peterson as some kind of puppetmaster in relation to Gunther. I don't believe that was really the case. With both Marty and Gunther, you have to put the player aquisitions in perspective. Those guys wanted their teams a certain way. Big defenders, huge offensive linemen that could pound it out, big possession type recievers who could run block, big backs who did not need to go outside the tackles and who did not really have to catch etc. Carl didn't make all these selections and FA pickups over the years just because he felt that those guys were the best, but also because they had to fit into the profile of what the head coach was going to do. I believe that a lot of the blame of not being able to draft an impact offensive playmaker until Tony G has to do with Carl, but it also had to do with Marty's philosophy of always playing the veterans and looking for defenders and playing a "don't make a mistake" offense. They were philosophically looking for different things in players than they would be today.

And then, you throw in the last two years of Gunther, and how he concentrated more on how man plays he ran in practice vs actually teaching fundamentals, and you have a team that it will take some work to get to the point where Vermiel wants it to be. So I don't think we can lay playoffs on him this year, although it is a nice thought and is possible...

08-07-2001, 11:19 AM
Vermiel has what it takes to take KC to the SB. In his own (veiled) words, he believes ring-wearers Robinson and Saunders can get it done FASTER than all you timid 3-year planners.

And until DV wins more than 7 games, I wouldn't keep flogging Gunther.

Most of you guys are bracing yourselves for a steep learning curve that comes to any team that tears its system and coaches and players out by the roots and seeks to develop new schemes and new chemistry. After seeing what Billick did with Baltimore and Reeves did in Atlanta DV did in StL, I am not so sure that the learning curve has to be all that steep. The OTHER team will have a learning curve also, seeing that they face a team they know nothing about. So, the Chiefs have a 1:1 chance IMO of going all the way up and a 1:3 chance of going all the way down.

Bottom line: if this coaching staff cannot match what YOU guys call the "stooges" and Gunther, what does that say?

Predicts 11-5 for KC

08-07-2001, 11:23 AM
I agree with Bob on Vermil. He is a coaches coach and a leader of men!!

Packfan - We didn't have to give up any draft choices for Gunther and crew did we?? Also don't give all the roster mistakes to CP. Marty carried the final decision making power after the '96 season and that is when the roster really took a nose dive. Call it an all out push for the SB. Carl has made some mistakes like any body judging talent in professional sports. But this team went down hill fast after Marty insisted on additional duties and got them after the '96 season. :mad:

08-07-2001, 11:25 AM
Thank you for telling us for 1000th time that we traded picks for TG and DV.

Broken record.

08-07-2001, 11:35 AM
You can't expect it all in one year and you know that. I say we've upgraded our coaches 10 fold. That's where it begins. We'll see.

Remember that "Kurt" that has always been a bad word between us?

You're not getting any younger? HA. At least you got to SEE them in the SB.

p.s. sounds like Guido will be at the Raider game, "YOU B#STARD!"

Mark M
08-07-2001, 11:38 AM
Why is age such an important factor in a head coach? Seriously ... I would like to know why you think that anyone over 60 can't coach?

~~Remembers an over 60-year-old Marv Levy going to several Super Bowls

08-07-2001, 12:07 PM

I still think that the bucks stops at the GM and VP of Operations for the KC Chiefs. Lamar holds the cash, but makes very few DTD decisions. He has to answer for the talent level of this team and their preparedness to be NFL ready. After all, he is the one main constant, from a DTD standpoint, who has been with the organization since the Chiefs became playoff caliber. I have openly given CP his props for bringing this org to a competitive level from the depths of hell. But, and he has mentioned this as well, CP has fallen significantly short of acheiving the objective: AFC Championship and Super Bowl entrant.

He has had the Fan support and infrastructure to accomplish those goals in the 90's and came away with one Championship game loss, and 2 home feild advtg 1st rd losses. He gets a grade of A- for what he accomplished from his onset until 1995, and a grade of C- for his moves since then until the end of last season. If he were reporting to me, he would be on a probationary status right now. JMHO.

08-07-2001, 12:45 PM
I totally understand that viewpoint and Peterson shares some of that blame. But the GM can only do so much, he can't force his coach to take players that don't fit into his coaches profile. Now, during the 90's, we had 3 teams that had a legit shot at getting to the Bowl, and those were the '93, '95, and '97 teams. The first team blew a shot at HFA by losing a late regular season game to the Vikings, so they ended up having to play the AFC Championship game in Buffalo. The last two teams lost in large part to horrible game plans and game management by the coaches. While the argument can be made that Peterson should have gotten more playmakers for those teams to do better, the argument can also be made that that wasn't the type of personnel Marty wanted on his team because of his philosophy.

Carl during his tenure here IMO has had 3 really bad years: before 1996 when he sat pat instead of making some changes to that '95 team, and the last two years with the hire of Gunther. It should be interesting to see the type of guys they persue the next few years, the new philosophy will probably cause us to persue guys Marty and Co would never have been interested in...

08-07-2001, 01:12 PM
St Louis Bob,

Werent Tony Banks and Lawrence Phillips draft picks by Vermeil??

Lets face it, if Vermeil doesnt fall ***-backwards into Kurt Warner and doesnt get TALKED INTO trading for Marshall Faulk, the Rams are just as mediocre as the Chiefs. He isnt the greatest evaluator of talent.

Big Daddy,

CP's five BEST moves were: (in no particular order)

1. Hiring Marty Shottenheimer
2. Firing Gunter Cunningham
3. Trading for Joe Montana
4. Drafting Derrick Thomas
5. Trading up and drafting Tony Gonzalez

Except for canning Gunter, he hasnt done much good lately.


