View Full Version : The real Carl Peterson?
08-26-2000, 10:12 PM
Interesting piece put forward today by Posnanski. Good read, for Carl supporters and haters alike. Overall about 12-14 new Chiefs stories ou today in the 2000 preview. Good stuff:
"You know how there are people who say that Carl just hired me so he can control me or whatever....That's a load of garbage. I don't even want to get into all that. But, you know what the funny part is? Carl isn't like that at all. We talk all the time, but he doesn't tell me how to coach. I've worked for people who get in the way, believe me. Carl's not like that. I mean this: He's the perfect boss."
There is one part of the image that visibly upsets Peterson. That's the part where people say he doesn't want to win. It's funny, many of the same people who think he's psycho-competitive in the negotiating room think he's content when the Chiefs fall short of the Super Bowl.
That does get to him.
"Sure, I've heard it," he said. "People say, `He just wants to fill the stadium and put money in Lamar Hunt's pocket.' Well, I do want to fill the stadium. And I do have a responsibility to our owner, and I take that very seriously.
"But we're here to win. Every game. Every season. Anyone who doubts that doesn't know anything about Lamar Hunt or Carl Peterson."
Those statements were made frequently by posters and they seem even more ridiculous now. I was also disappointed when we didn't get Dillon, but I didn't blame Carl. i like the last part: "We've spoiled people," Peterson said. "But you know, I don't consider that a bad thing. I don't want fans who are content. I want fans who want to win the Super Bowl, because that's what I want." I made that statement a while ago, that we were spoiled. So many people complain about us not winning the Super Bowl, and so many people hold him to that 5 year promise like he betrayed us all. How many GMs make that statement? How many teams actually get to the Super Bowl. Come on people, cut him some slack. <P>
08-26-2000, 10:44 PM
I agree G....I can't stand that "fill the seats" whine. <P>
08-26-2000, 10:49 PM
My favorite part:
So you think you can be a general manager: Many people, including yours truly, thought the Chiefs should have traded for Cincinnati Bengals running back Corey Dillon. It was the hot topic on talk radio, the sizzle on the Internet. One fair knock on Peterson is that he has not yet brought in a gifted young quarterback or running back or wide receiver to Kansas City.
"Carl Peterson," the general consensus was after the Chiefs failed to get Dillon, "just doesn't know what he's doing."
Now it can be told.
"I called (Bengals GM) Mike Brown," Peterson said. "He told me, `I will not trade Dillon.' I started to say something and he said: `Listen to me: I will not trade him. I don't care what you offer me. I don't care if you offer a No. 1 pick, or two No. 1 picks or 10 No. 1 picks. I'm not trading him.'
"So, now what do all those super-smart general managers do?" <P>
08-26-2000, 11:44 PM
Great article by Joe!
It is amazing to me how many people permit themselves to be manipulatd by the media.
When you objectively look at what Carl has done for this team and this city you want to say, "thank you."
08-27-2000, 08:26 AM
Good article. Carl did a very good job of turning our team from a loser into a winner, but our progress stalled 5 years ago.
I've asked this question to Peterson backers several times, but have never gotten a response; what would it take for you to want to get rid of Carl? Miss the playoffs this year? Miss the playoffs this year and next year? Never, as long as we win 6+ games a season?
08-27-2000, 09:02 AM
I can only speak for myself, but the reason I've never responded to that question is that it makes no sense to me.
Imperfection admitted, Carl has done a great job here. He built us to a level where we had a shot every year to contend for the championship. I don't blame the fluke of the '95 playoff loss to the Colts on Carl, nor do I blame the coaching of the '97 playoff loss on Carl.
As our window of being amongst the elite started to pass us by, he has done a great job of bringing in the right FA players to keep us competitive at that level. As recently as 98, I thought we had a real shot at the Super Bowl.
We're in a period right now where we obviously need to do some retooling. We're seeing it in a new coach, a movement towards youth, and legitimate attempts to secure young star caliber offensive performers (don't think the Dillon issue won't arise again next year when he's a FA). We're doing all this while still remaining competitive.
