PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Whitlock: Waters rose above his Chiefs superiors


Pages : [1] 2

Tribal Warfare
02-13-2010, 11:42 PM
Waters rose above his Chiefs superiors (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chiefs/story/1747016.html)
JASON WHITLOCK COMMENTARY
The Kansas City Star

Fearing that some of you might construe what I’m about to say as an unjustified attack on Scott Pioli and Todd Haley, I delayed writing this column.

It’s about Brian Waters winning the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award. Waters received the NFL’s most prestigious individual award last Sunday before the Super Bowl, joining Dan Marino, John Elway, Mike Singletary, Roger Staubach, Johnny Unitas and many of the greatest names in football as a recipient.

Young people — not just young athletes — can learn a lesson from Waters’ 2009 journey, a lesson in how to handle unwarranted criticism and disrespect.

If your goal is to rise above your circumstance, never answer disrespect with disrespect. Don’t answer at all. Another person’s behavior should not dictate your behavior. Someone — a peer, a friend, a teacher, a boss — might verbally assault you, denigrate your value or challenge you in an unfair manner publicly/privately. Don’t respond. It’s a trap, a ploy to prevent your elevation to a higher station in life.

During Waters’ first nine years as a member of the Chiefs, he vaulted from undrafted free agent to All-Pro to respected locker-room leader to NFL Man of the Year candidate thanks to his work on and off the field.

When Pioli and Haley took charge of the Chiefs, Waters reached out to his new superiors and was greeted with a breathtaking level of disrespect and contempt. We may never know the motivation for Pioli’s and Haley’s actions because Kansas City’s general manager makes a point not to talk about his mistakes or anything of real substance.

What we do know is that Pioli has made it a point to convince people around the NFL that he took over a horrendously run franchise in need of a total cultural makeover. I tend to assume the new regime’s initial interaction with Waters wasn’t personal. It was simply an unfortunate byproduct of an attitude that reeked of: anything before Pioli’s and Haley’s arrival was a mistake. In their mind, Waters was a leader of bad football teams and therefore unworthy of a leadership role with the “new” Chiefs.

Waters politely asked to be traded. His sour feelings toward his new bosses and desire to play somewhere else eventually hit the newspapers and talk radio. That created some anti-Brian Waters backlash among Chiefs fans who wanted to blindly believe in the new men (Chiefs fans did not know) in charge rather than give a respected, longtime member of the community the benefit of the doubt.

When it became apparent the Chiefs would not trade him, Waters chose the appropriate tactic. He did not engage Pioli and Haley in their foolishness. Waters ignored his critics within the Chiefs fan base, which is the equivalent of a kid ignoring his classmates when they call him a punk for walking away from a fight.

And Waters cut off communication with the media, focused strictly on doing his job and remained obedient to the professional, respected persona he’d built over a decade. Waters let his work do the talking.

So what happened? Who won?

Let’s turn to the 2009 scoreboard and evaluate who enhanced his reputation and who didn’t.

Waters added NFL Man of the Year to his reputation. Haley’s rep is that he’s clueless when it comes to effectively motivating and connecting with players. And people around the league (and fans in KC) are growing suspicious of Pioli’s moaning about taking over a “crippled” franchise.

As everyone knows, I was all for Carl Peterson getting fired. He’d stayed around five to 10 years too long. I have never held the opinion that Peterson was incompetent.

Waters’ selection as the NFL Man of the Year should be the final piece of evidence that Pioli did not take over the Los Angeles Clippers. The Chiefs organization was not in total shambles when Pioli arrived. Waters is the third Chiefs player in the Peterson era to win the league’s man of the year award.

Since Derrick Thomas won the award in 1993 (Will Shields won in 2003), only two other franchises have had more than one player win it. San Diego Chargers Junior Seau (1994) and LaDainian Tomlinson (2006) and Miami Dolphins Dan Marino (1998) and Jason Taylor (2007) won the award.

I understand the NFL is about wins and losses and playoff victories. But Peterson’s regime has been criticized for doing virtually everything wrong, including the way parking assignments were given to players.

Well, Peterson did one important thing better than any other president/general manager. He demanded that his players get involved with and give back to their community. He recognized that the players who made the Chiefs great in the 1960s and early 1970s had a tradition of community involvement. Willie Lanier and Len Dawson won the league’s man of the year award back to back in 1972 and 1973.

I couldn’t be any more proud of Brian Waters and the Kansas City tradition he carried on. I hope some young people read this and are inspired to ignore their foolish critics and recognize success trumps disrespect.

BigRedChief
02-13-2010, 11:46 PM
BS. Just because Waters is a good guy doesn't mean this team wasn't in total shambles.

DaneMcCloud
02-13-2010, 11:52 PM
BS. Just because Waters is a good guy doesn't mean this team wasn't in total shambles.

And Peeholi's draft set the franchise back by at least two years, if not more.

And all that Haley proved was that he was over-matched by nearly every coach he faced this past year.

Saccopoo
02-14-2010, 12:08 AM
They had to give a Chiefs player something, since we didn't get a single player on the Pro Bowl roster. Might as well be the "good guy" award as it sure wasn't going to be for kicking ass on the field.

Fish
02-14-2010, 12:27 AM
Winning Superbowls is overrated... Volunteer and charity work awards are the true measure of success....

stevieray
02-14-2010, 12:30 AM
horse. dead.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 12:35 AM
horse. dead.

Silver is immortal.

:D

KcMizzou
02-14-2010, 12:36 AM
They had to give a Chiefs player something, since we didn't get a single player on the Pro Bowl roster. Might as well be the "good guy" award as it sure wasn't going to be for kicking ass on the field.Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it works.

That's stupid. Just like Whitlock's column.

stevieray
02-14-2010, 12:46 AM
Silver is immortal.

:D

...and Trigger!

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 12:49 AM
...and Trigger!

Well, he was stuffed and put on display after his death...

:)

Fruit Ninja
02-14-2010, 01:11 AM
one thing i know is waters has been playing crappier and crappier since big Willie retired. I think Big Willie carried him a bit.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 01:12 AM
one thing i know is waters has been playing crappier and crappier since big Willie retired. I think Big Willie carried him a bit.

Uh, no.

Waters was a Pro-Bowler in 2008 and justifiably so.

Serious question: Do you even WATCH the games?

penchief
02-14-2010, 01:12 AM
Waters didn't rise above anything. He's a good guy who realized he was out of line as an employee by thinking that his unannounced presence a couple days before the draft demanded that Haley and Pioli drop their draft preparations in order to cater to his ego demands.

I think Waters was wrong to expect to have his ass kissed and he handled being put in his proper place with dignity. He does deserve credit for not allowing his hurt pride to turn him into a disruptive force but that is all. The initial incident was the result of his own sense of self-entitlement.

And once again Whitlock proves he is a one-trick pony with no real insight.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 01:16 AM
Waters didn't rise above anything. He's a good guy who realized he was out of line as an employee by thinking that his unannounced presence a couple days before the draft demanded that Haley and Pioli drop their draft preparations in order to cater to his ego demands.

I think Waters was wrong to expect to have his ass kissed and he handled being put in his proper place with dignity. He does deserve credit for not allowing his hurt pride to turn him into a disruptive force but that is all. The initial incident was the result of his own sense of self-entitlement.

And once again Whitlock proves he is a one-trick pony with no real insight.

Bullshit.

Waters visited them in FEBRUARY.

NOT a few days before the draft.

Or are you blaming the fucking ABORTION of the 2009 draft on Brian Waters?

LMAO

When you pee, does it spell "Pioli"?

penchief
02-14-2010, 01:26 AM
Bullshit.

Waters visited them in FEBRUARY.

NOT a few days before the draft.

Or are you blaming the ****ing ABORTION of the 2009 draft on Brian Waters?

LMAO
is do
When you pee, does your cock spray "Pioli" in the snow?

I'll have to recheck the timeline but I remember it being a particularly busy time. Free agency, maybe?

That aside, what employee feels he has the right to show up unannounced when the boss is up to his ass in work and demand to be told what the new boss is going to do? What if every player on the team felt they were entitled to have their egos stroked the way Waters did? Is Pioli or Haley supposed to drop what they are doing and kiss every player on the team's ass?

Waters wasn't entitled to a damn thing. The fact that he thought he was goes to one of the root problems that plagued this team. The self-entitled inmates were running the asylum. Waters was wrong to put his employers on the spot and, therefore, I was okay with them making an example out of his power play.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 01:31 AM
I'll have to recheck the timeline but I remember it being a particularly busy time. Free agency, maybe?

That aside, what employee feels he has the right to show up unannounced when boss is busy and demand to be told what the new boss is going to do? What if every player on the team felt they were entitled to have their egos stroked the way Waters did? Is Pioli or Haley supposed to drop what they are doing and kiss every player on the team's ass?

Waters wasn't entitled to a damn thing. The fact that he thought he was goes to one of the root problems that plagued this team. The self-entitled inmates were running the asylum. Waters was wrong to put his employers on the spot and, therefore, I was okay with them making an example out of his power play.

Is Peeholi a relative?

He had every "right".

He was a multiple Pro Bowler concerned about his and his team's future.

If you act like a dick every time a loyal employee wants to speak to you, regardless of what's currently happening, you're not going to have many loyal employees around for long.

JFC. Is it IMPOSSIBLE to put yourself in his shoes?

Count Zarth
02-14-2010, 01:40 AM
Meanwhile Waters had a god awful season and was one of the most penalized offensive linemen in the entire league.

WHITLOCK = FULL OF BIASED SHIT

penchief
02-14-2010, 01:42 AM
Is Peeholi a relative?

He had every "right".

He was a multiple Pro Bowler concerned about his and his team's future.

If you act like a dick every time a loyal employee wants to speak to you, regardless of what's currently happening, you're not going to have many loyal employees around for long.

JFC. Is it IMPOSSIBLE to put yourself in his shoes?

Absolutely I can put myself in his shoes. And I'll tell you how I would not have acted.

I would not have shown up unannounced and expected my employers to drop what they were doing to rush me in. I would have recognized how busy they were and not made myself an imposition. And I would not have expected to be treated as an equal partner instead of an employee. I would have respected the fact that Pioli and Haley were fresh on the job and up to their asses in the evaluation process and would not have expected them to cater to my dumb ass.

I agree with Whitlock that Waters handled being put in his proper place with dignity. That is a credit to Waters. But Whitlock is off base trying to paint Waters as the innocent victim in order to continue beating the drum against Pioli and Haley. In this case it was Water's ego that compelled him to believe he was entitled to show up unannounced and demand answers when he did and in the manner he did.

Count Zarth
02-14-2010, 01:47 AM
By the way, Whitlock is a double-talking bullshit artist.

I have never held the opinion that Peterson was incompetent.

Darling is not a true No. 2 receiver. He’s a special-teams player masquerading as a No. 2 because of Peterson’s incompetence. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4994474&highlight=peterson+incompetent#post4994474)

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 01:49 AM
Absolutely I can put myself in his shoes. And I'll tell you how I would not have acted.

I would not have shown up unannounced and expected my employers to drop what they were doing to rush me in. I would have recognized how busy they were and not made myself an imposition. And I would not have expected to be treated as an equal partner instead of an employee. I would have respected the fact that Pioli and Haley were fresh on the job and up to their asses in the evaluation process and would not have expected them to cater to my dumb ass.

I agree with Whitlock that Waters handled being put in his proper place with dignity. That is a credit to Waters. But Whitlock is off base trying to paint Waters as the innocent victim in order to continue beating the drum against Pioli and Haley. In this case it was Water's ego that compelled him to believe he was entitled to show up unannounced and demand answers when he did and in the manner he did.

Apparently, you believe that these "employers" are beyond common courtesy.

I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU'RE DOING, if one of your employees asks for some time, YOU OPEN THE FUCKING DOOR.

Defending Pioli in this situation is like defending the BIGGEST fucking DICKHEAD boss EVER.

FUCK THAT.

penchief
02-14-2010, 02:08 AM
Apparently, you believe that these "employers" are beyond common courtesy.

I don't give a FLYING **** WHAT YOU'RE DOING, if one of your employees asks for some time, YOU OPEN THE ****ING DOOR.

Defending Pioli in this situation is like defending the BIGGEST ****ing DICKHEAD boss EVER.

**** THAT.
If you believe the story the way it was told by Whitlock I agree that it could have been handled more gracefully even though I agree with the intent. But the only side of the story you have heard is the one being told by Whitlock on behalf of Waters. Apparently you are willing to take Whitlock's word as gospel.

I think Pioli and Haley deserve as much credit as Waters for handling the Whitlock-manufactured media fallout from this incident as well as Waters has. Waters deserves kudos for taking his medicine like a man. But Pioli and Haley deserve credit for not dignifying Whitlock's flailing with a response to his constant whining and repeated personal attacks.

Fruit Ninja
02-14-2010, 02:16 AM
Uh, no.

Waters was a Pro-Bowler in 2008 and justifiably so.

Serious question: Do you even WATCH the games?

He was a Pro Bowler in 2008, but he didnt fucking deserve it. NOt at all, He got in on name recognition and that only.

NO , i dont watch any games, i just get the NFL Sunday ticket to watch the Raider games in N.Cal.

He hasnt played at an all pro level since big Willie retired.

Count Zarth
02-14-2010, 02:19 AM
I don't think I can recall Whitlock beating a dead horse like this before.

Waters is a shitty, aging player. Who gives a fuck about any of this?

Fruit Ninja
02-14-2010, 02:20 AM
Didnt the same Waters skip out on his own charity event because he was butthurt at Haley?

Saccopoo
02-14-2010, 02:43 AM
If you believe the story the way it was told by Whitlock I agree that it could have been handled more gracefully even though I agree with the intent. But the only side of the story you have heard is the one being told by Whitlock on behalf of Waters. Apparently you are willing to take Whitlock's word as gospel.

I think Pioli and Haley deserve as much credit as Waters for handling the Whitlock-manufactured media fallout from this incident as well as Waters has. Waters deserves kudos for taking his medicine like a man. But Pioli and Haley deserve credit for not dignifying Whitlock's flailing with a response to his constant whining and repeated personal attacks.

Add to that that it was Waters who immediately went to the press (Whitlock) after the situation to make it a public spectacle. Taking it like a man is not running to your boy at the newspaper and badmouthing the new coach and GM because they wouldn't trade you. Out of that came the now famous "22 guys off the street" and "Egoli" which subsequently led to a season long, near daily "columns" that consisted of personal insults and immature rants.

And considering that both Haley and Pioli praised Waters work ethic and leadership after he ran to the press shows that both of these guys put themselves above the situation.

This article is nothing more than another chance for Whitlock to stand upon his soapbox and spew forth his now very, very tired diatribe of contempt for the current regime.

BigRock
02-14-2010, 04:32 AM
Meanwhile Waters had a god awful season and was one of the most penalized offensive linemen in the entire league.

Haley must have told Waters that 22 guys off the street could do a better job of helping underprivileged children, because that's the only way any of this makes sense.

Hog Farmer
02-14-2010, 04:54 AM
I learned a long time ago that your "Business" is only as good as your employees. Your employees are the foundation of your success or failure. Time spent with your people is time well spent unless your cussing them.

the Talking Can
02-14-2010, 05:30 AM
and whitlock writes the same article for 10000000000000 time


we get it

Waters is your source, you have to defend him....

the Talking Can
02-14-2010, 05:31 AM
frankly, if we could have traded waters we should have....he's about washed up

milkman
02-14-2010, 06:07 AM
:yawn:

milkman
02-14-2010, 06:08 AM
frankly, if could have traded waters we should have....he about washed up

Frankly, they should continue to try to trade him this offseason.

Oxford
02-14-2010, 06:22 AM
Two people beating dead horses here.
First, JW and then Dane. We get it, JW thinks he should be running the Chiefs and Dane says he can do it better then Pioli and Haley.

kstater
02-14-2010, 06:28 AM
This wasn't even a good attempt.

loce1959
02-14-2010, 06:48 AM
I picture Whitbutt with one, maybe two, word files on his computer that he simply changes a few words every once in a while.....and hit enter. This column is a joke. As far as Waters is concerned he was trying to get his bluff in before the season began, didn't follow the chain of command, got called on it and essentially threw a tantrum. You're getting paid like professional act like one!

Sully
02-14-2010, 07:34 AM
Let's overlook the fact that on the field, Waters was average, at best.

penchief
02-14-2010, 07:51 AM
Add to that that it was Waters who immediately went to the press (Whitlock) after the situation to make it a public spectacle. Taking it like a man is not running to your boy at the newspaper and badmouthing the new coach and GM because they wouldn't trade you. Out of that came the now famous "22 guys off the street" and "Egoli" which subsequently led to a season long, near daily "columns" that consisted of personal insults and immature rants.

And considering that both Haley and Pioli praised Waters work ethic and leadership after he ran to the press shows that both of these guys put themselves above the situation.

This article is nothing more than another chance for Whitlock to stand upon his soapbox and spew forth his now very, very tired diatribe of contempt for the current regime.