There is nothing wrong with a 64 year old head coach IF the team he is coaching is on the verge of breaking lose. The Chiefs are on the verge of becomming cellar dwellers. And giving up their first two picks in the draft didnt help. Why hire a guy who is only going to be around for a few years?? Dont guys like Gonzo and Donnie Edwards get sick of the revolving head coach door?

Mark M
08-07-2001, 01:50 PM
So it isn't so much his age as his proposed tenure (he has a three year contract)?

If so, I can agree with that.

But why don't you just say that, rather than bringing age into it? You just seem so fixated on his age rather than his length of contract. Hell, the guy could probably coach until he's 70 or 80 if he wanted to (not saying he will, just that he could).

Just once I wish you would come out and give your opinion, along with the reasons for that opinion, rather than taking a shot at someone just because they're associated with Carl.

~~Might be wishing for too much.

08-07-2001, 01:53 PM
You've already gotten his opinion:

He hates Carl Peterson.

You've already gotten the reason for his opinion:

Carl Peterson sucks.

I wouldn't ask for too much more, because that's all he knows...

08-07-2001, 02:37 PM

Look at my last post and you will see a lot more than "carl peterson sucks". Cant you read??


Its his age. Nothing against old people, but I dont want a senior citizen coaching my football team. And I doubt that Vermeil wants to BE a senior citizen coaching a football team. He is 64 years old. Past retirement age. He has been burned out once before.

There were better choices out there that DIDNT cost draft picks!

For example: Marvin Lewis.

08-07-2001, 02:38 PM

I can read, quite well, and while you spew many words, the message is always the same. By the way, SIXTY-FIVE is retirement age, but then it's me that doesn't know my facts, right?

08-07-2001, 02:52 PM
And I doubt that Vermeil wants to BE a senior citizen coaching a football team. He is 64 years old. Past retirement age. He has been burned out once before. --PackFan

After everything that has been said and written about DV since he was hired by the Chiefs I can't believe that you would post something so stupid, Ken. You obviously just make up this crap as you go without really looking at the facts.

If it smells like Gouda it must be PackFan.

PhilFree :cool:
~Don't go away mad. Just go away!~

08-07-2001, 02:56 PM
Phil Free,

Tell me the facts....

He ISNT 64 years old???

He DIDNT retire once before stating "burnout" was a major reason??

67 years old ISNT senior citizen age??

What am I missing here?

C'mon guys, you think I look stupid, look at your replies!

08-07-2001, 02:58 PM
No htsmaque, the message isnt always the same. Again, read my post where I mention the "Top 5 moves that Carl Peterson has made"

Those are positive moves. What do I have to do, use one word at a time with you?? Next time, read my stuff a little S L O W E R!

08-07-2001, 02:58 PM

never mind...

08-07-2001, 02:59 PM
Hehe, I'm receiving "reading lessons" from a moron...an all-time low...God, do I wish I could use the ignore function...

08-07-2001, 02:59 PM
Oh Christ, just what we need.

Luzap is here. Time to put on your dunce caps.

08-07-2001, 03:01 PM
Do ignorant people know they're ignorant?

does not knowing make them stupid as well???...

08-07-2001, 03:03 PM
Ken, since DVs return to coaching he has stated how glad he is to be back and that he probably retired to soon when he was with the Rams. As far as age goes wasn't Marv Levy just inducted into the Hall Of Fame for coaching his team to four straight SuperBowls? How old was he during those years? 70! Those thing are not opinion they are facts.

PhilFree :cool:

08-07-2001, 03:03 PM

Is that the best rebuttle you have? Calling me a moron?

If you lose an argument/debate, its better to shut up and walk away rather than continue to reach with childish insults.

Go ahead, use the ignore feature you f cking coward!

The Bad Guy
08-07-2001, 03:05 PM

What guarantee is there that Lewis would turn out to be a good head coach?

Position coaches that appeared to have all the tools to be a good HC don't always pan out that way.

For every John Gruden there is a Chan Gailey.

The reason Vermeil was burnt out back in the early 80s was due to the fact that he did everything for his football team. He called the offense, and arranged and organized everything.

Now he knows he can't do it by himself, and he has delegated responsibility to capable coaches.

The man won a Super Bowl two years ago, and people thought he was old then to.

Vermeil is in pretty good shape for 64, and age shouldn't matter anyway. Your not judged by how old you are in the NFL, your judged by performance. Taking two teams to the Super Bowl warrants my respect.

There were no better head coaches out there for the Chiefs job. Yes Marvin Lewis can call a great defensive game, but so could Gunther back when he was a DC.

We needed someone in here that players would instantly respect, and the players respect Vermeil.

You seem like the only one who is harping on the draft pick situation anymore. We gave up a second rounder for an entire coaching staff that will have more of an impact than any one player could have.

It's funny how an outsider cares more about these draft picks than any real chiefs fan does anymore.

08-07-2001, 03:06 PM

Is that the best rebuttle you have? Calling me a moron?

That was not a rebuttal (notice the spelling?). Unfortunately, reasoning with you is impossible, so a rebuttal is obviously unnecessary.

If you lose an argument/debate, its better to shut up and walk away rather than continue to reach with childish insults.

Go ahead, use the ignore feature you f cking coward!

I won't even point out the obvious here, I'm just highlighting it in bold so everyone can see how much of an idiot you are...

08-07-2001, 03:06 PM

OK, thats better. Levy is a good example of an older, successful coach. I think his Bills were in a much different situation than Vermeil's Chiefs. Levy had a super bowl team. Vermeil has a team that needs to be gutted. I wouldnt want a 64 year old man tearing down and rebuilding my team. Thats just me.