Why in the world would we want to replace Carl when we're going through a retooling that his skills are critical in? It doesn't make any sense.
08-27-2000, 09:03 AM
Also, if you believe that Lamar really wants a Super Bowl (and I do ~ I think it is silly not to), don't you think he can afford to hire just about anyone he wants? If my personal observations aren't enough, Lamar's enthusiastic endorsement confirms my belief about Carl's ability to lead us and would give pause to any doubts that I might have.
Replace Carl? It doesn't make any sense.
You see, to me (don't take this personally) your question shows a huge naivete that would require a lot of education, and if you can't see that he's done (and is doing) a great job, then I don't know if I've got the ability (or the time) to educate you.
nothing personal, just the way i see it...<BR>
08-27-2000, 09:46 AM
re: # 4
Carl didn't have to trade for Dillon.
Dillon was a restricted free-agent. He could have signed Dillon to a contract that Cincy wouldn't match. And if Cincy did match it, so be it at least we would have known Carl tried. If he would have signed Dillon and Cincy didn't match, the Chiefs would have given up a 1st and 3rd round pick. In other words we would have finally had that premier RB. Instead we got a receiver who I like, [but no one to get him the ball] and a backup safety. I think it would have been worth giving up the 1st and 3rd personally.
Dillon behind the Chiefs line = 1,800 yards and 20 tds.<BR>
08-27-2000, 09:59 AM
Maybe (in retrospect), maybe not. I do believe that we would have had to pay MUCH more for him to avoid Cincy matching.
I assume it was a calculated risk to wait and work for the trade. I can't hold that against Carl; it was good strategy that just didn't work out.
we went for morris and corey...
[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 08-27-2000).]
08-27-2000, 10:25 AM
I disagree Luz.
IMO, it was terrible strategy. This franchise has needed a premier Runner for damn near it's entire existence. Peterson finally has a chance to get one for basically just a 3rd round pick [Dillon would have been our first round pick] and what does he do? He waits because he thinks he can nickel and dime the Bengals into giving him up for nothing. Now come on, we've needed that RB for 25+ years, why take that chance?
Instead of getting Dillon who would have literally put up Hall of Fame type numbers behind our O-line and our philosophy of running the ball, we get a WR who will probably only get about 40 balls this year and a backup safety.
There's really no spinning it otherwise.<BR>
08-27-2000, 10:33 AM
Spin is what you're practicing. Draft picks and $$Millions are hardly 'nickles and dimes' (especially with the cap to think about).
Mike Brown is crazy. Period. Any GM with a true interest in seeing his team win would have entertained negotiations. They are going to lose big time next year when Dillon is a FA.
At best, you are correct in your criticizm of Carl only because he couldn't predict the actions of a mad man.
Seriously Cannibal, caponomics are terribly complicated and the difference (benefit for us) in waiting and trading was huge. It was a calculated risk that didn't pan out.
i'm frustrated too, but i don't blame carl for this one...
08-27-2000, 10:43 AM
The FACT is that Peterson didn't even try to offer Dillon a contract while he was a restricted free agent.
The Bungles wouldn't have even been involved in that aspect. There wouldn't have been any negotiating w/ Mike Brown. All he had to do was offer Dillon a contract. The Bengals were strapped for cash against the cap. And even if they did somehow match it [by cutting a boat load veterans], so be it, at least we would have made an effort. We could've had him for a first and third round pick. But that backup safety was just too important to Carl.
It was a mistake on the part of your king Carl Peterson. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/frown.gif
Spin away [as usual].
08-27-2000, 10:57 AM
Don't you get it? If we would have offered a contract to Corey, and if Mike Brown matched it (which he repeatedly said that he would), we would have lost any chance of Corey not only this year, but forever!
This was not a blundering error by Carl. It was a calculated risk, but a good risk. Yes, I'm upset at the way it turned out, but NO ONE that is close to football thinks this was idiotic (present company excepted, of course).
can you believe that there are things that happen, considerations, and evaluations that you are not privey to (or you maybe haven't thought to consider them)?...
