View Full Version : Dillon Arrested...

08-28-2000, 07:25 PM
Article can be found on CNNSI. Thanks to Robert Vaugh on other BB for finding it.

Article can be found here <a href=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/2000/08/28/dillon_arrested_ap/>Dillon Story</a>

[This message has been edited by morphius (edited 08-28-2000).]

08-28-2000, 07:31 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if this has hit the other board yet. Denise will go berserk!

I'll file this one away in the "not our problem" department. Thank God for that - we've already got a truck load of 'em.

08-28-2000, 07:34 PM
I was one of the biggest advocates for aquiring Dillon.

Yesterday, several people were mercilessly bashing Carl for failing to get him (at any cost).

Do you think that today those same people will thank him for not tying up our future (cap) with him?

anticipating the double standard...

08-28-2000, 07:38 PM
Fraz - That is where I found, Robert posted it over there and it was too big not to post over here. She feel vindicated...

Luz - Yeah, there goes the plan of getting Dillon for nothing next year and picking up a QB in the first round. At least that was my goal.

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 07:38 PM

We know nothing is going to happen to Dillon anyway, so I still think Peterson should have tried to aquire him.

But now that you've reminded me, could you please prove to me that Peterson is a "top 3 GM"? Since you claimed it as fact yesterday on another thread.

And also name your top 10 GM list.


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 08-28-2000).]

08-28-2000, 07:42 PM
Luz, how would you feel about acquiring him now?

I, too, was a big Dillon advocate, but if he's an active criminal I would think not. I'm all for forgiveness of past indiscretions, but when the past is present that is a different matter. Thought all his problems were behind him. I certainly don't have a lot of respect for woman beaters (none would be more accurate). We don't need any OJ wannabees on the roster.

Of course, we should probably wait until all the facts are in before passing judgment.

08-28-2000, 07:49 PM
Fraz - That pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

08-28-2000, 07:51 PM
Yep. Cody will be devastated....

08-28-2000, 07:54 PM
Fraz - ROFL! Can someone call and get him on the suicide watch?

08-28-2000, 07:54 PM
I guess Carl must have ESP or supernatural abilities. He must have known Dillon would beat his wife, or else he surely would have pursued him.

08-28-2000, 07:56 PM
I think Cody was already on a suicide watch after Dillon signed with Cincy. He'll probably just burst into flames over this one.

08-28-2000, 08:08 PM

I'm really surprised that you think this is a point of contention.

First of all, I've literally had GMs of other professional sport franchises tell me that (actually, the last I talked to said he was the best).

Beyond that though, it's really pretty simple. Name the NFL GMs that have more wins in the ninties.

Heck, I'll do you better than that. Name the GMs of any major professional sports that have a better winning percentage.

You might find a couple in MLB (the ones that can buy their records), but besides that, you're going to be pretty hard pressed.

Carl legitimately is respected as an elite GM in the industry and, whether you like him or not personally, it is beyond me how you can think otherwise.

the power of the media is amazing...

08-28-2000, 08:22 PM

My post #11 isin responce to Cannibal's question as to why I feel Carl isone of the top 3 GMs in the league.

Frazod, I don't think I could say it better than you did.

Chiefnj, nice sidestep. The issue is not clairvoyance. The issue was whether Carl should have pursued Dillon regardless of cost. My entire point was that cost is a factor and that a GM makes the big bucks for deciding how much is too much.

very disapointed in corey...

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:22 PM
I guess if your criteria is:

<LI>Building a solid D
<LI>Ignoring the skill positions
<LI>Relying on a great home crowd
<LI>Utilizing a conservative offense that doesn't turn the ball over
<LI>Piling up regular season wins
<LI>Choking in the playoffs

Then he would be a top 3 GM.

However, if your criteria are playoff and championship success, then Peterson ranks near the bottom of the league since they only other teams to not have a playoff win in the same time the Chiefs have gone without one are Chicago, Philly, Seattle, Nawlens and Cincy.