08-07-2001, 03:09 PM

Politician William McAdoo once said that "it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."

That pretty much sums up what most of us feel about your amazing debating skills.

personally, i don't know many that are willing to take the time to debate you...

08-07-2001, 03:14 PM
The Chiefs have alot of good players on this team and it doesn't need to be gutted it needs to be properly coached. And DVs seeing that the coaching is getting done at this very minute.

Ken, have you spent any time on the Chiefs training camp web site? You should because you would see that you are wrong.

PhilFree :cool:

08-07-2001, 03:18 PM
NFL Scoop,

A "real Chief fan" typically supports ANY move the Chiefs make, including giving draft picks for coaches and back up QBs, so its no surprise that I am the only one that things these were poor moves.
As far as Lewis goes, there are no guarantees. Same with Vermeil. Again, I like Vermeil, I just dont like the rebuilding situation he has been brought into. At this point in his career, I dont think he is the right guy for that type of endeavor.


Just put me on your "ignore" list and enjoy your heated football talk with the likes of Luzap and Bliss. Enough tit for tat. Enjoy!

08-07-2001, 03:22 PM


08-07-2001, 03:24 PM

Wrong about what? What will the web site show me?

Again, Is the site going to tell me that Vermeil is 44 years old instead of 64? Is it going to tell me that he didnt quit because of "burnout"??

It will probably give me Bob Gretz's opinion on the Chiefs. Hell, if he were right, the Chiefs would have won the last ten super bowls!

08-07-2001, 03:30 PM
I like DV and I am expecting big things this year but I was very upset with the decision to give up a 2nd and 3rd round pick for a 64 year old coach when a Butch Davis could obviously been had for no picks...

Even with the excitement that DV is brought me and many others, if I had it to do all over again I would still have gone after Davis...Plenty of top quality coaching experience and much, much younger...He could easily be a 15 year coaching solution when DV is most likely a 3 year solution or less...Then we are right back to square zero potentially throwing away more picks for our next coach...

It pains me, but I agree with Packfan

08-07-2001, 03:43 PM

I feel your pain! Sometimes I agree with what you and other guys say on here too.

Well said in your post. As you know, I think they could have gotten a similar quarterback (in not Green himself) without giving up the 12th pick in the first round. You just dont win championships that way.

08-07-2001, 03:47 PM
Ken, if you check out the web site you will see that we have alot of good players and that DVs experience and knowledge of coaching is not held back by his age. By not checking it out you are showing that you base your opinions on something other then the facts.


Clint in Wichita
08-07-2001, 03:51 PM

How can you list the Montana trade as a positive, but getting DV as a negative?

If you don't like the idea of a senior citizen as head coach, why would you like a friggin' senior citizen at QB?

08-07-2001, 03:54 PM
We (the Chiefs organization and C.P., not actually myself) did not make the choice to give up draft picks for D.V.. If you recall, Paul FAGliabue took those pix from us using no "legal" premise to steal our draft pix and give them to the Rams.

So it was not our "choice".

Do you remeber that Packfan?

08-07-2001, 03:56 PM

Sounds like you are trying to sell your opinion ("the Chiefs have a lot of good players..") as a fact. That wont work with me. I look at things like team record (7-9 last year), players lost to free agency (Grbac), starters cut (Hasty, Chester), draft picks (1st round pick traded to Rams for career back QB, 2nd and 3rd round for a retired coach) ect. before making a judgement. I also look at the positive things such as the new coaching staff, Tony Horne, and at least getting a QB to replace Grbac. All in all, based on last year and the off season the Chiefs had this year, I would say they are going to be just as mediocre (7-9 or 8-8) as they were last year.

Thanks for trying to send me to the web site that tells me the "Chiefs have good players". I think I will stick to my own factual system when I form an opinion on how good/bad this team is.

Chiefs Junky
08-07-2001, 04:01 PM
I suppose if it were up to Packfan, the Cheese heads never would have traded a draft pick for their QB, who was a back up in Atlanta................(behind jeff George no less) Brett farve.............
Sometimes the player is worth more than the draft pick.
Marv levy by the way also never went to super Bowl as coach intil his mid 60's and never was a head coach till 55.
Seems to me vermiel is already ahead of that pace.
What the hell though, what difference does it make if you have facts to back up your argument to someones opinions?

08-07-2001, 04:03 PM

I was our choice...Tags made his ruling before we officially signed DV...Cause CP said if the ruling comes down that we have to give up a 1st rounder then he wouldn't sign him...CP chose to sign him and cough up the picks...

08-07-2001, 04:10 PM
Yes, Tags was trying to keep the Lambs happy with that lame ruling, even though I'm sure the response will be "well, he should have known." Since this isn't a court of law, you never know, because you are at the mercy of "interpretation."

Here is the thing with the Vermiel hiring: NO ONE is happy about having to give up draft picks. But to condemn the deal at this point is premature because we do not know what Vermiel and Green will bring to the table. Again, it's not just for this year, Carl obviously wanted to build a foundation that in his mind he knows was successful in two other places, which is why he did not go after a Butch Davis type, because even with the hype, no one knows whether or not Butch Davis will be a success at this level. Carl has already said he likes known commodities, which is why when drafting he prefers to take the guy with the proven college track record over the "didn't do much but has upside" types. He knows Vermiel and what Vermiel brings. He feels that with that foundation he has the best shot to win the big one here. I don't fault him for that. I DESPISED giving up draft choices for it but that was an arbitrary decision after the fact. Vermiel IMO should have handeled it better by calling the Rams and telling them that he wanted to come back first before signing anything, but I guess he felt he didn't need to. Alas.