08-27-2000, 11:04 AM
Do you really think they'll be going after Dillon next year when we'll be 40 million over the cap?!? They'll be lucky to keep many of the veterans that are on the team now.
You really are the king of the spin job. Move over James Carville and Carl Peterson there's a new spin doctor in town and his name is Bill Luznicky! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/redface.gif
08-27-2000, 11:14 AM
You accuse me of spin and then you double speak.
You argue that Carl should have gone after Dillon and offered him a contract that Cincy couldn't/wouldn't match (and forget about the cap consequences)...
...and now you say that the cap problem is what will keep us from being a better team?
This is not spin Jeff, these are facts. There are reasons we didn't offer Corey a contract ~ you don't like those reasons ~ but there were reasons.
Yes, barring unforseen circumstances (like TRich or Cloud going to the Pro Bowl) I expect for Carl to go after Dillon or any other Pro Bowl caliber RB next year. The cap problems will be resolved.
You see, Cannibal, if your carefull with the cap (and don't go after ANY player regardless of the cap impact) you can always maneuver and make room for a great player.
spin is blaming everything in life on carl... sheesh!...
08-27-2000, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>You argue that Carl should have gone after Dillon and offered him a contract that Cincy couldn't/wouldn't match (and forget about the cap consequences)...
...and now you say that the cap problem is what will keep us from being a better team?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This year we had the cap room. Next year we wonít. So if we were going to get Dillon, we should have done it this offseason.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>This is not spin Jeff, these are facts. There are reasons we didn't offer Corey a contract ~ you don't like those reasons ~ but there were reasons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only reason we didnít offer the contract is because Peterson didnít want to give up a first and third. I have already explained the idiocy in regards to that decision.<BR>
08-27-2000, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Yes, barring unforseen circumstances (like TRich or Cloud going to the Pro Bowl) I expect for Carl to go after Dillon or any other Pro Bowl caliber RB next year. The cap problems will be resolved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would expect Peterson to go after a probowl skill player? Heís never done it before. What makes you think heís gonna start now? Trich is a fullback. They are going to use him as a fullback. So whether or not he makes the probowl holds no relevance to this argument. And Cloud making the probowl is a complete joke. He canít even manage 4 yards per carry in the preseason. As far as the cap problems, they will not be relsolved. They will be put off for another year like always. Thatís what all great teams who are trying to win now i.e. the 9ers and Cowboys. The problem is, we donít have superbowl trophy to show for our cap manipulation which is yet another indictment to Petersonís ability to be the GM. Most teams that are 40 million over the cap have some probowl quality playmakers at the skill positionsÖ WE DONíT.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>You see, Cannibal, if your carefull with the cap (and don't go after ANY player regardless of the cap impact) you can always maneuver and make room for a great player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First you say Carl didnít sign Dillon while he was a restricted free-agent because there wouldíve been cap ramifications, now you say we can always make room for a great player by maneuvering the cap.
You can continue to dream if you wish, but under Carl, we will not see any great Offensive players. He doesnít have the ability to draft them and he wonít spend the money in free agency to sign them. Put your head back in the sand Luz and everything will be all right.<BR>
08-27-2000, 12:41 PM
Luz, In regard to your post #5; On this topic I'm not sure that you would know objectivity if it reached out and bit you on the @SS! Peterson has done NOTHING for the city of KC. NOW, another topic, in regard to what he has done for the Chiefs, frankly his entrance into KC came at exactly the same time as a popularity boom for the NFL.It also came at a time where due to revenue sharing and the cap any team had a chance to build a winner against any other in a very short time. Damm Luz, there have been dynasties built and then have fallen in the same time that "The King" has been given to simply get a team to the SB!
There you go Deni.....err ah Luz. Squiggle it any way you want. Then have a good time watching a team feed on the bottom because of Petersons idiocy.
08-27-2000, 01:22 PM
You can make accusations all you want, but you can't change the facts. And to accuse me of squiggling is unworthy of you Kurt ~ I've been consistent in everything I've said. If you're going to call for the head of one of the top three GMs in the 90s, then it is encumbant upon you to show clear reasons why. I've simply pointed out that your reasoning is not clear.