I agree completely. Haley and Pioli are the ones who have risen above Whitlock's petty attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

penchief
02-14-2010, 07:57 AM
I learned a long time ago that your "Business" is only as good as your employees. Your employees are the foundation of your success or failure. Time spent with your people is time well spent unless your cussing them.

That's true. But there is a proper time and place, as well as a proper way of going about things. In this case, I'm not so sure that the way Waters went about it didn't make him the presumptuous one. And on top of that he could have kept what happened between himself and Pioli/Haley between themselves instead running off and whining to the one guy who was sure to make a media circus out of the whole thing.

Deberg_1990
02-14-2010, 08:00 AM
In their mind, Waters was a leader of bad football teams and therefore unworthy of a leadership role with the “new” Chiefs.



and would they be wrong JWhit?? There most definately was an an attitude of "entitlement" with alot of Chiefs in the Peterson era. Why?? What did they ever do to earn that????

MahiMike
02-14-2010, 08:08 AM
I'm sorry I asked where Whitlock was...

KCinNY
02-14-2010, 08:40 AM
Waters isn't getting any younger or any better. He's Mr. Charity of the NFL...great, but I honestly don't care.

Whitlock's sorry little spat with the new regime is nothing more than pathetic.

The Bad Guy
02-14-2010, 08:47 AM
And Peeholi's draft set the franchise back by at least two years, if not more.

And all that Haley proved was that he was over-matched by nearly every coach he faced this past year.

That's nonsense. Honestly, how the fuck do you know that it set this franchise back 2 or more years? That's complete exaggeration on your part. Players actually do progress in this league and how guys play as a rookie isn't always indicicative of future success.

The Bad Guy
02-14-2010, 08:51 AM
Is Peeholi a relative?

He had every "right".

He was a multiple Pro Bowler concerned about his and his team's future.

If you act like a dick every time a loyal employee wants to speak to you, regardless of what's currently happening, you're not going to have many loyal employees around for long.

JFC. Is it IMPOSSIBLE to put yourself in his shoes?

Concerned about this team's future? The mother fucker loved Herm and his country club atmosphere. Waters never ever complained when this team was 2-14. He loved the status quo aspect of this organization and the atmosphere where he could skate by, make his money, and get praised for the work he did over 5 years ago.

Brian Waters was concerned because there was a new regime in town and he wanted to put his stamp on things.

I respect Brian Waters for the work he does with charities. I have no respect for him for running like a pouty crybaby to the press about the issue. Some of you taking Whitlock's word as gospel are hilarious.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 09:09 AM
I agree completely. Haley and Pioli are the ones who have risen above Whitlock's petty attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I think you have come off like a complete idiot in this thread.

milkman
02-14-2010, 09:15 AM
I think you have come off like a complete idiot in this thread.

Actually, the only complete idiot here is Whitlock, for writing an article on a completely dead issue.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 09:20 AM
Actually, the only complete idiot here is Whitlock, for writing an article on a completely dead issue.


It was a Non-issue a year ago and its a non-issue now... Again it is just further proof that Waters is the snitch from Arrowhead, Whitlock is still crying because Pioli and Haley dont give two shits about him and lastly is it just more gospel for the select few to brow beat with...


Not a damn thing new here.....

Marcellus
02-14-2010, 09:24 AM
And Peeholi's draft set the franchise back by at least two years, if not more.

And all that Haley proved was that he was over-matched by nearly every coach he faced this past year.

In your unbiased opinion.

penchief
02-14-2010, 09:37 AM
I think you have come off like a complete idiot in this thread.

How so? Those of you jumping on Pioli and Haley without any evidence other than Whitlock's incessant attempts to smear them are the ones acting illogical. Since Whitlock has started his personal campaign against the new regime just exactly what have either Pioli or Haley done in response to this manufactured non-story that is a poor reflection on themselves? Care to elaborate?

I think it's pretty clear that they have taken the high road in regards to this particular issue.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 09:56 AM
How so? Those of you jumping on Pioli and Haley without any evidence other than Whitlock's incessant attempts to smear them are the ones acting illogical. Since Whitlock has started his personal campaign against the new regime just exactly what have either Pioli or Haley done in response to this manufactured non-story that is a poor reflection on themselves? Care to elaborate?

I think it's pretty clear that they have taken the high road in regards to this particular issue.

How so?

At least Whitlock has an account from a source. You have literally made up things out of thin air to try and prop up your points.

he was out of line as an employee by thinking that his unannounced presence a couple days before the draft demanded that Haley and Pioli drop their draft preparations in order to cater to his ego demands.



You just created this from nothing and couldn't get the date right. But Whitlock talks to a guy who is there and I guess it is him who should be wearing the clown shoes? Ok dude.

Kerberos
02-14-2010, 09:57 AM
I don't think I can recall Whitlock beating a dead horse like this before.

Waters is a shitty, aging player. Who gives a **** about any of this?

Agreed

Not taking anything away from Waters winning NFL MOY award.........but for JWhit to say it was "Brians way of rising above his bosses" is pure assnine.

He won an award and that is all there is to it. Sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 09:58 AM
He won an award and that is all there is to it. Sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.

Not in the NFL. What a silly comment to make in connection with Brian Waters.

This isn't William Bartee we are talking about.

Kerberos
02-14-2010, 10:02 AM
Not in the NFL. What a silly comment to make in connection with Brian Waters.

This isn't William Bartee we are talking about.

It's not about the award per say but more about Whitless making it about Waters over Pioli and Haley.

I think it's bullshit.

Your right I worded it badly

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 10:06 AM
That's nonsense. Honestly, how the fuck do you know that it set this franchise back 2 or more years? That's complete exaggeration on your part. Players actually do progress in this league and how guys play as a rookie isn't always indicicative of future success.

Because the Chiefs weren't any better in 2009 because of the players drafted and I seriously doubt that those guys (Jackson, Magee, Washington, Brown, Willams and Lawrence) have ANYTHING other than a minimal impact in 2010.

Hence, 2 years.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 10:09 AM
Concerned about this team's future? The mother fucker loved Herm and his country club atmosphere. Waters never ever complained when this team was 2-14. He loved the status quo aspect of this organization and the atmosphere where he could skate by, make his money, and get praised for the work he did over 5 years ago.

Brian Waters was concerned because there was a new regime in town and he wanted to put his stamp on things.

I respect Brian Waters for the work he does with charities. I have no respect for him for running like a pouty crybaby to the press about the issue. Some of you taking Whitlock's word as gospel are hilarious.

I just LOVE how I'm somehow associated with Whitlock because I believe that an employee like Brian Waters should have been treated with a little more respect.

Some of you people clearly haven't been in a management position and if you have, you must have really sucked ass if you actually think that it's somehow "okay" to treat people like shit due to your corporate title.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 10:11 AM
In your unbiased opinion.

No, you're right.

45 new guys on the roster, a shitty draft and a head coach that made Herm Edwards look competent deserves the highest praise a fan could give.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 10:16 AM
It's not about the award per say but more about Whitless making it about Waters over Pioli and Haley.

I think it's bullshit.

Your right I worded it badly

Whitlock is about as irrelevant with the Chiefs as the common message board fan. Just imagine when he loses his snitch... The dudes ego is going to pop, since the Chiefs management doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about Whitlock's ego, Unlike Carl and Co....

I am sure the articles will get more absurd and jilted as time goes on.... Should be interesting to watch....

penchief
02-14-2010, 10:17 AM
How so?

At least Whitlock has an account from a source. You have literally made up things out of thin air to try and prop up your points.



You just created this from nothing and couldn't get the date right. But Whitlock talks to a guy who is there and I guess it is him who should be wearing the clown shoes? Ok dude.

Wait a minute. Waters showed up unnanounced. It may have been a few days before the combines or before free agency. I've already admitted that I might have been mistaken about the timeline.

Regardless, he showed up unannoiunced shortly after new management took over and was in the position of having to get ready for the off season with little time to prepare. Considering that they were obviously ass deep in the evaluation process just what was Waters wanting to know? They probably hadn't even thought about anything beyond what was immediately in front of them.

Please, tell me what kind of answers Waters was looking for and what they could have told him. The bottom line is that Waters showed up unnanounced at an extremely busy time for the new regime and wanted to have his concerns addressed. And when he was sent packing he got his feelings hurt and went to the local shit-stirrer and whined about how he was sent packing.

Unless you can tell me what Waters was looking to be told and what you expect Haley and Pioli should have told him I think you are being just as specualtive as anyone else.

And considering that you are willing to accept Whitlock's version of this story knowing that he has an axe to grind without even hearing pioli or Haley's side of the story leads me to believe that you have your own bias.

The Bad Guy
02-14-2010, 10:21 AM
I just LOVE how I'm somehow associated with Whitlock because I believe that an employee like Brian Waters should have been treated with a little more respect.

Some of you people clearly haven't been in a management position and if you have, you must have really sucked ass if you actually think that it's somehow "okay" to treat people like shit due to your corporate title.

Do you know how Waters approached the meeting? You have no idea how much respect he was treated with or not treated with because the only source to this information is Whitlock.

Whitlock, the one with the agenda, is the only source of this "disrespect".

Waters was actually pissed Herm was fired. A guy who cares so much about winning that he was upset that a coach who led the team to 6 wins was canned. Why? Because he loved doing things his way.

I'm not going round and round about this. The same ones who constantly harp on every single Pioli move of course are going to side with the irrational journalist who has had a bone to pick since the first month Pioli took office. If you don't think Whitlock has an agenda, you obviously have your head in the sand or the clouds.

Marcellus
02-14-2010, 10:23 AM
No, you're right.

45 new guys on the roster, a shitty draft and a head coach that made Herm Edwards look competent deserves the highest praise a fan could give.

I didn't say we had a great draft or make a huge step though we did win 2x as many games as Herm his last year but keep blowing that horn.

How does a coach worse than Herm win 2x as many games with worse players?

What I didn't do is say the sky is falling and we have been set back 2 years in 1 off season.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 10:26 AM
Do you know how Waters approached the meeting? You have no idea how much respect he was treated with or not treated with because the only source to this information is Whitlock.

Whitlock, the one with the agenda, is the only source of this "disrespect".

Waters was actually pissed Herm was fired. A guy who cares so much about winning that he was upset that a coach who led the team to 6 wins was canned. Why? Because he loved doing things his way.

I'm not going round and round about this. The same ones who constantly harp on every single Pioli move of course are going to side with the irrational journalist who has had a bone to pick since the first month Pioli took office. If you don't think Whitlock has an agenda, you obviously have your head in the sand or the clouds.

You don't get it: I'm not "siding" with anyone.

I just happen to think that Pioli could have handled this issue in a far more professional manner.

If he had, we'd have never learned of this meeting.

milkman
02-14-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm not going round and round about this. The same ones who constantly harp on every single Pioli move of course are going to side with the irrational journalist who has had a bone to pick since the first month Pioli took office. If you don't think Whitlock has an agenda, you obviously have your head in the sand or the clouds.

Just like to point out that I fall into the first group, but I think Whitlock is a tool pushing an agenda.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 10:28 AM
story leads me to believe that you have your own bias.

Not enough to make things up...like yourself.

penchief
02-14-2010, 10:29 AM
I just LOVE how I'm somehow associated with Whitlock because I believe that an employee like Brian Waters should have been treated with a little more respect.

Some of you people clearly haven't been in a management position and if you have, you must have really sucked ass if you actually think that it's somehow "okay" to treat people like shit due to your corporate title.

I don't disagree with the notion that employees should be treated with respect. But again, you're taking the word of someone who has an axe to grind as told to him by someone who had his ego bruised.

Unless you know the true story instead of just the story as told by Whitlock I find it odd that you would jump to conclusions about what actually happened. I don't know what happened any more than you do but I suspect my speculation is just as close to the truth as Whtilock's version of the story.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Zach. Just exactly what was it that Waters was wanting to be told at that particular point in time? And exactly what do you think management was required to tell him? I'll speculate that it didn't go well because Waters walked in their with an attituide instead of the "I'm here to help any way I can" attitude or whatever ridiculous premise Whitlock is trying to sell.

In case you haven't noticed, Whitlock has been able to create an entire season-long narrative over this one small incident. And too many people want to give him the benefit of the doubt knowing that he has an axe to grind and knowing that they are only hearing a one-sided story.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 10:30 AM
Not enough to make things up...like yourself.

If anyone is has a sore ass, its Whitlock.... And I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't fabricate his own opinions to fit his agenda....

BTW, how do you know Whitlock and Waters are telling the truth? Just curious?

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 10:32 AM
If anyone is has a sore ass, its Whitlock.... And I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't fabricate his own opinions to fit his agenda....

BTW, how do you know Whitlock and Waters are telling the truth? Just curious?

I think they are more reliable than penchief having story time on Chiefs Planet.

I also don't think there is anything in Waters' past that would indicate he is making anything up. He wouldn't have anything to gain from it.

We know you hate everything Whitlock. And thats fine, no reason to jump into the conversation as though you care about anything else than that. His "agenda" is to write opinion pieces on the Chiefs. You don't have to fabricate anything to do that.

Marcellus
02-14-2010, 10:34 AM
I don't disagree with the notion that employees should be treated with respect. But again, you're taking the word of someone who has an axe to grind as told to him by someone who had his ego bruised.

Unless you know the true story instead of just the story as told by Whitlock I find it odd that you would jump to conclusions about what actually happened. I don't know what happened any more than you do but I suspect my speculation is just as close to the truth as Whtilock's version of the story.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Zach. Just exactly what was it that Waters was wanting to be told at that particular point in time? And exactly what do you think management was required to tell him? I'll speculate that it didn't go well because Waters walked in their with an attituide instead of the "I'm here to help any way I can" attitude or whatever ridiculous premise Whitlock is trying to sell.

In case you haven't noticed, Whitlock has been able to create an entire season-long narrative over this one small incident. And too many people want to give him the benefit of the doubt knowing that he has an axe to grind and knowing that they are only hearing a one-sided story.


Whitlock is still the only person to have talked about the original meeting and what he said went down. He is also the only person still talking about it and the only person who gives a shit except the people on this board with an axe to grind.

kstater
02-14-2010, 10:34 AM
I didn't say they are telling the truth. I think they are more reliable than penchief having story time on Chiefs Planet.

I also don't think there is anything in Waters' past that would indicate he is making anything up. He wouldn't have anything to gain from it.

Making up? Probably not.

Highly exaggerating? Good chance.

Hyperbole from Whitlock? No question.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 10:34 AM
Making up? Probably not.

Highly exaggerating? Good chance.

Hyperbole from Whitlock? No question.

Well sit down because penchief will open up his book of fiction and tell you the REAL story.

Marcellus
02-14-2010, 10:35 AM
I also don't think there is anything in Waters' past that would indicate he is making anything up. He wouldn't have anything to gain from it.



Waters has never commented on the incident so I have yet to hear Waters side of the story from him.

Whitlock didn't even name his source.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 10:35 AM
I don't disagree with the notion that employees should be treated with respect. But again, you're taking the word of someone who has an axe to grind as told to him by someone who had his ego bruised.

Unless you know the true story instead of just the story as told by Whitlock I find it odd that you would jump to conclusions about what actually happened. I don't know what happened any more than you do but I suspect my speculation is just as close to the truth as Whtilock's version of the story.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Zach. Just exactly what was it that Waters was wanting to be told at that particular point in time? And exactly what do you think management was required to tell him? I'll speculate that it didn't go well because Waters walked in their with an attituide instead of the "I'm here to help any way I can" attitude or whatever ridiculous premise Whitlock is trying to sell.

In case you haven't noticed, Whitlock has been able to create an entire season-long narrative over this one small incident. And too many people want to give him the benefit of the doubt knowing that he has an axe to grind and knowing that they are only hearing a one-sided story.

I don't think it's necessary to speculate about what Waters wanted to know or didn't want to know.

The bottom line is that if Pioli and Haley had treated him a person, not an irrelevant employee, there would be no bone to pick with Pioli.

Instead of treating Waters with a modicum of respect and take the "High Road", Pioli and Haley decided to take the "Low Road" of juvenile arrogance.

All Pioli needed to say was "Hey Brian, thank you for your concern. But at this time, the entire front office and coaching staff are extremely busy with evaluations. We will address the team at some point yet undetermined but we appreciate your passion and look forward to working with you".

Instead, Pioli refused to see him and Haley made the infamous "22 guys off the street" comment.

A little professionalism can go a long way.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 10:36 AM
Do you know how Waters approached the meeting? You have no idea how much respect he was treated with or not treated with because the only source to this information is Whitlock.

Whitlock, the one with the agenda, is the only source of this "disrespect".

Waters was actually pissed Herm was fired. A guy who cares so much about winning that he was upset that a coach who led the team to 6 wins was canned. Why? Because he loved doing things his way.

I'm not going round and round about this. The same ones who constantly harp on every single Pioli move of course are going to side with the irrational journalist who has had a bone to pick since the first month Pioli took office. If you don't think Whitlock has an agenda, you obviously have your head in the sand or the clouds.

That's actually not true.

Whitlock was the first to write an article about it, but the rumblings were around well before that.