And as far as age, who cares. He was supposed to be too old before he won it in the first place. 2 years or so added to that isn't going to change anything. It isn't like he's senile. He even said if things go well and he enjoys himself he can see himself here for 4-5 years. As long as a coach knows what he is doing and a team is headed in a positive direction, the players will like the coach. Age is overstated in this society. And as far as short tenure, if we were using that as a measuring stick then the Jets and Pats made HORRIBLE decisions in bringing in a guy like Parcells, didn't they? After all, I'm sure the Jets would rather go back to what they were before Parcells arrived there for his short tenure. If a coach can lay a foundation for the organization to succeed, then that can be worth a lot more than a defensive tackle or a running back. That is why the jury is still out on this deal...

08-07-2001, 04:14 PM
No Ken, I'm not trying to sell my opinion as much as I'm giving you a chance to base yours on whats really going on with the Chiefs. It's a good web site that has alot of quotes from DV and his staff as well as the players. And it gives excellent camp reports which could give someone some insight to what kind of players we have on this team and allow that person to give opinions based on what is really going on. I guess in your case ignorance is really bliss.

PhilFree :cool:

08-07-2001, 04:15 PM
If I'm a Jets fan I would much rather go back in time and had all those pick instead of Parcells...He never brought them a title and that "strong foundation" you refered to has forced them into their 3rd coach in what? 3 years or something like that....

08-07-2001, 04:49 PM
Thanks for reminding us for the 1010th time we used picks for TG and DV.

Scratched CD.

08-07-2001, 05:05 PM
So you'd rather go back to an aimless team that wastes draft picks and had no chance of ever competing for anything anytime soon, IE Bengals east? While it is true that Parcells never got them to a Bowl, he brought that team back a long way, and they lost to the Broncos for an opportunity to get to the Bowl. The 3rd coach in 3 years is more due to the fact that Al Groh is a wuss who didn't have the stomach for the job. That is probably the biggest drawback to Parcells going to the Jets, the fact that he reccomended Al Groh.

I mean, Cincinnati kept their draft picks, signed Jon Kitna to be their QB, and kept Dick LeBeau as head coach. Does that leave them better off, or would you trade a draft pick or two to get Parcells in there for a few years to clean up that mess?

But the point is, having a solid foundation that you believe in as an organization and can win with is worth more than a draft pick, because if you get a draft pick and keep sucking, hey, that draft pick is gone in 4 years anyway.

Whether Vermiel and Green bring that foundation here remains to be seen...

08-07-2001, 05:16 PM
Many would heavily question the Jets strong foundation...There are many that predict them at the bottom of the AFC East...How is that any different than before Parcells.

As for the Bungals, the are just a poor ran team that will never amount to much until Mike Brown and his daughter are ran out of the front office...For example, Justin Smith was the one player that was most vocal that he was just happy to be taken by anyone even if it was the Bungals and that he would do virtually anything to be in camp on time...Yet those morons will make him one of the longest holdouts because they won't even guarantee his signing bonus...Unbelievable......Plus these are the same morons that would not trade away the number 3 pick to NO's for the #12 and everything else cause they wanted to make sure they wasted the future on the wonderful Akili Smith...

08-07-2001, 05:25 PM
Well we can argue whether or not Parcells brings a "strong foundation" or not. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe Jimmy Johnson really didn't make the Dolphins much better before he gave it off to Wannstadt. But the theory is that it is valuable to bring in a guy, establish a winning foundation and program, and have that in place for the future. You could even use Vermiel and the Rams as an example. Now Martz has a potentually solid team and organization to work with for years.

So whether or not Vermiel brings this, or if he leaves us to rot in two years, will tell whether this deal was worth it or not, IMO...

08-07-2001, 05:30 PM

I completely agree with you...However, the difference with Johnson in Miami and Vermeil in St Louis is they didn't have to cough up a lot of blood like the Jets did to get Parcells and like we did but to a lesser extent...

Our opinions only differ from the standpoint that I don't think it is a wise move to give up high draft picks for a coach considering 99.9% of all coaches can be had without picks being involved.

08-07-2001, 05:44 PM
I agree, I absolutely HATED giving up the picks for this coach. That's why anything short of either a short term SuperBowl under Vermiel or a long term winning foundation established by Vermiel would make this deal a bad deal.

However, again the "get a cheaper coach" approach goes back to what Peterson is thinking. He already got an unproven guy, and he's thinking he doesn't want to get burned again. In his mind, he knows how Vermiel works and he felt that would be right for this team. It is a decision that will probably make or break the last stage of his tenure here. He didn't want to risk getting burned by another unproven guy. So we gotta live by that decision.

Carl probably at the time really believed he was going to be able to hire DV without compensation. Maybe the fact that he had wanted this to happen for such a long time clouded the way the process was done in his mind. The draft pick compensation also probably seems a bigger deal to us than it does to Carl, since his first time around in Philly with DV, according to Peterson in today's kcchiefs.com, "In Philadelphia we didn't have a first round pick for the first three drafts that I was involved in, nor a second, nor a third."

We'll see. Having the draft picks certainly would have made it nicer. If there was any guaruntee that a coach we hire that wouldn't have required compensation would be successful and we could keep the picks, I would have preferred that coach over DV. But if it is between having Gun and the picks Vs this, I choose this. And a lot of people complain about the first rounder for Green, but another way to look at that is, if we keep the first rounder and sign some crap QB who can't get the ball to Gonzo, then you've got a guy who does not what to be here next year. If Trent Green can lead this team, make Tony a happy player who wants to willingly sign an extension, and play well, then the benefits are tremendous. But it is all relative to what happens here down the road...

keg in kc
08-07-2001, 05:57 PM
DaWolf, kind of related to the Gonzo thing:

On the radio today Adam Teicher talked about how Green and Gonzo seem to be on the same wavelength already. There was an interview last week on the air with Gonzo, and he pretty much said the same thing, and went on in some detail about how Green was the leader and that people were listening to him and if Green told them to do something, they did it, no questions. Sounds like he really likes the guy...