I am fond of both of you, but you talk with an arrogance that is amusing. To pretend that you are privey to all of the ends and outs of any specific negotiation, to arrogantly assume that you understand all the ramifications of the cap process (when others spend careers trying to be good at it), to have the gall to without hesitation or qualification think that you know better who should be our GM than Lamar...
It seems to be in your personalities to attack. I don't see you asking questions about what you don't understand. I see you attacking. Do you really think that you know everything there is to know about the situation (and if you don't, then why are you attacking?).
I will trade concerns and information with you anytime. But to call for the job of one of the winningest GMs in the 90s is absurd.
as to claiming that the chiefs resurgance is due not due to carl's efforts ~ are you serious?...
08-27-2000, 01:34 PM
Don't take this personally, but I see your arrogance followed you to this board. It's nice to see that some things don't change.
Perhaps if you read my post carefully you would note that I said Peterson did a very good job at turning this franchise around. I am not bashing Carl for the sake of it. The team has been declining the last several years, that is a fact.
Carl has said many times that he will not take a step backwards to go two steps forward. Carl's own words are contrary to your assertion that the Chiefs are "retooling". KC doesn't rebuild, it plugs holes and overpays. Therein lies the problem.
If you can't see that, then I don't know if I've got the ability (or the time) to educate you.
08-27-2000, 01:44 PM
Not to get picky with you, but retooling is not the same as rebuilding (I purposely used a different word here). I have always maintained that rebuilding is an excuse that loosing coaches use after a dismal season.
When I say retooling, I'm talking about the movement to orderly replacement of some of our aging (and key) personnel.
I may be wrong, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that what you, and some vocal others, want is for us to give up on trying to win for a couple of years, play all of the youth, and use the higher draft picks to get more youth.
Am I right?
btw, you have the advantage on me, what was your moniker on the other bb?...
08-27-2000, 02:21 PM
Luz-I see, Disagreeing with you is now considered an attack, hmmm, I didn't say a word when you mentioned the other night something to the affect that Survivor was for people with an 8 yr olds mentality. Now, although it was not a personal attack, I happen to watch ONE, I repeat ONE, TV show during the course of the week, that was it. I did think after reading the post; what an arrogant statement. (I happen to think that FFL is a waste of time but I sure don't slam on those who use it for enjoyment or release.)
I've drifted from the topic here, just want you to know that you pulled my string with the "attack" comment. I value your friendship as well, I will send you a list of reasons privately as to why I think "The King" is NOT one of the best GM's in the NFL.
Others just have faith in the man.
"We've spoiled people," Peterson said. "But you know, I don't consider that a bad thing. I don't want fans who are content. I want fans who want to win the Super Bowl, because that's what I want."
Best Line in the whole article. Guess we are spoiled and Carl is a victim of his own sucess, but I wouldn't want the alternitive :the 80's all over
Post #13 is way off. At this point in time the Bengals had WAY more cap space than we did. You're probably thinking of the recent when the Bengals used their space to sign more FAs and lock up veteran players with their excess cap room, leaving little for Dillon in the process. At the time when he was a restricted FA (before the draft) they could have easily given him 5+ million a year and still have room to sign more players. They would not have had to cut a boatload of veterans, we would have.
08-27-2000, 03:12 PM
I didn't say you were attacking me; you're attacking Carl, et al...
Also, I said that Survivor is aimed at an 8th grade mentality (as is much network TV). Perhaps I should have been clearer. The point is that the producers know that if they make it much more complicated than what an 8th grader can understand/enjoy, then it will attract far less viewers.
This is common knowledge in broadcasting and advertising and I didn't realize that some would take my comments wrong. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/eek.gif
Kurt, I value your frienship also, but you are attacking my team when you call for Carl's head. You have the right to do that, but don't be surprised if people like myself want you to have very, very good reasons (and point out things in your reasoning that don't hold water). That doesn't make me an apologist, or a spinster, or a squiggler; just a fan that doesn't at all agree with your attacks.
knowing we agree on more than we disagree...