08-28-2000, 08:28 PM
Actually, Cannibal, Chicago won a wildcard game in either 96 or 97. They beat the Vikings on the road before getting spanked in the Divisional Playoffs.

Now I'm really depressed....

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:30 PM
BTW Luznicky,

You said it was a FACT that he was a top three GM in the NFL.

You saying "you talked to some GM's in the league and they told you so" is not proof, not in the slightest.

Talk to you tomorrow night.

08-28-2000, 08:30 PM

My only criteria is winning.

How many teamshave been to the playoffs as many times as we have?

I'm sure there are several, but there are a whole bunch that haven't.

I think Carl has consistantly put this team in a position to win. We (as a team) haven't pulled it off yet. In that sense, yeah he's just as responcible as anyone else in the organization for not having a Super Bowl this decade. It is IMO (and quite frankly much of the professional sporting world's) that Carl is very, very good at his job. I have no disagreement with that.

Understand Jeff, I'm not trying to convert you (I don't think even a Super Bowl would do that), I'm just answering your question about why I think he's one of the best.

sorry you feel differently...

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:31 PM

I think you're right!

Sorry about that BTW.

08-28-2000, 08:33 PM
Gee, I wonder if Cannibal's nickname on another BB in a galaxy far, far, away might have been Packfudge?

08-28-2000, 08:34 PM
But on the other hand, I don't think Oakland has won a playoff game since we have, either.

Feel a little better now...

Oh wow, Cannibal, you're being likened to KEN!

[This message has been edited by frazod (edited 08-28-2000).]

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:35 PM
If you choose to believe Carl is a "top 3" GM, that is fine by me [truly].

But please don't try to state it as fact when many of us know better.

That's all I'm saying.

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:36 PM

You're correct,

replace Chi-town w/ Oakland.

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:41 PM
There is a fudamental difference between Ken and myself...

We both may dislike Peterson, but I am a fan of of the team. Ken is not a Chiefs fan. <P>

08-28-2000, 08:46 PM
Do I think Carl is one of the top three? No. Do I think he's better than most? Yes.

Keep in mind, we won two division championships and made the playoffs as a wildcard three or four other years under his tenure.

Things Carl did not do: (1) miss three FGs in the 95 loss to Indy; (2) make the call to go for that damned fake FG in the 97 loss to Denver; (3) kick off out of bounds three times OR miss the winning FG against Oakland last year.

Its not Carl's fault that we were CURSED with bad luck at the least opportune moments. We were good enough to win the SB in 97 and damn well should have (remember, we were the only team in the playoffs to give Denver a game). Were it not for those handful of occasions when we got reamed by the football gods, the recent history of this team would be completely different.

Unfortunately, I think Carl's time may have passed. His sticking with the Three Stooges and failure to procure any meaningful talent during the past offseason does not bode well for his (or our) future.

I'm not calling for his head now, but if we suck as bad this year as I think we're going to, I will be soon. Hope he pulls through, though. He has done a good job with this team in the past. But unfortunately, not lately.

[This message has been edited by frazod (edited 08-28-2000).]

Ugly Duck
08-28-2000, 08:49 PM
If I may jump in with my 2 cents. I think we have to put Peterson's performance into perspective. He has brought a tradition of winning football to Kansas City with the moves he has been able to make. While many of them were not as fruitful as expected (Perriman, Gray) many were, (Drafting DT, bringing in Joe, Marcus). I think if we had a complete moron in the window office at Arrowhead we would still go 4-12 like when I was a kid, and we would be satisfied with 8-8, even thinking 7-9 is great. Now we expect to win if not be in contention for the division title and the play-offs every year. Does that mean we are going to win the Super Bowl? No, but find 3 other GM's that have turned their teams into anything similar to the Chiefs over the same period of time. I believe that the Super Bowl will come sooner than later.

Fort Chief
08-28-2000, 08:53 PM
Carl is responsible for the loss in 95 IMO.

Lin Elliot sucked ARSEHOLES out in Dallas before Peterson signed him. Then he sucked ARSEHOLES out the entire season in KC before the playoffs. Elliot should have never been signed and definitely should have been replaced well before the playoffs started.