By all accounts, Waters came over for a 'getting to know you' meeting and the front office all but threw him out of the building. All this "he demanded everyone to stop everything and tell them how they were moving forward" stuff is garbage -- even had he wanted to do that, he never got that far.

I'll go ahead and assign their usual character traits to them: Waters has been a class act throughout his career. Pioli came from the most arrogant organization in football and Haley has been a known jackass at every stop in his career.

Hmmmm....wonder which side was most likely acting unreasonably in this whole affair.

Whitlock's a tool, this article is stupid, but so is this idea that Waters stormed into Arrowhead demanding that Pioli and Haley kiss his ring the day before the draft started.

penchief
02-14-2010, 10:39 AM
Not enough to make things up...like yourself.

What did I make up?

Give me the timeline.

When did Haley get hired?

When did Waters show up?

When were the combines?

When did free agency begin?

How long was Haley on the job before Waters was in his face demanding answers?

My speculation is just as good as Whitlock's agenda-driven story telling and your willingness to believe half-truths.

I see that you're happy to keep implying my idiocy and dishonesty but you're not willing to address any of the legitimate questions I've asked pertaining to what exactly was Waters expecting to hear and what exactly do you think management was required to tell him?

Considering the timeline, don't you think it was presumptuous of Waters to be demanding answers at a time when answers probably weren't even available?

I think whoever in this thread said that Waters was trying to put his stamp on the new regime got it right, IMO.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 10:39 AM
I think they are more reliable than penchief having story time on Chiefs Planet.

I also don't think there is anything in Waters' past that would indicate he is making anything up. He wouldn't have anything to gain from it.

We know you hate everything Whitlock. And thats fine, no reason to jump into the conversation as though you care about anything else than that. His "agenda" is to write opinion pieces on the Chiefs. You don't have to fabricate anything to do that.

:harumph:

I dont hate everything Whitlock... I do enjoy watching his little bruised ego having him run around like a jilted lover....

You're probably right about Waters past, but his ego was hurt and hurt bad by the new management at Arrowhead.

What is strange if this is SUCH A BIG ISSUE, why haven't the Chiefs addressed it? Whitlock seems to think after a year that this is still something of importance? After a Year?

Marcellus
02-14-2010, 10:40 AM
That's actually not true.

Whitlock was the first to write an article about it, but the rumblings were around well before that.

By all accounts, Waters came over for a 'getting to know you' meeting and the front office all but threw him out of the building. All this "he demanded everyone to stop everything and tell them how they were moving forward" stuff is garbage -- even had he wanted to do that, he never got that far.

I'll go ahead and assign their usual character traits to them: Waters has been a class act throughout his career. Pioli came from the most arrogant organization in football and Haley has been a known jackass at every stop in his career.

Hmmmm....wonder which side was most likely acting unreasonably in this whole affair.

Whitlock's a tool, this article is stupid, but so is this idea that Waters stormed into Arrowhead demanding that Pioli and Haley kiss his ring the day before the draft started.

Actually I beleiev the story was Waters was at the Probowl and talked to a bunch of players who were talking about Haley etc....so Waters comes home and gets on a plane and shows up unannounced wanting a meeting.

No telling how it went down and what Waters attitude at the time was. Neither Waters nor Haley or Pioli have discussed the incident publicly.

The only people who give a shit are here on CP and Whitlock. I don't even give a shit if it is true at this point. It is old news except Whitlock keeps bringing it up.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 10:43 AM
Well sit down because penchief will open up his book of fiction and tell you the REAL story.

Well Uncle Zach, can you tell us the REAL story?

milkman
02-14-2010, 10:43 AM
That's actually not true.

Whitlock was the first to write an article about it, but the rumblings were around well before that.

By all accounts, Waters came over for a 'getting to know you' meeting and the front office all but threw him out of the building. All this "he demanded everyone to stop everything and tell them how they were moving forward" stuff is garbage -- even had he wanted to do that, he never got that far.

I'll go ahead and assign their usual character traits to them: Waters has been a class act throughout his career. Pioli came from the most arrogant organization in football and Haley has been a known jackass at every stop in his career.

Hmmmm....wonder which side was most likely acting unreasonably in this whole affair.

Whitlock's a tool, this article is stupid, but so is this idea that Waters stormed into Arrowhead demanding that Pioli and Haley kiss his ring the day before the draft started.

At the end of the day, who gives a rat's ass?

The fact that he showed up at all at a time that they were extremely busy (or should have been) looking for answers displayed poor judgement on his part.

He should have called in advance to attempt to set up a meeting, but he simply just showed up.

I bet every employee of every large company gets treated with kid gloves and respect in the same circumstances.

I mean, how about you go knock on the CEO's office of the company you work for.

I bet they offere you cookies and milk.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 10:44 AM
:harumph:

I dont hate everything Whitlock... I do enjoy watching his little bruised ego having him run around like a jilted lover....

You're probably right about Waters past, but his ego was hurt and hurt bad by the new management at Arrowhead.

What is strange if this is SUCH A BIG ISSUE, why haven't the Chiefs addressed it? Whitlock seems to think after a year that this is still something of importance? After a Year?

Nobody is saying it is a big issue. It is part of narrative that Whitlock has been building in his opinion pieces.

It is also pointing to my thought and it seems JW's that if things went down like he says they did not as many players would have gotten it together and gone out to play good football (IMO) and be a team leader for the Chiefs on the field last year (Not really my opinion, that part seemed obvious)

He is talking up Waters' character.

KCUnited
02-14-2010, 10:49 AM
All these stories have a truth that lies somewhere in between. The fact that its being written about close to a year later is dumb. 2008's pass rush thinks this story is forgetable.

penchief
02-14-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't think it's necessary to speculate about what Waters wanted to know or didn't want to know.

The bottom line is that if Pioli and Haley had treated him a person, not an irrelevant employee, there would be no bone to pick with Pioli.

Instead of treating Waters with a modicum of respect and take the "High Road", Pioli and Haley decided to take the "Low Road" of juvenile arrogance.

All Pioli needed to say was "Hey Brian, thank you for your concern. But at this time, the entire front office and coaching staff are extremely busy with evaluations. We will address the team at some point yet undetermined but we appreciate your passion and look forward to working with you".

Instead, Pioli refused to see him and Haley made the infamous "22 guys off the street" comment.

A little professionalism can go a long way.

Again, how do you even know what the truth is when you are believing a half-truth being told by someone with an axe to grind? How do you know that Waters was not disrespectful by not showing management the proper deference in the way he arrived at one Arrowhead drive demanding a meeting and demanding answers? Maybe it would have went better for Waters if he had taken a more respectful approach.

The truth is you don't know how it really went down or if Haley's comment to Waters was preceded by something Waters said. You and Whitlock would have us believe that Haley just up and said that shit to Waters without any provocation. But the way things happen in the real would should tell you or anyone with an analytical mind that the conversation most likely built up to that moment. And Waters probably wasn't the innocent choirboy that Whitlock would have you believe.

So again, unless we know the whole story as told by both sides it is improper for Whitlock to continue his year long smear campaign and illogical for us fans to jump to conclusions based on Whitlock's lopsided version of the story. To claim that Waters was not in any way responsible for the exchange between himself and Haley without knowing the whole story is to be unobjective. And to use the incident to attack the character of both Pioli and Haley without knowing the whole story is unfair.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 10:58 AM
At the end of the day, who gives a rat's ass?

The fact that he showed up at all at a time that they were extremely busy (or should have been) looking for answers displayed poor judgement on his part.

He should have called in advance to attempt to set up a meeting, but he simply just showed up.

I bet every employee of every large company gets treated with kid gloves and respect in the same circumstances.

I mean, how about you go knock on the CEO's office of the company you work for.

I bet they offere you cookies and milk.

First - We don't know that he showed up unannounced. I don't anticipate that he showed up and started kicking Pioli's door. And "looking for answers" is more after-the-fact editorializing. Again, we don't know what the hell his motives were; he never got that far. I know the guy has never shown himself to be a malcontent and Pioli's former players in NE have said that the organization shows a complete disregard for it's players. So again - going with what we actually know about the respective players; I'm not inclined to believe that Waters was going over there to interview his superiors.

To address the timing, even assuming he did show up announced - if one the top employees of any corporation in the world showed up to talk to his CEO unannounced, most likely he'd get a response similar to what Dane suggested. "I'm busy, now's not a good time, please trust that we're doing everything possible to move forward, blah blah platitude" and then you re-schedule something to when you have a minute. You don't simply ignore them out of hand and you damn sure don't berate them.

And spare me the "they were busy" garbage. If 18 hours of work a day begat the steaming load of shit we were handed last year (Tyson Jackson took 115 hour work weeks?), then maybe they oughta take a break for lunch this year.

There's no way they couldn't have found 15 minutes to handle that meeting with some class. What kind of pricks do you work for that you think it's common practice to ignore your best employees and then have your underlings berate them on their way out the door?

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Again, how do you even know what the truth is when you are believing a half-truth being told by someone with an axe to grind? How do you know that Waters was not the disrespectful by not showing management the proper deference in the way he arrived at one Arrowhead drive demanding a meeting and demanding answers? Maybe it would have went better for Waters if he had taken a more respectful approach.

The truth is you don't know how it really went down or if Haley's comment to Waters was preceded by something Waters said. You and Whitlock would have us believe that Haley just up and said that shit to Waters without any provocation. But the way things happen in the real would should tell you or anyone with an analytical mind that the conversation most likely built up to that moment. And Waters probably wasn't the innocent choirboy that Whitlock would have you believe.

So again, unless we know the whole story as told by both sides it is improper for Whitlock to continue his year long smear campaign and illogical for us fans to jump to conclusions based on Whitlock's lopsided version of the story. To claim that Waters was not in any way responsible for the exchange between himself and Haley without knowing the whole story is to be unobjective. And to use the incident to attack the character of both Pioli and Haley without knowing the whole story is unfair.

You have made plenty of judgments and observations and accusations for someone who is trying to tell everyone they have no idea what happened.

Give it a rest. Start a penchief fiction thread or something.

http://www.book-proposal.com/horizonbooks2.jpg

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Again, how do you even know what the truth is when you are believing a half-truth being told by someone with an axe to grind? How do you know that Waters was not disrespectful by not showing management the proper deference in the way he arrived at one Arrowhead drive demanding a meeting and demanding answers? Maybe it would have went better for Waters if he had taken a more respectful approach.

The truth is you don't know how it really went down or if Haley's comment to Waters was preceded by something Waters said. You and Whitlock would have us believe that Haley just up and said that shit to Waters without any provocation. But the way things happen in the real would should tell you or anyone with an analytical mind that the conversation most likely built up to that moment. And Waters probably wasn't the innocent choirboy that Whitlock would have you believe.

So again, unless we know the whole story as told by both sides it is improper for Whitlock to continue his year long smear campaign and illogical for us fans to jump to conclusions based on Whitlock's lopsided version of the story. To claim that Waters was not in any way responsible for the exchange between himself and Haley without knowing the whole story is to be unobjective. And to use the incident to attack the character of both Pioli and Haley without knowing the whole story is unfair.

We're not likely to ever know the 'whole' truth.

But we do know that Haley has had problems with players everywhere he's been. We do know his was openly disrespectful of players from the previous regime here. We do know that Pioli was very curt with players in KC and we do know that those players outside of the 'circle' in NE have spoken out frequently about being disrespected by those in upper management.

I'm willing to go on a little faith here. Pioli did what his organization has been known to do (ignored and disrespected his player) and Haley did what he has been known to do (acted like a blowhard dipshit).

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Again, how do you even know what the truth is when you are believing a half-truth being told by someone with an axe to grind? How do you know that Waters was not disrespectful by not showing management the proper deference in the way he arrived at one Arrowhead drive demanding a meeting and demanding answers? Maybe it would have went better for Waters if he had taken a more respectful approach.

The truth is you don't know how it really went down or if Haley's comment to Waters was preceded by something Waters said. You and Whitlock would have us believe that Haley just up and said that shit to Waters without any provocation. But the way things happen in the real would should tell you or anyone with an analytical mind that the conversation most likely built up to that moment. And Waters probably wasn't the innocent choirboy that Whitlock would have you believe.

So again, unless we know the whole story as told by both sides it is improper for Whitlock to continue his year long smear campaign and illogical for us fans to jump to conclusions based on Whitlock's lopsided version of the story. To claim that Waters was not in any way responsible for the exchange between himself and Haley without knowing the whole story is to be unobjective. And to use the incident to attack the character of both Pioli and Haley without knowing the whole story is unfair.

Why are you even responding when clearly, you believe this entire incident to be a figment of Whitlock's imagination?

I'm responding to the facts as laid out by Mr. Whitlock. Your entire supposition is based on the idea that Whitlock is a liar.

That's a silly argument.

chiefzilla1501
02-14-2010, 11:11 AM
First - We don't know that he showed up unannounced. I don't anticipate that he showed up and started kicking Pioli's door. And "looking for answers" is more after-the-fact editorializing. Again, we don't know what the hell his motives were; he never got that far. I know the guy has never shown himself to be a malcontent and Pioli's former players in NE have said that the organization shows a complete disregard for it's players. So again - going with what we actually know about the respective players; I'm not inclined to believe that Waters was going over there to interview his superiors.

To address the timing, even assuming he did show up announced - if one the top employees of any corporation in the world showed up to talk to his CEO unannounced, most likely he'd get a response similar to what Dane suggested. "I'm busy, now's not a good time, please trust that we're doing everything possible to move forward, blah blah platitude" and then you re-schedule something to when you have a minute. You don't simply ignore them out of hand and you damn sure don't berate them.

And spare me the "they were busy" garbage. If 18 hours of work a day begat the steaming load of shit we were handed last year (Tyson Jackson took 115 hour work weeks?), then maybe they oughta take a break for lunch this year.

There's no way they couldn't have found 15 minutes to handle that meeting with some class. What kind of pricks do you work for that you think it's common practice to ignore your best employees and then have your underlings berate them on their way out the door?

Just curious, but which NE players have said that the organization has no respect for their players? Ty Law is the only one I can think of. If the Pats felt disrespected, then why do Pats keep following their bosses around? And why do they have so many players who keep signing back with the club, many for probably cheaper than they could sign on the open market?

penchief
02-14-2010, 11:12 AM
Well sit down because penchief will open up his book of fiction and tell you the REAL story.

I'm not claiming to know what the real story is. However, the perspective I'm providing is as likely or more likely than the way Whitlock is claiming it went down.

I'm asking how you know that Whitlock's version of the incident is gospel when we already know that Waters showed up unannounced wanting management to give him an unscheduled hearing. Would it have been too much to call ahead and ask them to set some time aside? If he had that little deference for their time that he would not try to schedule a meeting how are you so sure he didn't go in there with an attitude, as well?

You may call it fiction but it's no less fiction than what Whitlock is selling. Common sense can go just as far as half-truths when evaluating claims such as this.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 11:13 AM
I'm not claiming to know what the real story is. However, the perspective I'm providing is as likely or more likely than the way Whitlock is claiming it went down.

I'm asking how you know that Whitlock's version of the incident is gospel when we already know that Waters showed up unannounced wanting management to give him an unscheduled hearing. Would it have been too much to call ahead and ask them to set some time aside? If he had that little deference for their time that he would not try to schedule a meeting how are you so sure he didn't go in there with an attitude, as well?

You may call it fiction but it's no less fiction than what Whitlock is selling. Common sense can go just as far as half-truths when evaluating claims such as this.
Do you have a source that was a part of this situation?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

milkman
02-14-2010, 11:14 AM
First - We don't know that he showed up unannounced. I don't anticipate that he showed up and started kicking Pioli's door. And "looking for answers" is more after-the-fact editorializing. Again, we don't know what the hell his motives were; he never got that far. I know the guy has never shown himself to be a malcontent and Pioli's former players in NE have said that the organization shows a complete disregard for it's players. So again - going with what we actually know about the respective players; I'm not inclined to believe that Waters was going over there to interview his superiors.

OK, let's assume for just a second that he did call in advance, rather simply just showed up unannounced.

Are you suggesting that either he called and was told they were too busy to meet, or he called, they agreed to meet, then just blew him off?

To address the timing, even assuming he did show up announced - if one the top employees of any corporation in the world showed up to talk to his CEO unannounced, most likely he'd get a response similar to what Dane suggested. "I'm busy, now's not a good time, please trust that we're doing everything possible to move forward, blah blah platitude" and then you re-schedule something to when you have a minute. You don't simply ignore them out of hand and you damn sure don't berate them.

We don't know any specifics about how he did actually get to talk to Haley, nor any of the converstion that lead to the "berating".

All we know is what Whitlock has told us, and the guy has been pushing an agenda for the start of this regime, so while he isn't telling untruths, I highly doubt he's telling the whole story.

And spare me the "they were busy" garbage. If 18 hours of work a day begat the steaming load of shit we were handed last year (Tyson Jackson took 115 hour work weeks?), then maybe they oughta take a break for lunch this year.

Yeah, that's why I added the comementary in perenthisis.