08-27-2000, 03:19 PM
We were 20 million over the cap before this offseason. That's nothing new. Next year ~ 15 million of that amount that we're over the cap is from Elvis' contract ($10 million roster bonus, $5 million base salary) so if he has a good year, he gets a new contract and that hit disappears, if he has a bad year, he gets cut, and a lot of that money never gets paid. McGlockton and Williams are the other big cap guys, and Williams will probably be a June 1 casualty.
I think it would have been very easy for Brown to match any contract since they had so much room to work with. The Chiefs do not, and if you recall the reason initial attempts to sign him as a restricted free agent failed was because they could not agree to a contract that would be hard for the Bengals to match but not lethal for the Chiefs, because the Chiefs were the ones with cap limitations and the Bengals were not.
Wolf - Exactly. The Bengals weren't "strapped for cash against the cap" and they aren't next year either. They had WAY more room to work with and could have EASILY matched ANY amount we gave him. We would have found it hard next year adding Dillon's big salary to our cap being 41 million dollars over already, but the Bengals are 18 MILLION UNDER next year. They were much better set up to offer a contract, long term or short term.
08-27-2000, 05:11 PM
A number of you King Carl apologist are making a very valid point in your arguments in support of him. It is simple, you are talking about a team that is .500 at best over the last two seasons with little prospects of drastic improvement this year. Now, you also state that this team has cap challenges that prevent them from obtaining impact players at key positions. BOTH of these assesments are correct.
Now for the obvious part. .500 teams with average talent at so many key positions should NEVER be cap challenged. If they are, this is a reflection upon the general manager, (The King.) He has made countless errors in evaluating talent and structuring contracts to arrive at this point. Luz-I fail to understand how you could asses this any other way. (This is not to mention costly errors prior to the last two years that cost the team an opportunity to play for The Ring.)
Kurt - IMO, this is a pretty good team on paper (with the exception of HB and QB). Paper translates to the field by coaching. i believe that is where our biggest problem lies.
08-27-2000, 05:23 PM
G-You are right...on paper. However strange it seems, paper doesn't count for as much as it used to. (I'm being serious.) It seems that more and more all of the time in the NFL, past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. You have to look no farther than EG to recognize that paper (stats) are useless in evaluating a players [real] contribution to the team.
Waiting for some of the "defenders" response to my reasoning in reply #29. What, was it too absurd?
Kurt - I'm saying, Carl has put together a good team. It's up to the coaches to do something with it.
08-27-2000, 07:39 PM
Before the restricted free agency signing had passed we were well under the cap due to the restructuring of numerous playerís contracts.
The Bengals were tight against the cap at the time. I remember them talking about how hard it was going to be to sign Dillon AND their OT, I believe his name is Willie Anderson.
The Chiefs could have signed Dillon even if it meant cutting some other veteran players.
But Peterson has already stated that heís happy w/ the RBís we have. Rufus Dawes of kcchiefs.com even went so far as to say that teams could still win the Superbowl w/ RBBC.
Peterson did not [legitimately] and will not sign a premier RB. Nor will he draft one, heís incapable. He doesnít think we need to either.
[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-27-2000).]
08-27-2000, 07:43 PM
Too one of your earlier posts. I read right before the deadline on CBSSportsline, that to get Dillon there was only one negative incentive that Cinnci would not match on. That was a one year and free clause on a five year contract that CD could decide on after the season. Even I do not believe that with CD's immaturity that the Chiefs should have taken that risk. What are your thoughts?
08-27-2000, 07:53 PM
Letís see, under Carl, weíve missed the playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years. And most of the time when we did make the playoffs we lost in the first round because we were woefully inept at all skill positions. We constantly sign either has-beens or never-will-beís at QB. Until the last couple of years the drafts were terrible, [and it remains to be seen if this draft is any better than some of those from a few year ago]. We given up numerous draft picks for players that were released soon after.