There are numerous other personnel blunders I could mention, but it's time for me to hit the hay. Talk to everyone later.

http://www2.southwind.net/~ripley/thomas26.jpg <P>

08-28-2000, 09:47 PM
LUZ, Good grief, for someone who claims to want to let the Peterson discussion die you sure do seem to have a desire to keep fueling the fire. Why can't you just accept that fact that there are qualified individuals [here] that posses a different view of "The King" than you and let it die? It is obvious that you are oblivious to any factual information in regard to this so why not just let it go?

You have become just like talking to Denise about socialist issues.

*BTW-I NEVER wanted Dillon in the first place. I contended that TRich should be our halfback since mid-last year. OH, I guess THAT makes me stupid now doesn't it. Have you noticed yet who our starting HB is?

08-28-2000, 10:42 PM
This legal problem will hurt his "long term contract" negotiations and salary next season. Too bad for Demoff and Corey "one year" Dillon....

burger time bungle

08-28-2000, 10:43 PM

Perhaps it is the inflammatory style the Cannibal is using that is making it difficult for Luz to quit posting on the topic.

There is a precedent (by the way Cannibal) to say Carl is one of the top three GMs in the League in the 90s. That would be regular season wins, and very close in winning seasons in the 90s. Carl's teams are in the top 3 in wins. So there is the logic you are looking for to declare Carl in the top 3 GM category. Actually there is one other category, drafting and putting together top notch defensive personnel that can make up a top defense.

I am no Carl fanatic as I believe he is poor at drafting QBs, HB, and WR. He has been very good with offensive lineman, FBs, and at least one TE. I do not know if you were to judge all aspects of a GM hiring Head Coaches, managing the cap, and hiring the administrative personnel whether he makes the top 3 or not. But I would say it is safe to assume that he is in the top 5 or 6 when it comes to all aspects.

I believe what Kurt and Cannibal are doing is rating only one aspect of a GMs job, getting the team to the SB. In that case Bobby Beatherd was better in the 90s (see how ridiculous that criteria can be) as his team lucked out and made it to the SB once. The same for Harold Richardson GM of Atlanta, one SuperBowl and he is better. What about NE Patriots one Superbowl, so there GM must be better, oh yeah wait he was dismissed so Bellichek could be in charge.

Yeah I guess making the SB is the only real criteria for a great GM.

Jim Reynolds
Please no squiggles in my discussion zone!

[This message has been edited by Logical (edited 08-28-2000).]

08-29-2000, 04:14 AM
Jim-I appreciate your humor, actually though I believe the tables may be turned. I am convinced that it is LUZ, and King Carls little army of defensemen that have tunnel vision. Their battle cry is "100 wins in the 90's." Frankly I have grown very tired of it.

I can't speak for Cannibal or Packfan or anyone else, only myself. In retrospect my dislike of "The King" has much more to do with the bigger picture. In an attempt to be brief I'll simply say this; Yes, there are player moves that are questionable, (ex. Bono, Elliot, Gray, Tree-zel, Baker, Pope, McMillan, Greg Hill (handling?,) Grbac vs. Gannon (handling-as much perception as reality,) Rison (some of you thought Carl was the saviour for releasing him, who brought him here in the first place?,) Bam, John Tait fiasco,............you get the picture. Now, let me say this, take any NFL team and they probably all have stories and personel goofaas just like these, so that is no indicator. What it does say is that The King is no better than any other manager in this area! (Maybe worse.)