There's no way they couldn't have found 15 minutes to handle that meeting with some class. What kind of pricks do you work for that you think it's common practice to ignore your best employees and then have your underlings berate them on their way out the door?

I don't work for a large company, but the point is, I don't believe it's smart to simply show up at the CEO's door.

penchief
02-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Why are you even responding when clearly, you believe this entire incident to be a figment of Whitlock's imagination?

I'm responding to the facts as laid out by Mr. Whitlock. Your entire supposition is based on the idea that Whitlock is a liar.

That's a silly argument.

Again, they are half-facts designed to support a manufactured narrative. They are not facts until you have the entire story. Which you don't.

My guess is that both Haley and Waters contributed to the confrontational outcome of that meeting. I don't believe for a second that Haley was contemptuous toward Waters without any provocation whatsoever and I don't believe that Waters was there for reasons that were totally unselfish.

To believe Whitlock's version of the story you would have to suspend logic, as well as one's knowledge in human nature.

Royal Fanatic
02-14-2010, 11:20 AM
I just LOVE how I'm somehow associated with Whitlock because I believe that an employee like Brian Waters should have been treated with a little more respect.

Some of you people clearly haven't been in a management position and if you have, you must have really sucked ass if you actually think that it's somehow "okay" to treat people like shit due to your corporate title.
Your posts defending Brian Waters and Fatlock are total bullshit.

I'm in a management position. I've got lots of people below me in the organization, and lots of people above me. I understand the value and the requirement to treat people with respect BOTH below me and above me.

If I had the audacity to fly to the office of the company president unannounced, storm in, and demand to know what the hell he was doing to my organization, I'd be fired on the spot for insubordination.

If you can't understand that, you have no idea how the world works. Brian Waters showed ZERO respect to his new bosses, and he was treated a hell of a lot better by them than he deserved.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:24 AM
Just curious, but which NE players have said that the organization has no respect for their players? Ty Law is the only one I can think of. If the Pats felt disrespected, then why do Pats keep following their bosses around? And why do they have so many players who keep signing back with the club, many for probably cheaper than they could sign on the open market?

Just in the last few weeks a could of guys have come out in the Wilfork thing and have said something along the lines of "get your money, those guys don't really care about you..."

Every year you hear guys come out and grumble about it.

And the guys that came to this squad from NE either got traded here or are lucky to have a job so they don't get to exactly punch their own ticket. Who else are you referring to that 'followed their bosses around?' As best I can tell, Denver isn't exactly crawling with Patriots, nor is Atlanta. Furthermore, name the players that signed back with NE for less than they could've on the open market. Brady's undervalued and that's about it. Harrison and Seau are in that clique. You think Wilfork's gonna take anything less than top $$? You think Seymore will ever get anywhere near that organization again?

You're really going to try to make an argument that the rank/file Patriot isn't dissatisfied with how they are treated within that organization?

penchief
02-14-2010, 11:27 AM
Do you have a source that was a part of this situation?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

No. But if you're source is someone with an axe to grind it is no more relibable than the things we already know or can figure out for ourselves.

the Talking Can
02-14-2010, 11:29 AM
it's hilarious when people pretend whitlock is a journalist...

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 11:30 AM
Do you have a source that was a part of this situation?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


No. But if you're source is someone with an axe to grind it is no more relibable than the things we already know or can figure out for ourselves.

However, the perspective I'm providing is as likely or more likely than the way Whitlock is claiming it went down.


Obviously not.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:32 AM
OK, let's assume for just a second that he did call in advance, rather simply just showed up unannounced.

Are you suggesting that either he called and was told they were too busy to meet, or he called, they agreed to meet, then just blew him off?

...

I don't work for a large company, but the point is, I don't believe it's smart to simply show up at the CEO's door.

In all honesty, I think he called someone he knew that would've still been around from the old regime and let them know he'd be coming in. I remember Eddie Kennison talking to Petro about how he'd set up meetings with one particular secretary who's cell # he had. As far as Waters knew, that was an okay way to do things as that's how he'd done it in the past. I don't think he just drove to Arrowhead, he wouldn't have known if they were even there. No, I don't have any source for this, but going on what we know of Waters, what we know of how Arrowhead operated during the Carl years, and what we know of basic human behavior (who would go all the way to Arrowhead without even knowing if those folks are there), I absolutely believe he made a call in, either himself or through an agent, and thought he had a meeting with them.

Which is why I don't think you go out of your way to be a dick to the guy. Waters wasn't trying to be confrontational, IMO. Waters probably thought he had a meeting, or at least could've arranged one. For a guy that is as 'high up' in the company as he is, it's not an uncommon practice at all.

And again, we don't know that he just 'showed up' at the CEO's door. But even if he did, as the CEO it's even less wise to marginalize and bereate one of your better performers on account of it.

What should've amounted to nothing worse than a mere misunderstanding turned into another example of the "Patriot Way" -- treating your players like meat; and the "Haley Way" -- being a jackass.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 11:34 AM
Your posts defending Brian Waters and Fatlock are total bullshit.

I'm in a management position. I've got lots of people below me in the organization, and lots of people above me. I understand the value and the requirement to treat people with respect BOTH below me and above me.

If I had the audacity to fly to the office of the company president unannounced, storm in, and demand to know what the hell he was doing to my organization, I'd be fired on the spot for insubordination.

If you can't understand that, you have no idea how the world works. Brian Waters showed ZERO respect to his new bosses, and he was treated a hell of a lot better by them than he deserved.

What does "flying in" have anything to do with anything?

And furthermore, who said that Waters "demanded" anything?

And if you were a key person in your organization and simple request was not only denied but mocked, I guess you're not really all that important.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:39 AM
No. But if you're source is someone with an axe to grind it is no more relibable than the things we already know or can figure out for ourselves.

"Things we can figure out for ourselves"...

1) The Patriots organization has a history of marginalizing players and treating them as property rather than people.

2) Todd Haley has a history of being a bit of a lunatic. That history played itself out pretty well here in KC.

3) Brian Waters has a history of being a good soldier for the Chiefs. He's not been a malcontent and has been a solid Chief for his career.

4) People don't make it a habit to drive to the middle of nowhere (i.e. Arrowhead) in order to possibly stumble into a meeting without thinking they had one already.


You keep referring to the fact that we don't 'know' anything; but in fact we know a lot of things. And from those things we can make some pretty solid inferences. Even without Whitlock's article, from the players involved and basic human nature, the story in my head would've come out pretty damn similar to the one Whitlock told. In fact, many people had already seen the Whitlock article as a re-telling of the story as it has been rumored (remember, the Whitlock story was a few weeks after the whole thing started to get steam).

Quit killing the message because you don't like the messanger. There are many MANY reasons to believe the story as relayed by Whitlock and there is simply nothing I can see to believe he's not telling the truth. His story matches the rumors that preceeded it and fits the character of the players involved.

Sorry, but I'm not going to need a notarized affidavit from Pioli and Haley to put much faith in this version of events.

milkman
02-14-2010, 11:41 AM
In all honesty, I think he called someone he knew that would've still been around from the old regime and let them know he'd be coming in. I remember Eddie Kennison talking to Petro about how he'd set up meetings with one particular secretary who's cell # he had. As far as Waters knew, that was an okay way to do things as that's how he'd done it in the past. I don't think he just drove to Arrowhead, he wouldn't have known if they were even there. No, I don't have any source for this, but going on what we know of Waters, what we know of how Arrowhead operated during the Carl years, and what we know of basic human behavior (who would go all the way to Arrowhead without even knowing if those folks are there), I absolutely believe he made a call in, either himself or through an agent, and thought he had a meeting with them.

Which is why I don't think you go out of your way to be a dick to the guy. Waters wasn't trying to be confrontational, IMO. Waters probably thought he had a meeting, or at least could've arranged one. For a guy that is as 'high up' in the company as he is, it's not an uncommon practice at all.

And again, we don't know that he just 'showed up' at the CEO's door. But even if he did, as the CEO it's even less wise to marginalize and bereate one of your better performers on account of it.

What should've amounted to nothing worse than a mere misunderstanding turned into another example of the "Patriot Way" -- treating your players like meat; and the "Haley Way" -- being a jackass.

So he was too stupid to even consider the idea that a new regime might mean change?

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:41 AM
And if you were a key person in your organization and simple request was not only denied but mocked, I guess you're not really all that important.

Yup.

The implications in that post are absurd. The first being Waters' conduct, the second being the behavior of your average CEO.

penchief
02-14-2010, 11:43 AM
You have made plenty of judgments and observations and accusations for someone who is trying to tell everyone they have no idea what happened.

Give it a rest. Start a penchief fiction thread or something.

http://www.book-proposal.com/horizonbooks2.jpg

The only thing I'm doing is countering judgments and observations that you and others are making about Haley and Pioli based on inconclusive half-truths. So if you can do so pertaining to their supposed poor conduct why can't I do so in their defense? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm willing to use common sense in trying to decipher Whitlock's agenda-driven smears based on one side the story. However, you are not. You are unwilling to address any of my logical questions which consider what might be the other side of the story. Nor are you willing to doubt any of Whitlock's claims based on only half the story provided by someone with hurt feelings.

You have made it clear you are not interested in the other side of the story. And that you are willing to accept Whitlock's word as gospel. I'm not going to apologize for trying to make a case for the side of the story that is not being told.

the Talking Can
02-14-2010, 11:44 AM
"Things we can figure out for ourselves"...

1) The Patriots organization has a history of marginalizing players and treating them as property rather than people.

2) Todd Haley has a history of being a bit of a lunatic. That history played itself out pretty well here in KC.

3) Brian Waters has a history of being a good soldier for the Chiefs. He's not been a malcontent and has been a solid Chief for his career.

4) People don't make it a habit to drive to the middle of nowhere (i.e. Arrowhead) in order to possibly stumble into a meeting without thinking they had one already.


You keep referring to the fact that we don't 'know' anything; but in fact we know a lot of things. And from those things we can make some pretty solid inferences. Even without Whitlock's article, from the players involved and basic human nature, the story in my head would've come out pretty damn similar to the one Whitlock told. In fact, many people had already seen the Whitlock article as a re-telling of the story as it has been rumored (remember, the Whitlock story was a few weeks after the whole thing started to get steam).

Quit killing the message because you don't like the messanger. There are many MANY reasons to believe the story as relayed by Whitlock and there is simply nothing I can see to believe he's not telling the truth. His story matches the rumors that preceeded it and fits the character of the players involved.

Sorry, but I'm not going to need a notarized affidavit from Pioli and Haley to put much faith in this version of events.

that is a hilarious list of assumptions, all of which contain small to large amounts of bias, hearsay, and guilt by association...or simple slander, to be concise...


it makes it perfectly clear how absurd the leaps that people are making based on nothing but a story told and retold - without any confirmation, sourcing, or rebuttal by anyone - by whitlock....a columnist

we're so far from anything resembling journalism that pretty much leaves me speechless....what else can be said?

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 11:46 AM
The only thing I'm doing is countering judgments and observations that you and others are making about Haley and Pioli based on inconclusive half-truths. So if you can do so pertaining to their supposed poor conduct why can't I do so in their defense? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm willing to use common sense in trying to decipher Whitlock's agenda-driven smears based on one side the story. However, you are not. You are unwilling to address any of my logical questions which consider what might be the other side of the story. Nor are you willing to doubt any of Whitlock's claims based on only half the story provided by someone with hurt feelings.

You have made it clear you are not interested in the other side of the story. And that you are willing to accept Whitlock's word as gospel. I'm not going to apologize for trying to make a case for the side of the story that is not being told.
No, I have made it clear I am not interested in YOUR story.

http://www.elcslpl.org/StoryTimeIcon.gif

I am not taking Whitlock as the Gospel, I am taking it as someone who actually has a source and is connected to the story.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:46 AM
So he was too stupid to even consider the idea that a new regime might mean change?

Wouldn't you expect that you'd be told that when you called in? Or at worst that you'd be told that upon arrival in a respectful manner? Waters may not have even known who to contact within the new regime. It happens all the time in the 'real' world; when someone leaves, you fall back on who you know.

But misunderstandings never happen in the adult world, eh?

Pioli and Haley could've made this a non-event. Instead they decided to get into a dick measuring contest with the guy and for what purpose?

kstater
02-14-2010, 11:48 AM
So now we know a phone call has been made to some secretary?

chiefzilla1501
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
Just in the last few weeks a could of guys have come out in the Wilfork thing and have said something along the lines of "get your money, those guys don't really care about you..."

Every year you hear guys come out and grumble about it..

And the guys that came to this squad from NE either got traded here or are lucky to have a job so they don't get to exactly punch their own ticket. Who else are you referring to that 'followed their bosses around?' As best I can tell, Denver isn't exactly crawling with Patriots, nor is Atlanta. Furthermore, name the players that signed back with NE for less than they could've on the open market. Brady's undervalued and that's about it. Harrison and Seau are in that clique. You think Wilfork's gonna take anything less than top $$? You think Seymore will ever get anywhere near that organization again?

You're really going to try to make an argument that the rank/file Patriot isn't dissatisfied with how they are treated within that organization?
Every year you hear guys come out and grumble about it.[/quote]
Name me one player who the Patriots wanted to keep, but couldn't. The only one I can think of is Asante Samuel. You're mixing business with pleasure. They weren't nice about the way they got rid of Seymour, Law, Branch, Milloy, or Vrabel. But these were guys the Pats decided they didn't want to keep anymore, not the other way around. Even Randy Moss, the king of the disgruntled, has kept his mouth shut for 2 years.
Brady, Vrabel, Light, Kaczur, Neal, Troy Brown, Ty Law, Warren, Seymour, Viniateri, Banta-Cain, Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk. The Pats are one of the best at keeping their own. If they're so unhappy with the way they're being treated, then why in the world is it that they almost NEVER lose a productive player they want to keep. And why is it that guys known to be headcases like Randy Moss and Corey Dillon don't seem to mind it there?

Yes, I think you're majorly grasping at straws when you suggest that players in New England are unhappy with their job.

milkman
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
Wouldn't you expect that you'd be told that when you called in? Or at worst that you'd be told that upon arrival in a respectful manner? Waters may not have even known who to contact within the new regime. It happens all the time in the 'real' world; when someone leaves, you fall back on who you know.

But misunderstandings never happen in the adult world, eh?

Pioli and Haley could've made this a non-event. Instead they decided to get into a dick measuring contest with the guy and for what purpose?

What I would do is make damn sure that I did have a meeting set up, and not rely on the old way of doing business, if i wanted to meet.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
that is a hilarious list of assumptions, all of which contain small to large amounts of bias, hearsay, and guilt by association...or simple slander, to be concise...


it makes it perfectly clear how absurd the leaps that people are making based on nothing but a story told and retold - without any confirmation, sourcing, or rebuttal by anyone - by whitlock....a columnist

we're so far from anything resembling journalism that pretty much leaves me speechless....what else can be said?

You've not been able to say much for most of the season with Pioli's balls in your mouth. I don't really give a shit what you think; you're a mindless weathervane.

(As an aside: Slander is spoken word, Libel is written; if you're going to use loaded rhetoric, try to be accurate with it.)

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
it's hilarious when people pretend whitlock is a journalist...

I think it's hilarious when people don't understand that columnists can't make up stories just because they are allowed to interject opinion.

Or maybe you should ask Mitch Albom.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
So now we know a phone call has been made to some secretary?

Nope, I've already made it clear why I think that's how it's happened.

It's speculation on my part, but it's every bit as grounded in fact as this whole "he showed up unnanounced and demanded answers" bit of tripe that's been thrown around.

I think mine at least passes the sniff test and jibes pretty closely with what we've heard other former players say was SOP around arrowhead.

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 11:52 AM
What I would do is make damn sure that I did have a meeting set up, and not rely on the old way of doing business, if i wanted to meet.

And that would've certainly been a better way of doing it.

However, it's no reason to be ridiculed and ignored by your front office.

milkman
02-14-2010, 11:54 AM
And that would've certainly been a better way of doing it.

However, it's no reason to be ridiculed and ignored by your front office.

So here's Brain Waters.

Todd Haley walks out of the office and Tadd Haley simply starts to berate him.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it happened.

chiefzilla1501
02-14-2010, 11:55 AM
And that would've certainly been a better way of doing it.

However, it's no reason to be ridiculed and ignored by your front office.

(For the record, I do think Waters was probably slighted and I don't like the way Haley handled himself). I just disagree that the regime has a pattern of making life miserable for their players or that they have no respect for players in general.

kstater
02-14-2010, 11:57 AM
I think it's hilarious when people don't understand that columnists can't make up stories just because they are allowed to interject opinion.



No, but exaggeration and hyperbole has been a staple for columnists for many years.

T-post Tom
02-14-2010, 12:02 PM
Scanning through the Star's website, I saw the link with just the title and knew immediately that it was a Whitlock column and what the theme/content would be. SO predictable. A rehash of old news to fill column space during the slow times. The sad thing is that it just HAD to be divisive.

"So what happened? Who won?

Let’s turn to the 2009 scoreboard and evaluate who enhanced his reputation and who didn’t.