Now we can add the fact that we will be in a similar cap situation to that of the 9ers, only the 9ers have 4 championships and we have none. Weíre 41 mil over the cap next year and the bulk of the money is tied up in Grbac, Glock and Dan Williams.
Gee, maybe Carl is a ďtop 3 GM in the NFLĒ.?
[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-27-2000).]
Canninbal - I think you're mistaken. Cincinnati was never tight against the cap until recently (this past month or two) when they started to add players as it looked like Dillon was going to hold out until the final 6 games. They've always had more room than us. If you think there was any possible way (besides a 1 year poison pill clause) that we could have structured a deal Cinci couldn't match, your really mistaken.
08-27-2000, 08:00 PM
I didn't see the article.
IMO you've still gotta try and sign Dillon to the contract.
If the Chiefs had given Dillon a deal in excess of what the Lions paid Stewart, I very seriously doubt that the Bungles would have matched.
Even if they did match, SO WHAT! At least it would've been an attempt.
How about trading up the draft? It worked great when we traded up for Tony G. You've gotta take risks if you want an impact player and something that Peterson RARELY ever does.
08-27-2000, 08:00 PM
CC-Exactly! Exactly! (Post # 35!) Funny, Luz is hiding out now that there are a couple of us here with valid arguments. I sure hope he doesn't hide out until post #29 is lost in the shuffle. I am waiting for his take (twist) on that one.
[This message has been edited by Kurt Surber (edited 08-27-2000).]
08-27-2000, 08:10 PM
Kurt, I agree.
Gentlemen, THE BOTTOM LINE IMO...
We all know Carl and MARTY did nice job of turning the franchise around ten years ago. Times have changed. Peterson and the franchise are spinning their wheels. Peterson should've been blown out along w/ Marty and we should've went in a new direction. We should rebuild w/ a totally new staff and youth on the field. Like Kurt said, TEAMS THAT HAVE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS 3 OUT OF THE LAST 4 YEARS SHOULD NOT BE 41 MIL. OVER THE CAP!
Please don't try blowing smoke by telling us the man is a "top 3 GM". That is complete horse**** and you all know it. Statments like that are just foolish.
Didn't Stewart get 5mil per year? Where were we going to get that space? Show me one article where the Chiefs ever had more than a million of cap space. We were strapped to it all year. I wanted Dillon as much as anybody, but I'd rather not overpay AND give up 2 draft picks.
And trading up isn't as easy as just doing it. You have to have someone that wants to trade back.
08-27-2000, 08:16 PM
CC-I wonder why it is that the same folks that would rip the Niners as being a mis-managed team would say that the Chiefs are a well managed team?????? They are both in the same boat.......only the Niners have several rings to show for it.
Luz? We're waiting for your twist...err ahh take. As long as it is taking you I'm sure it will be a dandy.
08-27-2000, 08:18 PM
Carl could've given Dillon a large signing bonus and left the first two years of the contract near league minimum so that he would've fit under the cap this year.
He also could've released some high priced veteran players to create cap space.
There are numerous ways to sign impact free agents.
Cannibal - Large signing bonuses come back to bite you in the *** . And that still wouldn't keep Cinci from matching. And cutting high priced vets accelerates THEIR signing bonuses so we would probably eliminate what room we had anyway.
08-27-2000, 08:24 PM
Cannibal-Watch out any minute now Luz is going to lace you with this quote from the article in regard to Dillon;
I called (Bengals GM) Mike Brown," Peterson said. "He told me, `I will not trade Dillon.' I started to say something and he said: `Listen to me: I will not trade him. I don't care what you offer me. I don't care if you offer a No. 1 pick, or two No. 1 picks or 10 No. 1 picks. I'm not trading him.'
Now, Luz (despiser of all media) will use this quote to try to make you look like a fool on the Dillon issue. However, he won't admit that it came from the same media that he is openly critical of, ACCEPTING it as 100% truth. (Luz, you know better.)
08-27-2000, 08:25 PM
If you cut the higher priced veterans before June 1st it spreads the cap hit out over 2 years.