On a similar note, Len Dawson was on the air today, too, and he talked about how Green had clearly taken the leadership role, and that he was the field general, unquestionably the leader in the huddle, and he talked about how much the team had been missing that recently.

08-07-2001, 06:05 PM
Giving up those draft picks for Vermeil is something that I have a lot of difficulty with as well, but it's done, and there's nothing to be done now, but hope for the best.
If it doesn't work out, I hope Lamar Hunt finally does what he should've done at least 3 years ago; fire CP.

Pac, someone else has already asked this question. I'd like to hear your response.
Why is giving up draft picks for an aged, formerly burned out HC any worse than giving up a 1st round pick for an aged, health risk QB?

From where I sit, I consider the trade for Montana a worse deal. We knew he was only going to give us 3 years at the most, whereas, Vermeil, although unlikely, could give us more.

It's even worse when you consider that Buerlein was available in FA.

08-07-2001, 06:49 PM
Hopefully I can listen to a broadcast this year without Lenny telling me that our QB needs to learn to stop locking onto his recievers with his eyes before throwing... :)

08-07-2001, 07:09 PM
Milkman, do you think Steve would've been ready to play by the season, and stay healthy, considering he is rehabbing two surgeries? Not that I don't think he was one of the best options.

If Green produces, all this a moot point. If he doesn't, or cannot remain healthy....let's say I had that t shirt in my closet for a long time.

I'm hoping Green's hunger for success is parallel for my desire for this team to finally get the damn ball rolling.

keg in kc
08-07-2001, 08:02 PM
Stevieray, unless I miss my guess, Red Eyes was talking about Steve Beuerlein being available when we acquired Joe Montana. I can't agree too much with him about that, though, because Beuerlein was not even close to being a sure thing at that point - he was little more than a 4-year backup who hadn't shown much (IMHO). That's all a matter of opinion though...

08-07-2001, 08:23 PM
Regarding the praise heaped onto Green by Tony G, I take it with a bit of skepticism. Sounds like PR to me.

I remember in 97 after two years of the Bono nightmare. Derrick Thomas was praising Elvis as the "leader" that the Offense desperately needed during summer camp. We all saw what a great leader Elvis was.

I have a good feeling about Green, but we will have to wait and see how he does in a real game with 2 minutes left, down by 4, with 80 yards to go.

keg in kc
08-07-2001, 08:29 PM
KCinNY, in my humble opinion it wasn't just PR. It was in an interview on a non-Chiefs affiliated station, first of all, and it was a spontaneous to a question. He was basically talking about how different Green is than Grbac in that he tried to build a rapport with the team the moment he set foot in town (the host was trying to get him to trash Elvis but he wouldn't do it...). The respect part deals mainly with the fact that Green knows the offense better than anyone else on the team, so I don't think it's a stretch to believe that other players might be listening to him.

It was actually only about 15-20 seconds of the overal interview, which lasted about 25 minutes as I recall (he and Tony Richardson were interviewed together).

We'll see on Sunday, though. If he's a leader, it'll show on the field.

08-07-2001, 08:38 PM
Keg is right, I was suggesting that we should have acquired Buerlein instead of Montana.

His year as starter for the Raiders was enough to tell me that he was a starting quality QB with leadership. But as you said, that was only a matter of opinion.

I've laid this out before, but, at the risk of being redundant, let me say this again.

If we had signed Buerlein then instead of trading for Montana, He very possibly could still be the Chiefs starting QB still.
We would've kept that #1 we traded, which the 9ers used to draft Dana Stubblefield, who would have looked good in Chief red and gold.
With Stubblefield, we very possibly would not have signed Chet, and would not have wasted that cap space.
With Buerlein, we would not have signed Grbac, which in turn would have spared us the Grbac/Gannon debate, and most importantly would have spared us the Denise GannonObsession.
And further, with Buerlein, the need for a starting QB would not have cost us a #1 this season, and we might even have a young QB already in house that is being groomed to replace him.

I think Buerlein as done enough in the past 7-8 years to suggest he would have been a more than capable QB in KC.

No Bono, no Grbac, no Gannon!!!
How sweet that could have been!!!!!!

08-07-2001, 08:41 PM
I hope you're right kegger.

But, IMO it's kinda the job of the team's superstar(Tony G. now, Derrick T. then) to praise the new QB as a great leader, whether he is or not. I mean do you think they're gonna say "he's kind of a jerk in the huddle" or something?

But like I said, I like Green and have good feelings about his ability to lead and win for us. We'll have to see.

08-07-2001, 08:44 PM
Milkman has a very interesting scenario there.

Have to admit I never considered it, but I remember Beurlein coming to town before the Montana trade happened. But forgot all about it since. You're right, he's proven himself to be a capable QB in the time since 93. We could have saved ourselves a ton of trouble.

08-07-2001, 08:56 PM
There's no way of telling how that would of worked out. Beurlein could of gotten injured in his 1st season with KC and never made it back. And on the flip side of what might have been, there probably would not have ever made it to the AFC Championship game or had two 13-3 seasons. I enjoyed all those wins even though we didn't reach the promise land.