Waters added NFL Man of the Year to his reputation. Haley’s rep is that he’s clueless when it comes to effectively motivating and connecting with players."

I didn't realize that there was a scoreboard. Whitlock is the only one in the media perpetuating this. It's not good for the team and moreover, just plain stupid. Whitlock's dvisiveness tarnishes what should have been nothing more than a tribute to Water's accomplishment. (And on a sidenote, Tim Grunhard has publicly stated that while he really likes Brian Waters, Waters had a subpar year on the field. I know there are many fans that agree with that assessment.)

DJ's left nut
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
So here's Brain Waters.

Todd Haley walks out of the office and Tadd Haley simply starts to berate him.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it happened.

I think there's a good chance that Haley came out with the attitude many in this thread had to begin with: "Who the F are you that thinks you can come by whenever you want?" Waters was probably taken by surprise and from there I'd imagine things got more heated.

While I don't think Haley just came out firing, I certainly do think Haley came out as an indignant fuckhole about it.

I have absolutely no respect for Todd Haley's ability to interact with his subordinates, I've made that clear from the start. I think he's a hothead with a napoleanic complex. So clearly I have a bias of my own. At the same time, I think Haley's gone out of his way to reinforce that bias.

milkman
02-14-2010, 12:10 PM
I think there's a good chance that Haley came out with the attitude many in this thread had to begin with: "Who the F are you that thinks you can come by whenever you want?" Waters was probably taken by surprise and from there I'd imagine things got more heated.

While I don't think Haley just came out firing, I certainly do think Haley came out as an indignant ****hole about it.

I have absolutely no respect for Todd Haley's ability to interact with his subordinates, I've made that clear from the start. I think he's a hothead with a napoleanic complex. So clearly I have a bias of my own. At the same time, I think Haley's gone out of his way to reinforce that bias.

I don't disagree with your general opinion about Haley.

But I also think it's a bit naive to accept the half story that Whitlock tells at face value.

The fact is, we know there was a confrontation, but what we don't know, and what we need to make an educated comment on the confrontation, is what exactly transpired between the time that Haley walked out of the office, and the time he made the "22 guys off the street" comment.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:15 PM
"Things we can figure out for ourselves"...

1) The Patriots organization has a history of marginalizing players and treating them as property rather than people.

2) Todd Haley has a history of being a bit of a lunatic. That history played itself out pretty well here in KC.

3) Brian Waters has a history of being a good soldier for the Chiefs. He's not been a malcontent and has been a solid Chief for his career.

4) People don't make it a habit to drive to the middle of nowhere (i.e. Arrowhead) in order to possibly stumble into a meeting without thinking they had one already.


You keep referring to the fact that we don't 'know' anything; but in fact we know a lot of things. And from those things we can make some pretty solid inferences. Even without Whitlock's article, from the players involved and basic human nature, the story in my head would've come out pretty damn similar to the one Whitlock told. In fact, many people had already seen the Whitlock article as a re-telling of the story as it has been rumored (remember, the Whitlock story was a few weeks after the whole thing started to get steam).

Quit killing the message because you don't like the messanger. There are many MANY reasons to believe the story as relayed by Whitlock and there is simply nothing I can see to believe he's not telling the truth. His story matches the rumors that preceeded it and fits the character of the players involved.

Sorry, but I'm not going to need a notarized affidavit from Pioli and Haley to put much faith in this version of events.

1. Brian Waters is the one who showed up unannounced with concerns he wanted addressed immediately. Not exactly a sign of deference to one's superiors.

2. We can assume that by showing up unannounced with concerns that he wanted addressed immediately that he was not showing up with a smile on his face but with some consternation.

3. After Waters left with his concerns not addressed to his satisfaction he ran whining to the one person who was sure to create a public shit storm and make the new regime's life miserable. He did this instead of keeping the meeting private. Not exactly the actions of a high character guy. What happens in a meeting like that should have stayed between the parties involved. That's what Haley and Pioli have done. Kudo's to them for taking the high road.

4. Then he publically requested a trade. Again, not exactly the actions of a "high character guy." To this day, both Haley and Pioli have bitten their tongues and not gone public with their side of the story. They have held firm to that principle even in the face of Whitlock's year long attempts to use the incident to smear their characters.

5. Pioli and Haley didn't ask for Waters to show up. They didn't ask him to run whining like a little bitch to Whitlock. And they didn't ask for the incessant personal smears that have resulted from Waters feeding Whitlock his side of a story that should have remained private.

That about it?

-King-
02-14-2010, 12:16 PM
Yeah Haley is an asshole. How dare he have problems with such darling players as Keyshaun Johnson, Terrell Owens, and Larry Johnson...

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:18 PM
1. Brian Waters is the one who showed up unannounced with concerns he wanted addressed immediately. Not exactly a sign of deference to one's superiors.

2. We can assume that by showing up unannounced with concerns that he wanted addressed immediately that he was not showing up with a smile on his face but with some consternation.

3. After Waters left with his concerns not addressed to his satisfaction he ran whining to the one person who was sure to create a public shit storm and make the new regime's life miserable. He did this instead of keeping the meeting private. Not exactly the actions of a high character guy. What happens in a meeting like that should have stayed between the parties involved. That's what Haley and Pioli have done. Kudo's to them for taking the high road.

4. To this day, both Haley and Pioli have bitten their tongues and not gone public with their side of the story. They have held firm to that principle even in the face of Whitlock's year long attempts to use the incident to smear their characters.

5. Pioli and Haley didn't ask for Waters to show up. They didn't ask him to run whining like a little bitch to Whitlock. And they didn't ask for the incessant personal smears that have resulted from Waters feeding Whitlock his side of a story that should have remained private.

It seems to me that this whole manufactured story is the result of Waters having concerns he wanted immediatley addressed. And then disrespectfully showing up unannounced wanting those concerns addressed to his satisfaction. When his concerns weren't addressed to his satisfaction he ran to Whitlock crying about how he was disrespected. Knowing that Whitlock would go public, Waters' turned his dissatisfaction into a Whitlock year-long narrative about how Pioli and Haley are the two most egotistical people in the history of the world.

That about it?
Everything I bolded is fiction added by you. Most of the rest of your post is based on those fictional parts you created.

You should really change careers.

-King-
02-14-2010, 12:19 PM
Everything I bolded is fiction added by you. Most of the rest of your post is based on those fictional parts you created.

You should really change careers.

So Waters didn't run crying to Whitlock? So how did the story become public?

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 12:19 PM
If I had the audacity to fly to the office of the company president unannounced, storm in, and demand to know what the hell he was doing to my organization, I'd be fired on the spot for insubordination.


Quite a story. Too bad we don't know if any of the bolded points are accurate, at all.

And the story is definitely topical b/c of the award Waters won. Doesn't mean it's an interesting story...but a topical one nonetheless.

And the majority of the folks talking about Whitlock's "agenda" are the same ones who can't stand him in the first place. "Agenda" and a heavy dose of irony.

Sully
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
This story is stupid from every concievable angle...

Past-his-prime-player wants to be treated as if here still elite... Check.
Said player isn't welcomed with rose petals and choirs...check.
Curt GM and HC blow off player... Check.
Player decides to make a public scene, running to the first guy with a column to cry about his horrible mistreatment... Check.
Opinion guy uses info to build a year-long rant about an insignificant occurance.
Chiefs fans take sides, rarely based on facts. Most commonly based on who they are already pissed at.

It is without a doubt true that any and all the players in this junior high drama have egos that are ridiculous. It is also true that at least half of them are fucking crybabies. The problem is 50/50. But the crying about it is 100%... and Whitlock and Waters own every bit of that.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
So Waters didn't run crying to Whitlock? So how did the story become public?

You guys are great. Adding in these little bits of drama.

What if Whitlock asked some questions and he answered them?

That wouldn't be him running to Whitlock...or whining to to him. Lets not even get into the "doing it dto make the new regime miserable" part.

Of course that doesn't fit the fantasy penchief has created.

kstater
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Quite a story. We don't know if any of the above points are accurate, at all.

And the story is definitely topical b/c of the award Waters won. Doesn't mean it's an interesting story...but a topical one nonetheless.

How is there a correlation between the award won and a personnel issue from a year ago?

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:24 PM
How is there a correlation between the award won and a personnel issue from a year ago?

A lot of players could have felt disrespected...thrown their hands up and said F this team. See Brandon Marshall during training camp...

Waters went out...took care of business. Had a decent season (IMO) and was a leader the guys rallied around. You could see it during the games.

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 12:25 PM
How is there a correlation between the award won and a personnel issue from a year ago?

Because the award isn't reflective of what happens in a vacuum. It brings to light the trajectory of Waters' '09, with a surprisingly positive ending, given its beginning.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 12:25 PM
A lot of players could have felt disrespected...thrown their hands up and said F this team. See Brandon Marshall during training camp...

Waters went out...took care of business. Had a decent season (IMO) and was a leader the guys rallied around. You could see it during the games.

IRCC didnt someone say in this thread that Waters lead the league in sacks given up by an OL?

kstater
02-14-2010, 12:25 PM
A lot of players could have felt disrespected...thrown their hands up and said F this team. See Brandon Marshall during training camp...

Waters went out...took care of business. Had a decent season (IMO) and was a leader the guys rallied around. You could see it during the games.

If this award was about football, you'd have a valid point. Unless you are insinuating that a lot of other players would throw their hands up and quit charity work after feeling disrespected.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-14-2010, 12:26 PM
How is there a correlation between the award won and a personnel issue from a year ago?

Given that the personnel issue created the image of a guy being a me-first asshole crybaby, the same guy who last week was awarded as the most significant off-field contributor of 1600+ players, I'd say that, at the very least it's newsworthy for the dichotomy in how Waters was viewed by the fans vs. how the league viewed his contributions.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:26 PM
If this award was about football, you'd have a valid point. Unless you are insinuating that a lot of other players would throw their hands up and quit charity work after feeling disrespected.

Ok. Football and off the field stuff. They have nothing to do with eachother. Thanks man.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:26 PM
Everything I bolded is fiction added by you. Most of the rest of your post is based on those fictional parts you created.

You should really change careers.

Okay. What is the reason Whitlock says Waters showed up unannounced. A meet and greet? And that is why Haley insulted him? That would be fiction.

As I stated before, my version is no less fiction than the Whitlock version you choose to believe.

My version actually makes more sense based on what we do know.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:27 PM
IRCC didnt someone say in this thread that Waters lead the league in sacks given up by an OL?

I have never heard that...of course I don't compile oline stats so it could be true?

It seems people are saying a lot of things in this thread.

Not many of them seem to be true.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:29 PM
Okay. What is the reason Whitlock says Waters showed up unannounced. A meet and greet? And that is why Haley insulted him? That would be fiction.

As I stated before, my version is no less fiction than the Whitlock version you choose to believe.

My version actually makes more sense based on what we do know.

I am not going to fill in fiction without the information. That is for you to do bud.

Don't ask me to play Improv at the Arrowhead, I am just calling out your bullshit for what it is.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 12:29 PM
I have never heard that...of course I don't compile oline stats so it could be true?

It seems people are saying a lot of things in this thread.

Not many of them seem to be true.

From both sides of the argument and from Whitlock...

Lots of speculation going on here on a very pointless incident from a year ago... I am surprised that this still has legs and warrants this much discussion, but then again knowing Whitlocks Gospel motives towards the Chiefs.

This will probably still be an issue in Feb 2011......

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:31 PM
From both sides of the argument and from Whitlock...

Lots of speculation going on here on a very pointless incident from a year ago... I am surprised that this still has legs and warrants this much discussion, but then again knowing Whitlocks Gospel motives towards the Chiefs.

This will probably still be an issue in Feb 2011......

I see one side with a source connected to the actual event and another side dreaming things from nothing.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:34 PM
You guys are great. Adding in these little bits of drama.

What if Whitlock asked some questions and he answered them?

That wouldn't be him running to Whitlock...or whining to to him. Lets not even get into the "doing it dto make the new regime miserable" part.

Of course that doesn't fit the fantasy penchief has created.

No fantasy here. Seems the only thing at issue is the year-long whinefest by Whitlock over unsubstantiated claims of Haley and Pioli's arrogance. And the fact that there are actually people on this board willing to buy into a narrative that is not based on evidence.

I'm simply painting a picture that is just as likely, if not more likely than the one you have bought hook, line, and sinker. And the only reason I'm doing so is out of fairness.

-King-
02-14-2010, 12:34 PM
I see one side with a source connected to the actual event and another side dreaming things from nothing.

The source we haven't even heard from?

Yeah the man who calls Pioli Egoli doesn't have an axe to grind. Sure.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm simply painting a picture that is just as likely if not more likely than the one you have bought hook, line, and sinker. And the only reason I'm doing so is out of fairness.

You are completely full of shit. LMAO

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 12:36 PM
I see one side with a source connected to the actual event and another side dreaming things from nothing.

Agree Zach, But I see that one source with a jilted girlfriend agenda as well...

So this should be taking with a grain of salt from both sides... Especially one with the motives and agenda of bashing anything that comes from Arrowhead good or bad....

JMO

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:36 PM
You are completely full of shit. LMAO

You keep making claims but you don't offer any logic to support those claims.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 12:37 PM
You are completely full of shit. LMAO

No offense, but dont you think Whitlock might be as well...

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:37 PM
You keep making claims but you don't offer any logic to support those claims.

Whoever read this thread to you is doing a terrible job.

This whole thing has come full circle. penchief is upset because I am making claims I can't support.

This thread has gone full retard.

milkman
02-14-2010, 12:38 PM
I see one side with a source connected to the actual event and another side dreaming things from nothing.

Here's what we know to be fact.

Brain Waters showed up at the Chiefs offices.
Todd Haley said something that pissed Waters off.

We have absolutely no knowledge of anything that was said or that transpired between the time Hely first opened the door and the time that he made his comments.

Yet you are ready to make a judgement based on those two little pieces of info.

Pretty fucking stupid.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:39 PM
Here's what we know to be fact.

Brain Waters showed up at the Chiefs offices.
Todd Haley said something that pissed Waters off.

We have absolutely no knowledge of anything that was said or that transpired between the time Hely first opened the door and the time that he made his comments.

Yet you are ready to make a judgement based on those two little pieces of info.

Pretty ****ing stupid.

I am not...I have spent this whole thread question people who have been creating fantasy between those gaps.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:40 PM
I am not going to fill in fiction without the information. That is for you to do bud.

Don't ask me to play Improv at the Arrowhead, I am just calling out your bullshit for what it is.

Ahh. Now we are getting somewhere. So you are finally at the point of admitting that it is illigical to believe half-truths being told by a person with an axe to grind as told to him by someone with hurt feelings?

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:41 PM
Ahh. Now we are getting somewhere. So you are finally at the point of admitting that it is illigical to believe half-truths being told by a person with an axe to grind as told to him by someone with hurt feelings?

You haven't gotten anywhere. You have been creating fiction and I have been knocking it down.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:41 PM
Here's what we know to be fact.

Brain Waters showed up at the Chiefs offices.
Todd Haley said something that pissed Waters off.

We have absolutely no knowledge of anything that was said or that transpired between the time Hely first opened the door and the time that he made his comments.

Yet you are ready to make a judgement based on those two little pieces of info.

Pretty ****ing stupid.

Exactly. We only know what Whitlock is telling us. And that is about as biased as it can get.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:42 PM
Exactly. We only know what Whitlock is telling us. And that is about as biased as it can get.



Exactly?

You have spend this whole thread saying its more than that...and now someone presents this and you agree with it.
LMAO

milkman
02-14-2010, 12:42 PM
I am not...I have spent this whole thread question people who have been creating fantasy between those gaps.

I misintreperted your intent.

My bad.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:46 PM
You haven't gotten anywhere. You have been creating fiction and I have been knocking it down.

You haven't knocked anything down. Every question I pose to you goes unanswered in favor of personal implications. If you call accusing me of being idiotic or full of shit as knocking down my speculation then that is weak on your part.

I suspect once you start to answer the logic of my questions with logic of your own you will have to admit that you don't know anything more about the facts than I do. That you are choosing to believe a version of the truth without having enough facts to know if it is true or not.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 12:48 PM
I misintreperted your intent.

My bad.

At this point in time. It might be wise to look at anything toollock says very objectively... His sole purpose is to slander the Chiefs organization...

Now don't take this as a Pioli and Haley homer, but there are normally 2 sides to every story and the Chiefs are mum. That means we get to hear a middle age fat baby cry and cry relentlessly about someone that could give a shit less if he breaths or not...

The story will die out and when Whitlock runs our of shit to cry about, we will hear it again. It probably never was an issue with the Chiefs, but it damn sure isnt a dead issue with Whitlock and we will hear about it for years to come.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:50 PM
you will have to admit that you don't know anything more about the facts than I do.

You dope. I have been saying that the whole time.

I don't know anything more than you do. I wasn't there...you were not there. I have never spoken with someone that was there...neither have you. I am not creating anymore than what is out there. That has been your job. Are you even reading my replies? LMAO

stevieray
02-14-2010, 12:54 PM
...if Waters needs a voice, it should be in the lockerroom.