So in reality, you save the vet's salary for that year and take a hit on a portion of the signing bonus. But you would save some money.
08-27-2000, 08:25 PM
Cannibal - Exaclty how does releasing a high priced vet clear up cap space, all of those tend to be low salary and high bonus.
If we fix our cap space problem for next year we could still draft a QB in the first round and pick up Dillon as a FA. It would fit exactly what you want. And give our DB's time to grow as well.
Cannibal - Let me guess, Dan Williams or McGlockton? Both would still give us a huge hit (much larger than their base salaries for this year) if they were cut. If DW was cut before June 1st he would have cost us 2.2 million more, I believe. I would expect similar results from any of our other high priced FAs.
08-27-2000, 08:28 PM
I don't believe anything coming out of the mouth of Carl Peterson.
He's the King spin doctor. How else can you explain the fact that he has nearly half the fans of the Chiefs caught hook, line and sinker.
08-27-2000, 08:33 PM
How does someone 'hide out'? You're suggesting that I'm running from your arguments? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
BTW Kurt, I resent your implication that I'm trying to 'twist' anything. You are the ones making accusations (on Carl) without backing them up.
If you are going to criticize his decision not to spend $$ on a player, don't you think it would be important to know the cap consequences of that action? You offer attack and critique without ever addressing this issue.
You both also show that you have very little understanding of capology when you compare our situation to that of Dallas or San Fran. Our situations are worlds apart. Don't you think it might be important to understand that aspect of the situation BEFORE attacking one of the top three winningest GMs in the 90s? (fact Jeff ~ live with it)
Your attacks are like kids on a grade school playground arguing on whether Warren Sapp or Mike Tyson is the toughest. All emotion and very little attention to fact or detail.
08-27-2000, 08:34 PM
I'll give you an example of what I mean: how much did our projected cap figure change for next year AFTER the cuts today? Any idea? Have you even given this any thought?
Have much of that $41 million you like to talk about are bonuses that haven't been paid yet? How much of it is in base salary as opposed to signing bonus? Of the signing bonuses, how much remains to be amortized beyond next year?
All of these things have an impact on what kind of contract we can sign/offer a player. You can't run a team without knowing the answers to these questions ~ but it sure is easy to play arm chair QB and attack someone elseís decisions... especially if you don't understand the job description.
One last thing. How you can say that '95 or '97 was due to a lack of playmakers is beyond me. Carl had us with home field advantage all the way to the Super Bowl. You blame him for Elliotís missed field goals in '95, and you blame him for the terrible play calling in '97. Don't you think that's a little bit of a stretch?
really getting tired of talking about this...<BR>
08-27-2000, 08:52 PM
What got us homefield advantage in 95 and 97 was a great D, a home crowd and a conservative offense that allowed us to win close games with turnovers.
It certainly wasn't any shrewd moves made by Peterson. If he had made some moves maybe we would have had a QB we could depend on rather than Steve Bono.
Also, I do blame Peterson for Elliot. Elliot SUCKED in Dallas and was released. Then Peterson signed him and he SUCKED all year before the playoffs began. It was obvious, Elliot should never have worn Chiefs red and should've at least been replaced before the playoffs began.
Please prove to me that Peterson is a "top 3 GM" Luz.
What criteria are you basing this on.
Could you also name the two GM's ahead of him and the 7 GM's you would place behind him so I can get your top 10?
[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-27-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-27-2000).]
08-27-2000, 08:54 PM
Luz, (1.)It's obvious you didn't read post #29. Let me summarize, .500 teams don't have cap problems unless they are mis-managed. I don't need to go into the formulas, it's just a simple fact. In case you didn't hear me the first time I'll repeat. .500 teams don't have cap problems unless they are mis-managed.
(2.)Yes, I do blame The King for Elliotts' missed FG's. ALL year long, EVERYONE associated with the Chiefs (on the outside) EVEN BOB GRETZ, was saying "they must do something about this guy, he is going to cost us a big game." Do I need to remind you of the results? And then of course there was last year when they had trouble in all facets of the kicking game all year long then they trust the kickoff duties in the most important game of the season to an un-proven player. LUZ, I have only begun to rain on your parade. I too am sick of talking about this, it seems at some point that you would adopt a bit of common sense to go along with your vast knowledge. (Which I respect by the way.)