PhilFree :cool:

keg in kc
08-07-2001, 08:56 PM
You know, we spend a lot of time on here arguing about what could have been done this year or last year, or three years ago or whenever ad nauseum, but that doesn't insure that things would have been any different, good or bad. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather just think about Vermeil and Saunders and Green and Holmes being here now and wonder how the team will look on Sunday. Think about the future, and while remembering the past don't regret any of it. Regardless what you may think about Marty or Montana or Carl or anything else, the fact is there were some good times and some great memories, so why spend so much time focused on the negative or wishing this, that or the other had been done some other way. There's really nothing constructive about that - what's done is done. You can learn from a mistake, but you can't go back and change it...

There's plenty going on here right now to keep us occupied until the cows come home. :)

I will now step off my soapbox and return to posting nonsense!

08-07-2001, 08:59 PM
And what Kyle said!

08-07-2001, 09:09 PM
The scenario that I would love to go back in time and change would have been Steve Young. The only 9er QB I really wanted and unfortunately the only one that we didn't end up with. I don't remember the details too well but I do remember we were in discussions with the 9ers for him before the Montana deal and they wanted a 1st and a 2nd rounder or two 1st rounders and CP wouldn't give it up for him but then the following year gave up almost as much for a older more broken down Montana...

Any of you remember the exact Young trade offer that CP shot down?

08-07-2001, 09:16 PM
What you said is all very well and good, but, without remembering the past, we repeat mistakes.
And in many ways, this trade for Green reminds me of the Montana trade, and the hopes and dreams that it stirred.

I don't know how you all felt about the possibilty of trading for Montana before it actually came down, but I was againt the idea from the start, as I was against the idea of trading for Green.

I just hope that it works out better than the Montana trade, because, as far as I'm concerned, we really lost in that deal.

The one thing that makes this deal for Green a better one than Montana is that there is a very real possiblity that Green ca be our QB for the next 7-8 years.

08-07-2001, 09:27 PM
I was not happy with the deal of a 1st rounder for Green when I thought Dan Morgan would be there. He went 11th and due to that I am happy with the deal. The only thing beside injury or very poor performance that could really sour this deal for me would be if Duece McCallister turns out to be a healthier version of Fred Taylor...If that happen we will all be sick for many years to come.

08-08-2001, 09:59 AM

You asked a question here about whats worse, giving up a first and third for Joe Montana or a first for Green and Horne.

Montana immediately brought a superstar to KC at the QB position. A guy who is a winner. And if my memory is correct, the 1st round pick wasnt that high, certainly not any higher than the 12th pick in the draft. Plus, the Chiefs had a very good defense and needed a QB that could pull out tight games at the end. Montana did that beautifully for the Chiefs. To me, the Chiefs are in a totally different situation today. They have many, many more holes on both offense and defense. Trent Green hasnt done anything significant in his career and there are similar QBs (including Green himself two times) that are available for FREE every single year. Some will argue that Green is Vermeil's guy and thats who he wanted all along. I beg to differ. The Chiefs had an offer on the table for Grbac and it was his to decide. It was a fair offer, but Elvis wanted to win and wanted out of KC. So, in truth, Elvis was Vermeil's first choice. Plus, they already had him and didnt have to give anything up for him. Common sense, I think. Elvis pulled a fast one on Vermeil and Peterson. But thats the kind of guy Elvis is. A jerk.

All in all, a bad trade made out of desperation. The Chiefs were left with their pants down and a gaping hole at QB. Buerline would have been a stop gap, but he would have been FREE. Thats my main point with all of this:

You dont pay for something that you can get for free. Buerline, Brad Johnson, Flutie, Grbac, Green, Cunningham ect have all been free at least one time or another. So why the hell would you trade such a high pick for a comodity?

I know, its done and over with. But some of you guys wonder why this team hasnt gone anywhere for so long and continues to struggle to the 7-9 or 9-7 mark. Poor decisions like this are part of the reason.

08-08-2001, 10:25 AM

I have heard your argument that we overpaid for Green because he was free in the past. Green the QB of 8/8/01 is not the same Green the QB of the past. Green is better coached, better prepared and more mature than he was after his release from San Diego. His value is higher. Kurt Warner was free several times in his career that does not diminish is value now. But you have a point about past bad decisions coming back to haunt us. We have never evaluated QBs well and that has hurt us. IMO, we made the right choice with Trent Green this time. Time will tell.

Baby Lee
08-08-2001, 10:39 AM
St Louis Bob,

Werent Tony Banks and Lawrence Phillips draft picks by Vermeil??

I object!! Asked and answered [and asked and answered,and asked and answered,and asked and answered,and asked and answered,and asked and answered,and asked and answered.]

BTW- the answer was, and is, NO. Rich Brooks' staff drafted them. Vermiel tried to get the best out of them once he inherited them[and may have gotten their 'best'].

Thanks Packfan for again demonstrating your football acumen.

08-08-2001, 10:44 AM
I think the Young deal was just a wild fantasy that the KC media came up with. It never really held much water here in the Bay Area. At the time everyone knew that Young had way more years left in him than Joe did, so it made little sense for the Niners to trade him. Although at that exact time there was a sentiment by a few people outside of the organization that Young didn't have the playoff intangibles because of his playoff brain cramps at the time (sound familiar?). Regardless, that reported trade was no where near a reality. Steve was even asked about it once in an interview on KMBZ at the time which I heard on the net, and he just laughed about it and said he wasn't going to be leaving the Bay Area to come to KC...

Mark M
08-08-2001, 10:53 AM
Sounds like you are trying to sell your opinion ("the Chiefs have a lot of good players..") as a fact. That wont work with me. I look at things like team record (7-9 last year), players lost to free agency (Grbac) ...