I don't care or don't need a player to assume that he's anything more than just a..wait for it...player.

milkman
02-14-2010, 12:54 PM
At this point in time. It might be wise to look at anything toollock says very objectively... His sole purpose is to slander the Chiefs organization...

Now don't take this as a Pioli and Haley homer, but there are normally 2 sides to every story and the Chiefs are mum. That means we get to hear a middle age fat baby cry and cry relentlessly about someone that could give a shit less if he breaths or not...

The story will die out and when Whitlock runs our of shit to cry about, we will hear it again. It probably never was an issue with the Chiefs, but it damn sure isnt a dead issue with Whitlock and we will hear about it for years to come.

I think it's fairly common knowledge that I'm not at all happy with the job Pioli/Haley have done since they were hired, and I wasn't excited when Pioli got the job to begin with.

But to take this crap and blow it up the way some have is ridiculous.

It was non story.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 12:57 PM
At this point in time. It might be wise to look at anything toollock says very objectively... His sole purpose is to slander the Chiefs organization...

Now don't take this as a Pioli and Haley homer, but there are normally 2 sides to every story and the Chiefs are mum. That means we get to hear a middle age fat baby cry and cry relentlessly about someone that could give a shit less if he breaths or not...

The story will die out and when Whitlock runs our of shit to cry about, we will hear it again. It probably never was an issue with the Chiefs, but it damn sure isnt a dead issue with Whitlock and we will hear about it for years to come.

Here is where I am asking some honesty of you.

It doesn't matter what Whitlock does anymore...a lot of message board sports fan have created a scenario where he can't win. There isn't anything he could write that wouldn't make people drone on...

If he doesn't write something without a narrative or angle then people find it boring. First post would talk about how it is just words and there is nothing to it.

If he just writes strictly what comes out of the official mouths of Arrowhead what kind of column do you have.

He writes opinion pieces...

Why would he even have "create" any controversy. It is sports...it is already everywhere.

Color me unsurprised that a bunch of people on a Chiefs message board find sports opinions predictable. How many different ways could you possibly talk about the Chiefs.

I don't have a problem with someone not liking Whitlock. That makes perfect sense to me. However, lets not act like a lot of you Whitlock haters have a scenario in which he would write something you wouldn't slam.

penchief
02-14-2010, 12:58 PM
You dope. I have been saying that the whole time.

I don't know anything more than you do. I wasn't there...you were not there. I have never spoken with someone that was there...neither have you. I am not creating anymore than what is out there. That has been your job. Are you even reading my replies? LMAO

And if you go back and read my posts about believing Whitlock's version of the truth you will see that I was shooting holes through the idea that one can come to conclusions based on half-truths presented by someone with an axe to grind. I tried to do this by painting a picture of what the other side of the story would look like. Whether I had facts to back up my assertions didn't matter any more than the lack of facts supporting Whitlock's version.

At least a semblance of balance can be presented when both sides of the story are heard. It is impossible to know the truth when only one side is being told, as is the case currently. I have no doubt if we knew the facts that the truth would be somewhere in the middle. That Whitlock would be exposed as the hack he is and Waters would not be viewed as the innocent victim he has been made out to be.

The whole reason I'm defending Pioli and Haley with speculation of my own is because I believe there is another side to the story.

kstater
02-14-2010, 01:00 PM
Here is where I am asking some honesty of you.

It doesn't matter what Whitlock does anymore...a lot of message board sports fan have created a scenario where he can't win. There isn't anything he could write that wouldn't make people drone on...

If he doesn't write something without a narrative or angle then people find it boring. First post would talk about how it is just words and there is nothing to it.

If he just writes strictly what comes out of the official mouths of Arrowhead what kind of column do you have.

He writes opinion pieces...

Why would he even have "create" any controversy. It is sports...it is already everywhere.

Color me unsurprised that a bunch of people on a Chiefs message board find sports opinions predictable. How many different ways could you possibly talk about the Chiefs.

I don't have a problem with someone not liking Whitlock. That makes perfect sense to me. However, lets not act like a lot of you Whitlock haters have a scenario in which he would write something you wouldn't slam.

This is also why Posnanksi is so reviled around here.

Saccopoo
02-14-2010, 01:09 PM
How so?

At least Whitlock has an account from a source. You have literally made up things out of thin air to try and prop up your points.

Whitlock's "source" is biased with an agenda, especially at that time. That immediately ran to the press with "his" account of the story. (Which was never elaborated upon other than the "22 guys off the street" bit, which I have absolutely no problem with anyway.) The other side of the story was kept between the two/three parties in a professional manner. And like I said, they praised Waters work ethic and leadership shortly after that.

You just created this from nothing and couldn't get the date right. But Whitlock talks to a guy who is there and I guess it is him who should be wearing the clown shoes? Ok dude.

It wasn't the draft. It was the Combine. And it was literally two days before the combine that Waters showed up unannounced asking for a trade when the guy was under contract. That's completely unprofessional and he probably kept trying the press the issue and eventually got the "22 guys off the street" comment from Haley because he probably got tired of hearing Waters cry for a trade.

Saccopoo
02-14-2010, 01:28 PM
How is there a correlation between the award won and a personnel issue from a year ago?

Whitlock is the one attempting to correlate the two together and push it onto the Cheifs fans for judgement. He's completely cut off from the organization (and I don't blame them one bit), is obviously extremely bitter about that, feels slighted, so he's using anything he can to try to justify his year long childish rant in an attempt to disparage the Chiefs FO. It's Whitlock and his bruised ego that are doing this. No one else. And he's taking Waters down with him just by association. He's tarnishing Waters achievement by associating it with his personal conflict with the Chiefs FO.

Mosbonian
02-14-2010, 01:45 PM
I've read just enough of this thread to throw out a comment...


Evidently some of you who keep talking about how if you are imporant enough to the company, Managers will make time for you no matter how far up the food chain they are.
BS....when you have a retooling of a company there is so much going on that Managers DON'T have time to hold hands or have meetings with people who think they deserve one. Quite frankly the idea that one is so important that a Manager should set aside time for an unscheduled meeting is arrogance in it's highest form. Yes, meeting with employees is important and necessary, but not on demand.

mmaddog
********

unlurking
02-14-2010, 02:03 PM
Can anyone link the original Whitlock story about Waters? It's been so long that I can't remember all the details. Couldn't find it here, and I don't have an account to access the Star archives. Thanks!

Fruit Ninja
02-14-2010, 02:09 PM
No, I have made it clear I am not interested in YOUR story.

http://www.elcslpl.org/StoryTimeIcon.gif

I am not taking Whitlock as the Gospel, I am taking it as someone who actually has a source and is connected to the story.

For someone that isnt interested in his story, you sure are replying to him like you are more interested then anyone else on these forums. lol

God i love irony.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 02:15 PM
For someone that isnt interested in his story, you sure are replying to him like you are more interested then anyone else on these forums. lol

God i love irony.
That is a pretty weak sauce example of irony...

For someone not interested in a certain poster making things up you sure do talk alot!

kstater
02-14-2010, 02:16 PM
Can anyone link the original Whitlock story about Waters? It's been so long that I can't remember all the details. Couldn't find it here, and I don't have an account to access the Star archives. Thanks!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203213


There's some amusing posts in that thread as well.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 02:22 PM
No fantasy here. Seems the only thing at issue is the year-long whinefest by Whitlock over unsubstantiated claims of Haley and Pioli's arrogance. And the fact that there are actually people on this board willing to buy into a narrative that is not based on evidence.

I'm simply painting a picture that is just as likely, if not more likely than the one you have bought hook, line, and sinker. And the only reason I'm doing so is out of fairness.

Bullfuckingshit.

You're doing it because you despise Whitlock and everything he stands for.

And furthermore, it IS fantasy and you just said so yourself.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 02:24 PM
5. Pioli and Haley didn't ask for Waters to show up. They didn't ask him to run whining like a little bitch to Whitlock. And they didn't ask for the incessant personal smears that have resulted from Waters feeding Whitlock his side of a story that should have remained private.

That about it?

Why should it remain private?

You guys all LOVED IT when Carl told John Tait to "Sit down and shut the fuck up".

Should that little outburst have remained private?

Duplicity runs rampant throughout this thread.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 02:29 PM
Okay. What is the reason Whitlock says Waters showed up unannounced. A meet and greet? And that is why Haley insulted him? That would be fiction.

As I stated before, my version is no less fiction than the Whitlock version you choose to believe.

My version actually makes more sense based on what we do know.

Your version does NOT make more sense.

Look, the bottom line is this: Should Brian Waters have shown up out of the blue at Arrowhead in attempt to speak with new GM Scott Pioli and new head coach Todd Haley?

Probably not. But it's not a crime.

Should new GM Scott Pioli have completely shunned Brian Waters?

No.

Should new head coach Todd Haley acted like a prick and made his "22 guys off the street" comment?

No.

Haley and Pioli acted rudely and unprofessionally. While they didn't need to honor Waters request to speak that day, they also didn't need to act like assholes, either.

IMO, Pioli and Haley are absolutely in the wrong.

PERIOD.

BigRock
02-14-2010, 02:41 PM
By all accounts, Waters came over for a 'getting to know you' meeting and the front office all but threw him out of the building.

That's not even Whitlock's account, let alone "by all accounts". Here's exactly what Jason wrote:

According to the source, Waters flew to Kansas City specifically to meet with Haley and Pioli and hear their plan for the direction of the organization.

So, yes, despite repeatedly dismissing it as "after-the-fact editorializing" or "garbage", it seems Waters did show up with the expecation that he'd be given answers about where the team was headed.

And since Pioli didn't meet with him, it seems like a pretty safe assumption that Waters never actually bothered to inform anyone he'd be coming. Because you know perfectly well that if he HAD set up a meeting, flew into KC for it, and Pioli reneged on it, that fact would have been made abundantly clear throughout this entire thing.

Whether or not one thinks Waters still deserved better treatment is another issue entirely. However...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203213

There's some amusing posts in that thread as well.

IMO, Pioli and Haley are absolutely in the wrong.

PERIOD.

...some of the outrage in this thread might be a little more believable had it been expressed when this first happened.

unlurking
02-14-2010, 02:46 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203213


There's some amusing posts in that thread as well.
Thanks!

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 03:01 PM
I've read just enough of this thread to throw out a comment...


Evidently some of you who keep talking about how if you are imporant enough to the company, Managers will make time for you no matter how far up the food chain they are.
BS....when you have a retooling of a company there is so much going on that Managers DON'T have time to hold hands or have meetings with people who think they deserve one. Quite frankly the idea that one is so important that a Manager should set aside time for an unscheduled meeting is arrogance in it's highest form. Yes, meeting with employees is important and necessary, but not on demand.

mmaddog
********

That's fine and dandy.

But is it necessary to be rude?

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 03:02 PM
...some of the outrage in this thread might be a little more believable had it been expressed when this first happened.

Is this a joke?

There's a HUGE thread on this very same subject in 2009. I think that those who were "outraged" then are the same people who are "outraged" now.

unlurking
02-14-2010, 03:04 PM
Not to place/remove blame from any parties on this subject, but notice that Waters requested his trade on the 26th, 2 days prior to the Chiefs announcing the completion of a trade for Cassel on the 28th (Whitlock's article posted the 27th, and alleged incident occurred on the 24th).

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2009/02/28/chiefs_acquire_qb_matt_cassel_lb_mike_vrabel_in_trade_with_patriots/

Regardless of whether the you approve/disapprove that trade, I can imagine the week leading up to it being very busy for most of the decision makers in the organization.

Haley probably should have told Brian, "Hey, hang out for a couple days. I'll sit down with you on Monday". (The again, we don't know he didn't.) If instead Haley broke his foot off in Brian's ass, how do we know he didn't just come from a meeting with Pioli's last words to him being, "I don't give a gosh darned fraggle rock what you want, I'm getting Matt Cassel".

For me personally, not enough to choose a side. Plenty to believe that there was probably a lot of frustration/stress on both sides prior to the "hallway encounter".

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 03:37 PM
Your posts defending Brian Waters and Fatlock are total bullshit.

I'm in a management position. I've got lots of people below me in the organization, and lots of people above me. I understand the value and the requirement to treat people with respect BOTH below me and above me.

If I had the audacity to fly to the office of the company president unannounced, storm in, and demand to know what the hell he was doing to my organization, I'd be fired on the spot for insubordination.

If you can't understand that, you have no idea how the world works. Brian Waters showed ZERO respect to his new bosses, and he was treated a hell of a lot better by them than he deserved.

Just for good measure, your and idiot.

BigRock
02-14-2010, 03:42 PM
I think that those who were "outraged" then are the same people who are "outraged" now.

Probably so.

What I'm saying, though, is where are the posts showing YOU were one of the people who were outraged then? I mean, given your posts in this thread, I expected to see you all over the thread with Whitlock's original column. It was full of people knocking Waters and defending Pioli. A perfect opportunity for someone to jump in and set the record straight.

Instead, I didn't really see you make ANY criticism, let alone something that meets the level of:

I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU'RE DOING, if one of your employees asks for some time, YOU OPEN THE FUCKING DOOR.

Defending Pioli in this situation is like defending the BIGGEST fucking DICKHEAD boss EVER.

FUCK THAT.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 03:43 PM
Probably so.

What I'm saying, though, is where are the posts showing YOU were one of the people who were outraged then? I mean, given your posts in this thread, I expected to see you all over the thread with Whitlock's original column. It was full of people knocking Waters and defending Pioli. A perfect opportunity for someone to jump in and set the record straight.

Instead, I didn't really see you make ANY criticism, let alone something that meets the level of:

Where's a link to the original story?

BigRock
02-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Where's a link to the original story?

kstater just linked it a few posts ago:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203213

milkman
02-14-2010, 03:57 PM
Your version does NOT make more sense.

Look, the bottom line is this: Should Brian Waters have shown up out of the blue at Arrowhead in attempt to speak with new GM Scott Pioli and new head coach Todd Haley?

Probably not. But it's not a crime.

Should new GM Scott Pioli have completely shunned Brian Waters?

No.

Should new head coach Todd Haley acted like a prick and made his "22 guys off the street" comment?

No.

Haley and Pioli acted rudely and unprofessionally. While they didn't need to honor Waters request to speak that day, they also didn't need to act like assholes, either.

IMO, Pioli and Haley are absolutely in the wrong.

PERIOD.

And your opinion is based on two simple facts.

Waters showed up.
Todd Haley made a comment that is being described as berating.

You are forming an opinion based are so little information that it has no foundation to stand on.

-King-
02-14-2010, 04:01 PM
Holy shit, in that thread Dane is defending Pioli and Haley...

Haley has every reason to make that comment.

THIS is why nothing is coming out of Arrowhead.

They're smart enough to know that anything they say might upset the fans.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5532466&postcount=171




This one is funny also. He agrees with Mecca about people wanting Pioli/Haley to be more classy instead of winning...and in this thread he's bitching about Pioli/Haley not being classy. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5532472&postcount=174

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:01 PM
kstater just linked it a few posts ago:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203213

I can't speak for anyone but myself but at that time, I gave Pioli and Haley the benefit of the doubt.

Keep in mind, this was before free agency and the absolute abortion of a draft.

My perspective changed during the course of the past year and I most certainly addressed it.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:04 PM
And your opinion is based on two simple facts.

Waters showed up.
Todd Haley made a comment that is being described as berating.

You are forming an opinion based are so little information that it has no foundation to stand on.

My opinion is simple:

1. Waters did no wrong by going to Arrowhead unannounced. He'd played for the Chiefs for a better part of a decade and was still under contract.

2. There was absolutely no reason for Todd Haley to be a prick. Pioli certainly wasn't required to address Waters but it would have be professional for him to state the obvious: "Brian we're very busy but I can assure you that your concerns will be addressed at some point in the future".

If Pioli and Haley had acted with even the least amount of professionalism possible, this would be a non-story.

-King-
02-14-2010, 04:04 PM
I can't speak for anyone but myself but at that time, I gave Pioli and Haley the benefit of the doubt.

Keep in mind, this was before free agency and the absolute abortion of a draft.

My perspective changed during the course of the past year and I most certainly addressed it.

Wtf does Free Agency and the Draft have to do with this?

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 04:06 PM
Wtf does Free Agency and the Draft have to do with this?

They provided evidence that Haley and Pioli might not know their collective asses from a hole in the ground.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:06 PM
Holy shit, in that thread Dane is defending Pioli and Haley...


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5532466&postcount=171




This one is funny also. He agrees with Mecca about people wanting Pioli/Haley to be more classy instead of winning...and in this thread he's bitching about Pioli/Haley not being classy. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5532472&postcount=174

No shit, Sherlock. Nice use of the search function.

People here seem to think that I hated the hiring of Pioli and Haley from the moment it was announced, which is completely untrue.

I began to dislike them slowly. The Cassel/Vrabel trade, the abortion of the draft and pitiful free agency, not to mention the sudden firing of Chan Gailey 10 days before the season was to begin, all have contributed to my dislike of Pioli & Haley.