We averaged 10 wins a season in the '90s. Most teams with a 100 wins in the last decade have salray cap troubles. SF, and who was the one other team besides the Chiefs? Buffalo? They're 16 over. The Chiefs have been around .500 the last two seasons, but it's not like they've always been there. What was SF at last year? Or the year before?
08-27-2000, 09:02 PM
Teams that are 41 mil over the cap should at least have a decent QB, WR and RB.
I know you know this. I've heard you talk about our lack of playmakers before.
I do know we've had a lack of playmakers, but that doesn't change the fact that we've won a lot of games.
Look, I don't like the fact that we're scheduled to be 41 million over the cap next year, but let's cross that bridge when we get there. 15-20 million is easily deleted with Grbac's cutting/extension. Weren't we far over the cap this year too? I'm sure we'll find some way to get under it without gutting our whole team. If we can't THEN blame Carl. Right now I like what he's doing with this team and the youth movement. We seem to have our WR, and our RB may or may not be on the roster (we weren't that close to getting Dillon no matter what you think). QB is a problem, but great QBs aren't exactly common around the league. We'll get one eventually, but I don't blame Carl for not having one yet. Enjoy the 100 wins we've had under him anyway.
[This message has been edited by G_Man (edited 08-27-2000).]
08-27-2000, 09:09 PM
G-Ahhh, there is the fundmental difference. Some of are content with winning more contests than we lose. Some of us want to be the best EVERY time. Yes, it's an idealistic goal, but hey it takes all kinds. (Submitted with all due respect of course.) http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif
08-27-2000, 09:10 PM
I know we've won a lot of games.
But I still think has more to do with the home crowd, the D, the conservative offense and relying on turnovers.
That approach will get you a lot of regular season wins, but it's always doomed to fail in the playoffs.
I give Peterson credit for the D's that he put together in KC. But D alone won't win the Superbowl that much is obvious.<P>
Kurt - I'd love to win the Super Bowl, but I'm smart enough to realize the chances of doing so are not great (how many teams have won the SB under Carl's tenure? 6? 7?). I don't put ALL the blame on Carl peterson. He's gotten us close (with Montana, and in '95 and '97 we should have been close).
08-27-2000, 09:14 PM
I'll check in tomorrow night to see your explanation on how you rank Peterson in the top 3 GM's in the league. Since you claim it as fact and all.
I'd also like to see that top 10 GM list.
Talk to you tomorrow.
08-27-2000, 09:17 PM
For $41 million over the cap we should have more than a "decent QB,RB,or WR". We already have that in Grbac,TRich, and Derrick Alexander. For that kind of money we should have Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, and Marvin Harrison.
"When you're not the lead dog in the pack, the view is always the same"
08-27-2000, 09:21 PM
Luz-still "I LOVE YOU MAN!" (See I'm still lost in the 90's too....along with you Peterson defenders ) I was just thinking of how Charlton Heston looked at Johnny in that one commercial and said "frankly son, you frighten me." Hysterical.
08-27-2000, 09:23 PM
I would have given Carl a top 3 rating until the last couple of years. Like most GM's, the top 5 list changes on a regular basis. I would say that Bill Polian has to be one of the top GM's, with Charlie Casserly a close second.
After that, I would be hard pressed to put anyone up as a long term "star GM"
"When you're not the lead dog in the pack, the view is always the same"
08-27-2000, 09:24 PM
Dogg-Had to say HI! I began to read your post and said, "oh no, here we go again." Then I read the last line........very GOOD reasoning! Manning, Harrison and James, hmmm, I would go for that.
08-27-2000, 09:43 PM
Shucks.....I thought maybe someone would misread it and start an argument with me...
I need to hone my skills a little more
"When you're not the lead dog in the pack, the view is always the same"
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.