08-29-2000, 04:16 AM
Now, (this is my view.) A VERY LARGE part of the GM's job should be geared to the public. Football is entertainment, although it is corporate regarless of what some of us may think it is NOT an essential commodity. It's a business of fun. NOW here is the key part, if The King wants to take a behind the scenes roll and just run the business of the team, great, so be it. That is his choice. However, The King has chosen to live in the public eye, he has chosen to accept accolades for the Chiefs successes and has even created a few accolades of his own, (ex. "The Triple Crown of Turnovers." What the heck is that?) At the same time he has belittled the fans stating, "I will not let the fans dictate to me how to run this football team." He has blamed the media for the Chiefs failures. He has blamed the media for "creating" the Chiefs off the field problems, (now that's a laugh isn't it?) He has blamed the media for placing doubts in players minds, (frankly the folks that I provide a service for use a media to place doubt in my mind if I don't perform!) He has tried to have a reporter arrested (un-successfully) for hanging out at the hospital in Miami during Derricks stay there. He has stated that Lamar Hunt is above criticism and anyone who does criticize him will be flogged publicly (paraphrase.) He has NEVER, EVER one time admitted that he was wrong about anything publicly, (Patton said; "Admit your failures, people will respect you for it.")


08-29-2000, 04:17 AM
The point is "The King" is a PR nightmare, I for one am no longer buying into his hype, I for one no longer have an ounce of respect for him because of his dog and pony show. I have no respect for him because of statements like; "yes, it was a five year plan and we're ten years into it, it's still a five year plan and we will succeed at it." (Who gave him that quote? Elvis?) Need I say any more?

(Do I win the award for the longest most rambling post?)

08-29-2000, 07:11 AM
I dont really understand this if he would just apologize in public.... Apologize for what? Being mean to the media, fans, players, coaches? Apologizing for failure, well maybe, but whats the point?

He has made his mistakes. I too think the Lowery/Elliott debacle cost us in 1995, but lets remember, that before that playoff game ever occurred, Elliott had been struggling on a regular basis. Neither Marty OR Carl made any attempts to rectify it through personnel change like we did last year--obviously, last year would be a good reason not to mess with personnel.

It has allways been my contention that regardless of personnel, there has to be an underlying philosophy of how to win. I dont think we have that and I dont think that is the GMs function, rather it is the coaches. Maybe the GMs function is to find that guy who will bring that to the team, and that CP could be blamed for, but we dont have a winning philosophy.

I feel bad for Gun, guy works non stop, but in the end, we come out looking like the Keystone Kops on the field. Maybe its not how much you work but what you work on. We are not working on the things that will make us successful, and that is a result of not having a winning philosophy.

In the end, the blame game is old. On both sides there are valid arguments as to why/who is to blame, but the game is tired. We have failed to convert the key first down, make the winning field goal, run the clock out, whatever it is/was at the time, we have failed on the field because our philosophy of just do enough to get by allways falls short to the philosophy of dominate, attack and win.

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 08-29-2000).]

08-29-2000, 08:14 AM
So can we officially declare the Dilgasms to be over?

Dillon proved that he was and is a thug and CP made an excellent move by keeping the trash in Cinci.

Kudos CP.

08-29-2000, 08:36 AM
Of course, when our team starts performing MUCH better than many here seem to think it will, and new young stars start to develop, and we're in the playoff hunt, and when everyone realizes that Gun really does know what he's doing, then none of this will matter.

The only thing that will change is that the Carl haters will have to find something different to hate Carl for.

i'm sure they will...

08-29-2000, 09:04 AM
Don't care about how "great" a player is for someone else. There is a "reason" a used car is on the lot..., IMO (humble...NOT), I would rather take 1yd carry less and not read about him in the latest version of COPS. As to "the King", if you miss-allocate your cap dollars into long term contracts for FA's from some other "car lot', the implications are immense down the road. Look at all the money we spend on used cars in this town in the last 10 years because we were always 1 player away. Play the young players.. if they can't perform cut em and get someone else.

[This message has been edited by Oxford (edited 08-29-2000).]

08-30-2000, 07:02 AM
Everyone's favourite boy scout was charged with 4th degree assault yesterday. His response was "What happened was a tragedy"

Well duh! Yep spousal abuse is tragic. A 220lb athelete popping his wife till she's bloody ranks right up there on the tragedy scale.

Oh yeah, his thug rep is all in his past. He's a good boy now. He's a piece of trash. CP is looking better by the day on this one.