I do like the hiring of Weis quite a bit. Crennel, I'm "meh" on, only because I'm unfamiliar with what he really brings to a defense.

But Weis and Crennel are the first signs to me of heading in the right direction.

But if they once again fuck up the draft...

-King-
02-14-2010, 04:07 PM
They provided evidence that Haley and Pioli might not know their collective asses from a hole in the ground.

Sure, but it still doesnt have anything to do with this situation. It should in no way change Danes opinion on whether Haley should or shouldn't have made that comment to Waters.

-King-
02-14-2010, 04:09 PM
No shit, Sherlock. Nice use of the search function.

People here seem to think that I hated the hiring of Pioli and Haley from the moment it was announced, which is completely untrue.

I began to dislike them slowly. The Cassel/Vrabel trade, the abortion of the draft and pitiful free agency, not to mention the sudden firing of Chan Gailey 10 days before the season was to begin.

Yeah, and all that has to do with you flip flopping how? How do you think a comment is acceptable...and then flip around and berate others who still think the comment is acceptable?

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:10 PM
Yeah, and all that has to do with you flip flopping how? How do you think a comment is acceptable...and then flip around and berate others who still think the comment is acceptable?

Because of the clear succession of dumbassery displayed throughout the year by both Haley and Pioli.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:12 PM
My opinion is simple:

1. Waters did no wrong by going to Arrowhead unannounced. He'd played for the Chiefs for a better part of a decade and was still under contract.

2. There was absolutely no reason for Todd Haley to be a prick. Pioli certainly wasn't required to address Waters but it would have be professional for him to state the obvious: "Brian we're very busy but I can assure you that your concerns will be addressed at some point in the future".

If Pioli and Haley had acted with even the least amount of professionalism possible, this would be a non-story.

Again, as I've pointed out many times, you have no way of knowing what happened between the time that Waters showed up and the moment that Haley made his comment to waters,and are forming an opinion based on too little information, provided by a columnist who has been trying to fuel an agenda.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:15 PM
Again, as I've pointed out many times, you have no way of knowing what happened between the time that Waters showed up and the moment that Haley made his comment to waters,and are forming an opinion based on too little information, provided by a columnist who has been trying to fuel an agenda.


I think that if the events of that day didn't unfold as Whitlock has described on multiple occasions, I think that Waters would do his best to rectify this issue in the media, which to date, he has not.

Based on this award, I don't believe that Waters is the type of guy that could live with a lie or a guilty conscience.

Mosbonian
02-14-2010, 04:17 PM
That's fine and dandy.

But is it necessary to be rude?

Rude..no. But I am smart enough (and been a Manager long enough) to know that the version of how a meeting went with a Team member is nowhere near the truth most of the time.

People are prone to exaggeration when expressing outrage over how they perceive they have been treated. We all want everyone to empathize with our plight...and exaggerating seems to be the way to ensure that.

mmaddog
********

penchief
02-14-2010, 04:17 PM
Bull****ingshit.

You're doing it because you despise Whitlock and everything he stands for.

And furthermore, it IS fantasy and you just said so yourself.

You're wrong, Dane. I don't despise Whitlock. I'm telling you what my motive is. I'm sick of all the personal attacks against Pioli and Haley with little or no substantiating evidence.

I am entitled to take exception to Whitlock's petty and vindictive behavior of the past year. I believe he has behaved totally unprofessionally and I feel I am right to criticize him for what I believe to be a year-long smear campaign. That doesn't mean I despise Whitlock. It just means I don't approve of his behavior.

I am taking a position in defense of Pioli and Haley and against Whitlock's personal character attacks out of what I perceive to be fairness. That is all.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:19 PM
Rude..no. But I am smart enough (and been a Manager long enough) to know that the version of how a meeting went with a Team member is nowhere near the truth most of the time.

People are prone to exaggeration when expressing outrage over how they perceive they have been treated. We all want everyone to empathize with our plight...and exaggerating seems to be the way to ensure that.

mmaddog
********

I can fully understand that but I have a hard time believing that a man of Brian Waters character would be lying or exaggerating to Whitlock or anyone else.

Mosbonian
02-14-2010, 04:19 PM
I think that if the events of that day didn't unfold as Whitlock has described on multiple occasions, I think that Waters would do his best to rectify this issue in the media, which to date, he has not.

Based on this award, I don't believe that Waters is the type of guy that could live with a lie or a guilty conscience.

I am not sure that I completely agree with this....Waters may have been counseled by his Agent not to speak on the matter.

But I will acknowledge that you could be right.

mmaddog
********

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:20 PM
You're wrong, Dane. I don't despise Whitlock. I'm telling you what my motive is. I'm sick of all the personal attacks against Pioli and Haley with little or no substantiating evidence.

I am entitled to take exception to Whitlock's petty and vindictive behavior of the past year. I believe he has behaved totally unprofessionally and I feel I am right to criticize him for what I believe to be a year-long smear campaign. That doesn't mean I despise Whitlock. It just means I don't approve of his behavior.

I am taking a position in defense of Pioli and Haley and against Whitlock's personal character attacks out of what I perceive to be fairness. That is all.

That's fine.

But keep in mind that by doing so, you're also indicting Brian Waters' character as well.

Which is in direct contradiction to the award he just received.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:21 PM
I am not sure that I completely agree with this....Waters may have been counseled by his Agent not to speak on the matter.

But I will acknowledge that you could be right.

mmaddog
********

That agent would be Brian Waters.

To my knowledge, Waters has always acted as his own agent and contract negotiator.

penchief
02-14-2010, 04:22 PM
I can't speak for anyone but myself but at that time, I gave Pioli and Haley the benefit of the doubt.

Keep in mind, this was before free agency and the absolute abortion of a draft.

My perspective changed during the course of the past year and I most certainly addressed it.

How is any of what you just listed related in any way to the facts pertaining to Waters meeting with Haley? How would those things change or otherwise have any bearing on what actually happened?

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:22 PM
I think that if the events of that day didn't unfold as Whitlock has described on multiple occasions, I think that Waters would do his best to rectify this issue in the media, which to date, he has not.

Based on this award, I don't believe that Waters is the type of guy that could live with a lie or a guilty conscience.

That's an asumption based on his reputation.

But it is still simply an assumption.

Me, I assume he was butt hurt enough by the meeting that he doesn't care how Haley/Pioli have been colored by the incident.

Mosbonian
02-14-2010, 04:23 PM
That agent would be Brian Waters.

To my knowledge, Waters has always acted as his own agent and contract negotiator.

Hmmmm.....then that makes me wonder even more.

mmaddog
********

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:24 PM
How is any of what you just listed related in any way to what the facts pertaining to Waters meeting with Haley? How would those things change or otherwise have any bearing on what actually happened?

Because over the course of the year, my trust and respect of Haley and Pioli diminished greatly.

Therefore, my perception of this incident changed as well.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:25 PM
That's fine.

But keep in mind that by doing so, you're also indicting Brian Waters' character as well.

Which is in direct contradiction to the award he just received.

DT won this same award, and he had some character flaws.

This award is simply to acknowledge charity work within the community.

It in no way reflects on any cahracter flaws.

Hog Farmer
02-14-2010, 04:25 PM
No shit, Sherlock. Nice use of the search function.

People here seem to think that I hated the hiring of Pioli and Haley from the moment it was announced, which is completely untrue.

I began to dislike them slowly. The Cassel/Vrabel trade, the abortion of the draft and pitiful free agency, not to mention the sudden firing of Chan Gailey 10 days before the season was to begin, all have contributed to my dislike of Pioli & Haley.

I do like the hiring of Weis quite a bit. Crennel, I'm "meh" on, only because I'm unfamiliar with what he really brings to a defense.

But Weis and Crennel are the first signs to me of heading in the right direction.

But if they once again **** up the draft...


Exactly This. I was elated when Carl/Herm were replaced with Pioli/Haley. But just as soon as I witnessed Haley berating his players I knew that would NOT work.

As the season went on it APPEARED that Haley had maybe realized what he was doing and it SEEMED to subside. I just think it was an overwhelming clusterfuck for haley and as the year went on he started getting a clue.

Cutting LJ was a gutsy yet positive move in my book. And getting Weis/Crennel hired may have been his plan all along, don't know but Both are GOOD moves I would think.

I think they'll have a much better draft this year with a season under their belt and knowing what they really need. But like Dane says ,if they fuck this draft up I'll be very discouraged.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:26 PM
That's an asumption based on his reputation.

But it is still simply an assumption.

Me, I assume he was butt hurt enough by the meeting that he doesn't care how Haley/Pioli have been colored by the incident.

I don't doubt it and don't blame him one bit.

But with that being said, I have a hard time believing that Waters character would allow him to look the other way each and every time this is brought up by Whitlock in the city paper.

I could be very wrong but I think that if it were a fallacy, Waters would address it somehow.

penchief
02-14-2010, 04:26 PM
My opinion is simple:

1. Waters did no wrong by going to Arrowhead unannounced. He'd played for the Chiefs for a better part of a decade and was still under contract.

2. There was absolutely no reason for Todd Haley to be a prick. Pioli certainly wasn't required to address Waters but it would have be professional for him to state the obvious: "Brian we're very busy but I can assure you that your concerns will be addressed at some point in the future".

If Pioli and Haley had acted with even the least amount of professionalism possible, this would be a non-story.

How do you know they didn't try to politely brush him off? How do you know that Waters didn't make a nusiance of himself? Do you know for a fact that they didn't try to get rid of him politely but Waters wasn't as receptive to the idea as they would have hoped?

And before you say than I'm just speculating, so are you. Because you don't know a damned thing more than I do.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:28 PM
DT won this same award, and he had some character flaws.

This award is simply to acknowledge charity work within the community.

It in no way reflects on any cahracter flaws.

I know that DT had some "character flaws". I witnessed it firsthand.

But with that said, I never felt like he was a liar.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:30 PM
I don't doubt it and don't blame him one bit.

But with that being said, I have a hard time believing that Waters character would allow him to look the other way each and every time this is brought up by Whitlock in the city paper.

I could be very wrong but I think that if it were a fallacy, Waters would address it somehow.

Again, you are just making an assumption based on reputation, and the fact is, none of us know these guys to really know what kind of person/people they really are.

So you've formed an opinion based on two pieces of information provided by a man with an agenmda, and an assumption.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:31 PM
How do you know they didn't try to politely brush him off? How do you know that Waters didn't make a nusiance of himself? Do you know for a fact that they didn't try to get rid of him politely but Waters wasn't as receptive to the idea as they would have hoped?

And before you say than I'm just speculating, so are you. Because you don't know a damned thing more than I do.

Do you think that he's a man of such low character and hatred that he'd allow Whitlock to continually spin this version of the events if untrue?

Don't you think that if Waters was lying or exaggerating, that would go against the award he just won?

It's simple logic.

Hog Farmer
02-14-2010, 04:32 PM
How do you know they didn't try to politely brush him off? How do you know that Waters didn't make a nusiance of himself? Do you know for a fact that they didn't try to get rid of him politely but Waters wasn't as receptive to the idea as they would have hoped?

And before you say than I'm just speculating, so are you. Because you don't know a damned thing more than I do.


Umm..... I've never seen Waters acting up on the sideline. Haley on the other hand has been seen cussing his players on national television to the point that he should fear for his life.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:34 PM
Again, you are just making an assumption based on reputation, and the fact is, none of us know these guys to really know what kind of person/people they really are.

So you've formed an opinion based on two pieces of information provided by a man with an agenmda, and an assumption.

What I can tell you is that if someone was repeated telling a story in the city newspaper about me that was untrue, I'd go on record to correct that fallacy.

So you're right: I assume that Brian Waters is a high character guy and would relay the correct story if it were untrue.

And to date, I've never seen, read or heard anything that indicates that Waters is nothing less than a high character guy.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:35 PM
I know that DT had some "character flaws". I witnessed it firsthand.

But with that said, I never felt like he was a liar.

My point is, this award in no way diminishes the fact that these guys do have character flaws, and we have no way of knowing what Waters' flaw/s is/are.

PunkinDrublic
02-14-2010, 04:37 PM
He delayed writing this column for fear how it might be misconstrued? Ha ha ha. What a crock of shit and now I've heard it all from Whitlock. To my knowlege Whitlock is the only member of the media that still brings up the incident. Whitlock didn't delay shit, Waters won the award a week ago. Whitlock used a positive thing like this award to continue his tired agenda. I'm not saying Haley and Pioli didn't act unproffessionally but it's been a year turn the fucking page. It's one thing if Waters has been demanding a trade this offseason but we haven't heard a peep from him. As far as I'm concerned the incident is Waters under the bridge.
Posted via Mobile Device

penchief
02-14-2010, 04:38 PM
That's fine.

But keep in mind that by doing so, you're also indicting Brian Waters' character as well.

Which is in direct contradiction to the award he just received.

If it means taking a more even handed or objective approach to the matter, then so be it. You don't seem to have a problem indicting Haley or Pioli for something that has not been proven to be true.

The award he received has nothing to do with whether or not he might have been disrespectful towards Haley. Or whether or not he should have been more considerate about the manner in which he aired his concerns. Or whether or not he was right to take his grievance public, thereby, feeding Whitlock something to fuel his shit-stirring.

There is a lot about this entire episode from start to finish that many people could say does not reflect well on Waters. That said, none of it would have any bearing on the award he just got because those are internal matters not considered part of the criteria for being chosen to receive such an award.

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 04:39 PM
And to date, I've never seen, read or heard anything that indicates that Waters is nothing less than a high character guy.

The only thing that comes to mind is that he did no-show his own charity event, which occurred amidst all the "22 guys off the street" drama.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:39 PM
What I can tell you is that if someone was repeated telling a story in the city newspaper about me that was untrue, I'd go on record to correct that fallacy.

So you're right: I assume that Brian Waters is a high character guy and would relay the correct story if it were untrue.

And to date, I've never seen, read or heard anything that indicates that Waters is nothing less than a high character guy.

I don't know Brian Waters.

I know I don't like the decisions and direction that Haley/Pioli have made and taken this team.

But I'm not going to villify them for an incident that took place more than a year ago with nothing more than we have to go on.

You want to bash them for their personnel decisions.
Go ahead, I'm right there with you.

But I'm not going to make more out this than it is.
It's nothing.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 04:39 PM
The award he received has nothing to do with whether or not he might have been disrespectful towards Haley. Or whether or not he should have been more considerate about the manner in which he aired his concerns. Or whether or not he was right to take his grievance public, thereby, feeding Whitlock something to fuel his shit-stirring.

There is a lot about this entire episode from start to finish that many people could say does not reflect well on Waters. That said, none of it would have any bearing on the award he just got because those are internal matters not considered part of the criteria for being chosen to receive such an award.

You can believe whatever you want.

Personally, I have a very hard time believing that Brian Waters is a lying dickhead.

As a matter of fact, I don't.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:45 PM
You can believe whatever you want.

Personally, I have a very hard time believing that Brian Waters is a lying dickhead.

As a matter of fact, I don't.

He may not be a lying dickhead.

He may have been butt hurt by the incident and chose not to say anymore about it.

And now enough time has passed that it's a non issue to him and the FO.

milkman
02-14-2010, 04:48 PM
Fact is, it is a non issue.

We are making far more out of it than it is.

Hell, I could see Haley and Waters sitting and reading this crap and having a good laugh over it.

penchief
02-14-2010, 04:56 PM
Do you think that he's a man of such low character and hatred that he'd allow Whitlock to continually spin this version of the events if untrue?

Don't you think that if Waters was lying or exaggerating, that would go against the award he just won?

It's simple logic.

I don't know. I actually typed a paragraph asking that same question but I thought it might bring a few more personal attacks my way so I deleted it.

But my thinking on that question can go both ways. If he's still butthurt but playing the good soldier it's quite possible that he's letting Whitlock do his dirty work.

That said, does Haley's "22 guys" comment really justify the year-long campaign by Whitlock to smear Haley's and Pioli's character publicly? There almost has to be more to it than that.

What does it say about Waters if he was okay with Whitlock's attacks knowing that it turned into a year-long soap opera over that single comment? And if Waters is still butthurt why isn't he man enough to come out and state exactly what did happen instead of using Whitlock to do his dirty work?

On the other hand, if Waters wasn't the saint that Whitlock made him out to be and he did in fact have his own contentious moment during their meeting, I'd say that it doesn't say much at all about Waters.

But I think it mostly comes down to the fact that both Waters and Haley have put this behind them. I wish Whitlock would.

Either way, I think it's fair to ask why Waters would let Whitlock drag these attacks out over such a long period of time knowing that it started with him and has become a year-long distraction without ever making a clarifying statement one way or the other. At some point whether he liked Haley or not you'd think he'd come to the defense of his coach if the "22 off the street" comment was all there was to it.

penchief
02-14-2010, 05:08 PM
You can believe whatever you want.

Personally, I have a very hard time believing that Brian Waters is a lying dickhead.

As a matter of fact, I don't.

Yet he's the one that took what should have been a private matter public. And amidst all the personal attacks that Haley and Pioli have had to endure over the "22 guys" comment, they have never once betrayed the confidentiality of such meetings in order to defend themselves.