So, after you spent all of last year saying how bad Elvis is and how much of an idiot Carl is for signing him and how stupid we were for supporting him (well, some of us anyway), you are now saying that we are worse without him?? :confused:

Typical Packfan ...

Will Green work out? Will he be worth the picks? Will the picks St. Louis got pan out for them? Who the hell knows ... not me, you or anyone else can forsee the future.

The fact remains that his (Trent's) abilities are much more suited to this offense than Grbac's are. So, no matter what we gave up to get him, we still have the better QB for this offense.

The fact remains that Vermeil knows how to build a team, and has proven that it doesn't take him that long to get there. Whether the guy is 16 or 60 doesn't matter to me as long as he can get the job done.

The fact remains that Carl has/is/will made/making/make mistakes. But who doesn't? I see this as his last chance ... if DV and Green fall on their faces, then Carl's a$$ is (or should be) out the door.

The fact remains that Packfan will continue to b!tch and moan no matter what happens, refusing to look at all of the facts. Does he have some? Yes. Does he have as many as he thinks he does? Not even fuggin close.

~~Tired of seeing the same old sh!t on different days.

08-08-2001, 11:48 AM
Amen Mark.

Why are you here? Why do you care one iota about what the Chiefs organization does? The truth of the matter is that you don't know enough to be able to say the DV hiring was a mistake. Only time will tell. Personally, I think it was a great decision even though it did cost us draft picks. Hell, not all draft picks pan out. Hiring DV was somewhat of a gamble but so is drafting. Hell, we're tired of how this team has been afraid to gamble over the years. I think this will be a gamble that will pay off. Also, as someone already pointed out(beat me to it), Lawrence Phillips and Tony Banks were drafted before DV came to St. Louis. At least get your facts straight before you try and make an argument. As far as Carl's mistakes go, he's been a very good GM, IMO. Sure, he's made some personell mistakes but, so does every other GM in the league. I would venture to say that he's made a hell of a lot more good decisions than mistakes. His biggest mistakes, IMO, were sticking with Marty too long & hiring Gunther. Marty Schottenheimer was a great choice for a coach to bring this team to prominence but, he should've been let go in the mid 90s after his playoff failures showed why he was chased out of Cleveland. The Gunther Cunningham hiring was a gamble that didn't pay off. It was another example of a great coordinator who didn't make a great coach. If the Chiefs would've hired someone like Marvin Lewis, it could have just as easily been a disaster. As far as your analogy about Trent Green goes, you have no idea how good this guy will be. Actually, nobody really knows how he'll do with the Chiefs. From everything I've read, I think he'll be one of the best qbs in the league. Like someone else already pointed out, your beloved Favre was a backup in Atlanta and look what he's done.

08-08-2001, 01:53 PM
My question wasn't the comparison between Montana and Green trades, it was how the trade for Montana was any better than giving up picks for Vermeil.

IMO, the trade for Montana was the single biggest mistake that CP has made since hiring Marty.

The trade for Green may or may not turn out to be a mistake, but at least there is a chance he be the starter in KC for more than 2 years.

Throwing away a #19 pick for a 2 year starter was a complete waste.

As for giving up picks for Vermeil, I didn't like it. I still don't like it.
But one could argue that the Chiefs needed instant credibility at the HC position, and Vermeil brings that.

Same kind of reasoning that you used to validate the Montana trade.

I would rather have signed Buerlein then.

I would rather have signed Marvin Lewis, Butch Davis or Rick Neuheisel now.
None of those guys would have cost us picks.

08-08-2001, 02:33 PM

We are on the same page as far as the Vermeil hiring. The Chiefs have a turnstyle at head coach, QB, and Running Back. And with Vermeil's age, he will be burned out soon too. Plus, they dont draft that well. I dont know how they ever expect to be Super Bowl contenders with that kind of instability. I differ with you about Marty and Montana. Marty is the main reason the Chiefs won. He was a winner (although not to many Chief fans satisfaction) in Cleveland, and he turned losers into winners with very questionable talent here. When he got Montana, its the closest thing the Chiefs have had to a super bowl caliber QB since Dawson. And they almost got to the Super Bowl. Trent Green (8-11 as a starter) isnt the answer. I am sorry guys. I just dont see what the rest of you see in him. 19 starts doesnt warrant throwing the 12th pick in the draft for him. There are better solutions than to piss away a lottery pick for a guy like Green.

As far as Banks and Phillips, I didnt know, thats why I phrased it in the form of a question. I dont claim to know everything, never have. But I do know much more football than MOST of the people on this board. I think we would all agree with that.

Mark M
08-08-2001, 02:47 PM
The Chiefs have a turnstyle at head coach, QB, and Running Back.
Well, you got 2 out of 3. We've had problems with QBs and RBs, but we've had a total of 3 head coaches since 1988. I wouldn't call that a turnstyle. You are, however, correct on the other two ... and you're right in that the lack of consistency is a huge problem. (See, we can agree on stuff! ;) )

And with Vermeil's age, he will be burned out soon too.

Can you also tell me, oh great Kenskin, what tonight's winning lottery numbers are? I am asking you since you can predict the future. You might think that, but to just come out and say it will happen is a stretch ... even for you.

Plus, they dont draft that well.
Followed by
There are better solutions than to piss away a lottery pick for a guy like Green.

If they don't draft that well, then what good would the 12th pick have done for us? We're stupid for trading the pick, but whomever we picked would've been a stupid choice. There's no way to win with you, is there? (BTW, there is no "lottery pcik" in the NFL ... that's the NBA. Just in case you were confused.)

But I do know much more football than MOST of the people on this board. I think we would all agree with that.


Sorry ... but that was too damned funny.