One could easily make a case that the person who went crying to Whitlock in order to publicly cast aspersions on the other party was the one behaving with less integrity. And if that were the case how can it automatically be assumed that such a person's story is completely truthful?

penchief
02-14-2010, 05:12 PM
He may not be a lying dickhead.

He may have been butt hurt by the incident and chose not to say anymore about it.

And now enough time has passed that it's a non issue to him and the FO.

I actually believe that this is the most likely scenario.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 05:20 PM
Yet he's the one that took what should have been a private matter public. And amidst all the personal attacks that Haley and Pioli have had to endure over the "22 guys" comment, they have never once betrayed the confidentiality of such meetings in order to defend themselves.

Why would they want confirmation of such unprofessional acts to go public?

One could easily make a case that the person who went crying to Whitlock in order to publicly cast aspersions on the other party was the one behaving with less integrity. And if that were the case how can it automatically be assumed that such a person's story is completely truthful?

You seem to go to great lengths in an effort to discredit both Whitlock and Waters.

Yet you want to accuse both of having agendas?

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 05:23 PM
The bottom line is this:

1. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is true.
2. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is false.

People that dislike Whitlock believe it's false. People who dislike Waters for being a "cry-baby" believe it's false.

To those that believe it's false, the burden is yours to prove otherwise because none of the parties involved have commented beyond the initial story.

penchief
02-14-2010, 05:26 PM
Why would they want confirmation of such unprofessional acts to go public?



You seem to go to great lengths in an effort to discredit both Whitlock and Waters.

Yet you want to accuse both of having agendas?

Not at all. There are two sides to every story. Something you seem to overlook.

I don't necessarily think Waters has an agenda. I don't think there's any doubt that Whitlock does.

milkman
02-14-2010, 05:28 PM
The bottom line is this:

1. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is true.
2. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is false.

People that dislike Whitlock believe it's false. People who dislike Waters for being a "cry-baby" believe it's false.

To those that believe it's false, the burden is yours to prove otherwise because none of the parties involved have commented beyond the initial story.

No.

The bottom line is that nothing is that black and white.

The version of the stroy that Whitlock tells is not false.
He's still in the newspaper business and is obligated to report facts.

However, he is not obligated to report every fact.
He can leave details out and not face any consequences.

The one thing that Pioli and Haley have been consistent on is keeping all issues in house.

Again, I don't doubt what Whitlock reports.
I only doubt that he reported the whole story.

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 05:32 PM
No.

The bottom line is that nothing is that black and white.

The version of the stroy that Whitlock tells is not false.
He's still in the newspaper business and is obligated to report facts.

However, he is not obligated to report every fact.
He can leave details out and not face any consequences.

The one thing that Pioli and Haley have been consistent on is keeping all issues in house.

Again, I don't doubt what Whitlock reports.
I only doubt that he reported the whole story.

While you're right about the rhetorical construction of Whitlock's text, as a journalist (and yes, certain posters, a columnist is still a journalist) he has to be intellectually honest in his depiction of the event. In other words, any omissions cannot alter the context.

penchief
02-14-2010, 05:34 PM
The bottom line is this:

1. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is true.
2. Waters version of the story as told to Whitlock is false.

People that dislike Whitlock believe it's false. People who dislike Waters for being a "cry-baby" believe it's false.

To those that believe it's false, the burden is yours to prove otherwise because none of the parties involved have commented beyond the initial story.

I don't believe it's that simple. Waters version of the story is just that. It's his version told to Whitlock to justify Waters position. It's a half-truth. Until you hear the other side of the story that is all it will ever be. It is human nature to tell your side of the story in a way that justifies your feelings.

People who have good reason to distrust Whitlock's motives should recognize that Whitlock is using Waters version of the story for his own agenda. Therefore, Whitlock's claims against Pioli and Haley based on Waters half-truths should not be accepted as gospel and not used to cast aspersions without knowing the other half of the story.

milkman
02-14-2010, 05:37 PM
While you're right about the rhetorical construction of Whitlock's text, as a journalist (and yes, certain posters, a columnist is still a journalist) he has to be intellectually honest in his depiction of the event. In other words, any omissions cannot alter the context.

And the fact is that Haley made the comment.

Was he an asshole for making that comment?

Yes.

But, again, we don't know what eacly lead to that comment, and in the end, it really doesn't matter, except how we perceive Waters.

Haley has proven more than once that he's an asshole, before and after this incident.

So, in the end, nothing was altered.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't believe it's that simple. Waters version of the story is just that. It's his version told to Whitlock to justify Waters position. It's a half-truth. Until you hear the other side of the story that is all it will ever be. It is human nature to tell your side of the story in a way that justifies your feelings.

People who have good reason to distrust Whitlock's motives should recognize that Whitlock is using Waters version of the story for his own agenda. Therefore, Whitlock's claims against Pioli and Haley based on Waters half-truths should not be accepted as gospel and not used to cast aspersions without knowing the other half of the story.

You automatically assume it is a half truth without any inkling of first hand knowledge and then condemn other people for taking Whitlocks story like the gospel. Even though I don't know who exactly is taking Whitlocks story as the gospel because literally nobody has come out and positioned themselves like that.

Basically, you are creating a strawman and looking like a hypocrite in the process.

Congratulations for getting knocked around like an idiot in the main forum. It used to just be a DC thing.

DeezNutz
02-14-2010, 05:41 PM
So, in the end, nothing was altered.

Agreed.

milkman
02-14-2010, 05:45 PM
The fact is, Waters has gone from being viewed as a dumbass for showing up and looking for a meeting a year ago, to now being seen as a victim now, and not a single fact has changed in that year.

penchief
02-14-2010, 05:46 PM
You automatically assume it is a half truth without any inkling of first hand knowledge and then cast other people for taking Whitlocks story (I don't know who exactly because literally nobody has come out and positioned themselves like that)

Basically, you are creating a strawman and looking like a hypocrite in the process.

Congratulations for getting knocked around like an idiot in the main forum. It used to just be a DC thing.

It's a half truth because it's only half the story. If Waters behaved badly he is not going to admit it. And even if he did Whitlock wasn't going to print it.

Everything that Waters said to Whitlock is probably true. But it was most likley told in a context that represented only Waters side of the story. Until you know the other side of the story it will only ever be a half-truth. Not that it's a lie but that there is another side to the story which may also be true.

By the way, I'm not the one that believe's Waters story without knowing the entire story. Also, I don't see you taking pot shots at Milkman or Succapoo for making the same case I'm making.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 05:49 PM
It's a half truth because it's only half the story. If Waters behaved badly he is not going to admit it. And even if he did Whitlock wasn't going to print it.

Everything that Waters said to Whitlock is probably true. But it was most likley told in a context that represented only Waters side of the story. Until you know the othe side of the story it will only ever be a half-truth. Not that it's a lie but that there is another side to the story which may also be true.

One person can absolutely truthfully relay the information shared between two people.

You are assuming all these things without a shred of evidence.

And you still wonder why I am laughing at you for being the fiction writer that you are. You are just sitting here in this thread making shit up.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 05:52 PM
Penchief, you don't have anything to do with our courts or justice system do you?

You would be mentally ill equipped to critically think through any of it. I am just going to assume for the sake of our system you are in a totally different industry like writing fairly tales or something.

Extra Point
02-14-2010, 05:54 PM
Whitless did what he does best: stirs a 2-1/2 gallon pot with a 9 HP boat motor.

Waters did and does the right things: he works things out.

milkman
02-14-2010, 05:58 PM
One person can absolutely truthfully relay the information shared between two people.

You are assuming all these things without a shred of evidence.

And you still wonder why I am laughing at you for being the fiction writer that you are. You are just sitting here in this thread making shit up.

While true that one person can absolutely relay information shared between two people, the likelyhood that they will when they feel slighted or insulted is fairly low.

While Waters probably did relay it honestly as he could, his perception of that meeting would be clouded by his hurt feelings.

BigRock
02-14-2010, 05:59 PM
I can't speak for anyone but myself but at that time, I gave Pioli and Haley the benefit of the doubt.

Keep in mind, this was before free agency and the absolute abortion of a draft.

Personally, I don't see one issue having absolutely anything to do with the other.

But fair enough.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:00 PM
One person can absolutely truthfully relay the information shared between two people.

You are assuming all these things without a shred of evidence.

And you still wonder why I am laughing at you for being the fiction writer that you are. You just sitting here in this thread making shit up.

I'm not doing any more assuming than those who don't know what happened up until the point that Haley made the "22 guys" comment. You want to take the word of the guy who ran to the media about a rude but otherwise harmless comment. Yet you have no idea what preceded the comment.

All I'm doing is pointing out that there are two sides to the story and condemning Haley over that comment without knowing the rest of the story is unfair. I don't know why that is such a difficult concept for you to understand.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:01 PM
I'm not doing any more assuming than those who don't know what happened up until the point that Haley made the "22 guys" comment. You want to take the word of the guy who ran to the media about a rude but otherwise harmless comment. Yet you have no idea what preceded the comment.

All I'm doing is pointing out that there are two sides to the story and condemning Haley over that comment without knowing the rest of the story is unfair. I don't know why that is such a difficult concept for you to understand.

You absolutely have not been doing that.

You could have done that EASILY by saying that.

Not by...

1) Assuming Waters and or Whitlock is not being truthful and condemning those who are not making the same assumptions.

2) Making up bullshit and trying to act like it is as truthful as someone who was actually connected to the situation.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:04 PM
Penchief, you don't have anything to do with our courts or justice system do you?

You would be mentally ill equipped to critically think through any of it. I am just going to assume for the sake of our system you are in a totally different industry like writing fairly tales or something.

Why are you insulting me instead of addressing my point? Which is that there are two sides to this story. And it is unfair to condemn one side when you are only hearing the other side's story. I don't understand why you can't understand such a simple concept or why you are trying to make it into something its not.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:07 PM
Why are you insulting me instead of addressing my point? Which is that there are two sides to this story. And it is unfair to condemn one side when you are only hearing the other side's story. I don't understand why you can't understand such a simple concept or why you are trying to make it into something its not.

I haven't been condemning anyone associated with the story. Who was I condemning based on one side of the story?

jettio
02-14-2010, 06:08 PM
I was impressed with a play that Waters made at Oakland where he showed tremendous effort to recover an important fumble late in the game.

I think Waters and Haley have mended any dispute they may have had.

Haley seems like a guy that learns from his mistakes and if he made a mistake in how he treated Waters way back when, he probably has figured that out.

If not, we will see.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:14 PM
You absolutely have not been doing that.

You could have done that EASILY by saying that.

Not by...

1) Assuming Waters and or Whitlock is not being truthful and condemning those who are not making the same assumptions.

2) Making up bullshit and trying to act like it is as truthful as someone who was actually connected to the situation.

1) I presented scenarios to counter the claims that Waters is completely innocent in this matter and Haley completely at fault. I asked a lot of "what if questions" and I pointed out that some of the things Waters did could be perceived as reflecting poorly on him. None of which were stated as fact but which could easily be true.

I did all this to point out that there is more to this story than just what Waters relayed to Whitlock and that which Whitlock chose to print. I'm sorry that you can't see that for what it was. Much of it was laced with opinion but none of it was presented as the truth.

2) I don't recall condemning anyone. All I was doing was defending Pioli and Haley from what I felt was an unfair condmenation based on one person's side of the story and another person's agenda. In fact, I have had to endure one condemnation after another from you during this entire thread. You have spent more time insulting me than you have trying to understand what my point has been.

I don't think anyone arguing the same point I have been arguing has had a hard time understanding what I've been saying. I think you just had it in your mind that I deserved your contempt.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:24 PM
1) I presented scenarios to counter the claims that Waters is completely innocent in this matter and Haley completely at fault. I asked a lot of "what if questions" and I pointed out that some of the things Waters did could be perceived as reflecting poorly on him. None of which were stated as fact but which could easily be true.

I did all this to point out that there is more to this story than just what Waters relayed to Whitlock and that which Whitlock chose to print. I'm sorry that you can't see that for what it was. Much of it was laced with opinion but none of it was presented as the truth.

Yes you used "what if" statements by saying things like... "we can all assume"

You didn't come across that way at all. You are just back peddling.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6531344#post6531344

2) I don't recall condemning anyone. All I was doing was defending Pioli and Haley from what I felt was an unfair condmenation based on one person's side of the story and another person's agenda. In fact, I have had to endure one condemnation after another from you during this entire thread. You have spent more time insulting me than you have trying to understand what my point has been.

I don't think anyone arguing the same point I have been arguing has had a hard time understanding what I've been saying. I think you just had it in your mind that I deserved your contempt.
You were condemning me and others for not going along with assuming things that you had no evidence of. You are still doing it...

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:26 PM
I haven't been condemning anyone associated with the story. Who was I condemning based on one side of the story?

My position has been to defend Haley and Pioli from the condemnations that have resulted from this incident based on the fact that the whole story is not known. Considering that, I believe that giving them the benefit of the doubt is the proper thing to do.

You seem to taken offense to my pointing out that Waters may not have been the saint he was made out to be by Whitlock. You have attacked me personally from the very start over that position. I can only assume that you disagreed with that position.

Reerun_KC
02-14-2010, 06:34 PM
The saddest part?

Why are you guys still discussing to this extent something that was a wasnt even news worth a year ago today..


This is sad and pathetic at the same time...

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:39 PM
My position has been to defend Haley and Pioli from the condemnations that have resulted from this incident based on the fact that the whole story is not known. Considering that, I believe that giving them the benefit of the doubt is the proper thing to do.

You seem to taken offense to my pointing out that Waters may not have been the saint he was made out to be by Whitlock. You have attacked me personally from the very start over that position. I can only assume that you disagreed with that position.

Thats a fun post but you didn't answer the question.

What "one side" did I condemn with this story.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:40 PM
Yes you used "what if" statements by saying things like... "we can all assume"

You didn't come across that way at all. You are just back peddling.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6531344#post6531344

You were condemning me and others for not going along with assuming things that you had no evidence of. You are still doing it...

No I wasn't. I was taking heat for even suggesting them. In return, I pointed out how illogical it was to not even consider the other side of the story. It seemed as far as you and others were concerned there was no other side of the story. Only that which we have been told by Whitlock. I disagreed with that premise and offered my opinions and the scenarios that I thought would be reasonable representations of the other half of the story.

That post you cited was one post in many in which I was responding directly to points that Dane was making. You will just as easily be able to pull up several posts where I am very clear about impressing the need to have both sides of the story before condemning one side. I realize I may have taken liberties and may have been a little hard on Waters at times but it was only to prove a point.

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:42 PM
No I wasn't. I was taking heat for even suggesting them. In return, I pointed out how illogical it was to not even consider the other side of the story..

That wasn't the other side of the story. What about "YOU MADE IT UP" do you not understand?

People would be open to the other side of the story. Not your made up story.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:47 PM
Thats a fun post but you didn't answer the question.

What "one side" did I condemn with this story.

You were attacking me personally for my position. I can only assume that you disagreed with my premise. I'll admit that I can be wordy at times and that I maybe could have been more concise. Which might have made it less confusing for you. But it still didn't justify taking pot shots at me every time you posted a response.

Because you did that it led me to believe that you did not agree with my premise that Haley and Pioli should not be condemned based on only Waters side of the story. So if you do agree with me I apologize for insinuatiing that you believed Whitlock's claims without having the other side of the story.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:48 PM
That wasn't the other side of the story. What about "YOU MADE IT UP" do you not understand?

People would be open to the other side of the story. Not your made up story.

What part did I make up?

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 06:48 PM
The fact is, Waters has gone from being viewed as a dumbass for showing up and looking for a meeting a year ago, to now being seen as a victim now, and not a single fact has changed in that year.

That's because to paraphrase Dennis Green "They aren't who we thought they were".

Meanwhile, Waters earns the NFL Man of the Year award and keeps his mouth shut all season.

You successfully proved Whitlock's point.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 06:49 PM
Personally, I don't see one issue having absolutely anything to do with the other.

But fair enough.

Because Temper Tantrum Todd and Scott "Let me first check with Bill Parcells" Pioli were not a proven commodity.

DaneMcCloud
02-14-2010, 06:52 PM
I don't believe it's that simple. Waters version of the story is just that. It's his version told to Whitlock to justify Waters position. It's a half-truth. Until you hear the other side of the story that is all it will ever be. It is human nature to tell your side of the story in a way that justifies your feelings.

No offense to you personally but this is sheer lunacy.

If Milkman and I go out for a drink to discuss the Chiefs and I later report our conversation verbatim, but Milkman neither confirms, denies or acknowledges the content of our conversation, how in the world can that be construed as a "half-truth"?

I think you need to consult a dictionary because your definition is way off base.

penchief
02-14-2010, 06:52 PM
That's because to paraphrase Dennis Green "They aren't who we thought they were".

Meanwhile, Waters earns the NFL Man of the Year award and keeps his mouth shut all season.

You successfully proved Whitlock's point.

Waters winning the Man of the Year Award means that there isn't more to the story than what we have been told by Whitlock?