~~Has nothing better to do.

08-08-2001, 02:50 PM
The REASON Marty won in the regular season was because he played veteran guys who didn't make mistakes that would cost you games and preached a grinding running game, good defense, and waiting for the other team to make mistakes.

That is also the main reason the Chiefs never drafted that well on offense, because they never put emphasis on it, it wasn't part of the shared philosophy If you will notice, they drafted pretty nicely on defense and the OL. Why? That is where Marty built his football team, in the trenches.

Marty cost his own downfall in the postseason. Horrible game plans, predictable play calling, bad clock management, etc. He couldn't compete with the big boys. His defenses folded the tent in the playoffs by never making any big plays. His offensive coordinators were pathetic. He won, what, 3 playoff games, and 2 were due to the fact that Montana was out there on the field (4th down TD pass against Pittsburgh).

Marty helped make the Chiefs respectable. That was about it. You could argue that the only reason we won was because of him, but you could argue that the only reason we never got any better was because of him and his philosophy. It took him 9 years before he figured out he needed to "throw down the gauntlet of conservatism." By that time he had aquired player personnel authority over Carl, and proceeded to run this team into the ground.

Unfortunately Carl didn't help the situation any by proceeding to hire Gunther. At least he didn't hire Bellichick...

08-08-2001, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Packfan
But I do know much more football than MOST of the people on this board. I think we would all agree with that.

First, no one is going to agree with that statement. That is arrogant and ignorant.

Second, you need to learn the difference between homerish hope-excitement and lack of football knowledge.
Almost everyone on this board knows football, we just allow our hope and excitement to influence our takes, myself included, and I consider myself to be somewhat cynical.

Third, Marty was a mstake. He was beaten in the playoffs in Cleveland for the same reason he lost in KC. He was afraid to lose. Rather than risk mistakes to take shaots at winning, he tried to eliminate mistakes to avoid losing.
Playing not to lose in the playoffs ultimately leads to losing. he never learned that.

Fourth, Montana was a mistake because we gave up a 1st round pick for a player that was only going to give us 3 years at the most. CP and Marty had to know that. He was instrumental in getting us to the AFC Championship. Big deal, it wasn't the SB.
I've said this many times, but he was a short term solution to a long term problem, and the QB merry go round continues.
Buerlein would have been a long term solution.
Green at least has a chance to be a longer term solution.

Funny thing is, I would have preferred the short term soluton (Buerlein) this time around.

Baby Lee
08-08-2001, 03:05 PM
When he got Montana, its the closest thing the Chiefs have had to a super bowl caliber QB since Dawson. And they almost got to the Super Bowl.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because we got to the AFC Championship game under Montana doesn't mean we were any closer to the SB than we were any other year. You can argue whether the playoff 'flukes' were destiny or poor planning. You can argue, had those flukes gone in our favor, how much farther we could have gone. However, replay that Championship game, and the Bills beat us 10 times out of 10.

08-08-2001, 03:17 PM
JC Johnny,

What the hell are you talking about??? The Chiefs were one win from playing in the Super Bowl! Thats as close as you get! Take away that season, and this Carl Peterson run franchise has one playoff victory in 12 years! And you think the Chiefs were just as close in other years!?? C'mon, think before speaking!

Now, I do agree that the Bills would beat the Chiefs over and over and over again, maybe 8 of 10 times. They were the better team.

08-08-2001, 03:26 PM
Packfan, we hardly got crushed in the home losses the other two years we went 13-3. What Johnny is saying, I believe, is had we gotten some of the breaks and/or big plays in either home loss in '95 or '97, it would have been a different story. If Gonzo is called "pushed out" or if that phantom hold against Manusky isn't called, we probably beat the donks. If we had gotten just one break in the Colts game we could have won. I remember watching the Broncos/Steelers game a week after our loss, and remember Shannon Sharpe barely holding onto a pass that almost squirted out of his grasp to keep a drive alive that eventually won them the game. The '93 game against Pittsburgh gave us a break because of the punt block near the end of the game.

The problem with Marty, though was that his philosophy dictated that we had to wait for those breaks to happen in order to win. When they didn't happen, and in the playoffs they rarely did, he lost and squandered everything they worked for that year. That's why the players stopped listening or trying for him...

Baby Lee
08-08-2001, 03:28 PM
You know, if I were to step into the ring with Tyson in the late '80's, I'd be "one win away" from being the undisputed heavyweight champion. Doesn't mean I'm close.

You tell me to think before 'speaking,' then propose that losing by a wide margin to a clearly superior team is a bigger badge of honor than losing a close game by a blown call or a botched kick.

. . . or more eloquently, 'what DaWolf said.'

Chiefs Junky
08-08-2001, 03:31 PM
I wish I could see the future and be the know all see all fortune teller like PakFan.
Of course if I could do that................ I would have been able to keep the Packers from makeing A. Freeman the highest paid reciever in the NFL a cuople years ago. He sure has earned that money right!
I would have told Brett farve to lay off the beer and painkillers!
I would have told Mark Shamura (Sp?) 'don't get in that tub!'
I would have told green Bay to draft a running back cause thiers can't stay healthy. Make Holgrem the GM and HC since Wolf was leaving in a year anyway.
If Packfan is so good a foreseeing the future he has wasted a lot of time here when he could have been helping "his" team out.
Truth is he doesn't know any more than the average 4th grade girl about what is going to happen this year!

08-08-2001, 03:38 PM
I don't know why you guys argue with him...

It's obvious what he thinks about you...

But I do know much more football than MOST of the people on this board. I think we would all agree with that.

That is quite possibly the most arrogant thing anyone here has ever said...