PDA

View Full Version : Will you all agree?


ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 12:54 PM
I've crying for an enema for the Chiefs franchise since the 98 debacle.

But if Ryan Leaf actually comes into Arrowhead and gets a win, will you all agree that it's finally time for the Chiefs to clean house with a new GM and head coach at the end of the year?

Even if the Chiefs do win, we still need that enema IMO, because our salary cap doesn't even come close to meeting the talent we have on the field, but I just want to know how a SD win could affect your opinions.<BR>

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 12:56 PM
Cryan Leaf getting a win in Arrowhead is pure sacrilege and should be impossible, but with these Chiefs anything is possible.

Fat Homer
09-13-2000, 12:57 PM
It won't matter anymore, I won't have a TV left to watch the Chiefs.

Seriously, for me if we stick to the same offensive game plan I would vote for a change.

DoktorSmith
09-13-2000, 01:01 PM
We need the change whether we win or not. I don't think CP is leaving, like it or not. But he had sure as hell better show Gunther and his stooges the door. Just don't hire Shaw as his replacement.

Kurt Surber
09-13-2000, 01:03 PM
An interesting dilemma for me. I was never convinced that Gun and the same crew that Marty left were worth anything.

Im of the opinion right now, that there should be coaching changes and the HC should be tossed if we lose to SD.

The GM on the other hand, Im still not convinced there's another out there that could do any better. This opinion could change though futher into this season. IMO, Carl's not going anywhere regardless.

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 01:04 PM
I agree that we need the house cleaning with or without a win as I stated in the original post.

But Peterson will be fired sooner or later if the attendance starts to drop, you can count on that.

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 01:07 PM
If Peterson was fired, there would be a boat load of GM's lining up for a shot at that job.

Not many executives get the opportunity to have "total control" of an NFL franchise.

In other words, we would probably get an array of very good choices to replace him IMO.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 09-13-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-13-2000, 01:14 PM
Lamar's not going to move that fast.

elvislivesinkc
09-13-2000, 01:16 PM
Carl did a great job of making KC a competitive team, but he is also the person who is solely responsible for assembling the current group of players and COACHES who are now allowing this team to backslide towards the 80s.

IMO a GM, no matter how effective, has a limited shelf-life with one team, just like a head coach. Carl has already hit his peak, IMO. He has done what he does best...build a solid team. Now we need to bring in someone that knows all about taking the next step before this team regresses to the point of no return.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Traveller
09-13-2000, 01:19 PM
I'm of the opinion that we need a HC/DC/OC/STC change at the end of this season. A SD win won't change anything in that area. I wouldn't do it during the season however. I want a permanent change, not an interm one.

At seasons end a laundry list of candidates for the above positions could be assembled and would be much deeper than it would at present.

elvislivesinkc
09-13-2000, 01:22 PM
If Carl is still in place, all the other changes will be meaningless. You'll see another defensive-minded conservative buddy of Carl's as Foot-Shuffling Porter/HC, Shaw as DC, and Solari or Lavan as OC.

What a mess.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Devin Vierth
09-13-2000, 01:27 PM
I'm with Chuck, a SD win @ home won't do anything for me other than suggest this was an obvious win for us. We need a thorough douching with our coaches.

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 01:27 PM
I agree with Clint wholeheartedly.

Carl will not hire a coach that would be able to challenge his authority. He also has not improved at drafting skill position players. After this season we might actually be in a position to draft a decent RB [possibly McCallister] and I want a GM who will pull the trigger on draft day to get us some offensive play makers.

I definitely don't want to see Peterson taking another OG in the first round.

Red and Gold Mania
09-13-2000, 01:31 PM
I prefer that KC retain its management and coaching structure idefinitely. I like what's happening in KC!

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 01:33 PM
You know something is wrong when your opponents take comfort with who our GM and Head Coach are. <P>

Woodrow
09-13-2000, 01:35 PM
When the team has to beat their opponent as well as their OWN coaches, then a change is needed.

Woodrow
09-13-2000, 01:38 PM
BTW,
I think that all those that say that Carl will hire another stubborn, defensive-minded coach are wrong. Carl is NO dummy and he can see the writing on the wall. My bet is that he the next time he hires an offensive minded coach. I also bet he draftes a RB in the early 1st round next year.

Woodrow
09-13-2000, 01:39 PM
I mean"drafts" a RB

alanm
09-13-2000, 01:41 PM
1) I can't imagine the circumstances under which Lamar would hire someone else.

2) Very few GMs would be better than Carl. Among them are Carl's former protoge Tom Donahue.

3) I'm at least ready for new coordinators, and I might be ready for a new HC depending on how Gun does throughout this whole year. Unless I wanted a higher draft pick, I wouldn't fire my HC in midseason.

------------------
1) Crush your enemies
2) See them driven before you
3) Hear the lamentation of the women

elvislivesinkc
09-13-2000, 01:42 PM
That is what we'd all LIKE to see Carl do...

not what is LIKELY to happen.

A head coach with no nuts in Peterson's office is a coach with no nuts on the football field.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 01:42 PM
Hopefully he won't get the chance.

He's been here long enough. He's had ample opportunity to get this team to a Superbowl and failed.

Why you people love this guy so much is beyond me! We need change!

The-Man
09-13-2000, 01:43 PM
I usually don't get into Carl bashing. We all know that he won't be going anywhere soon. I certainly wouldn't be upset if it turned out we are wrong and he is fired, or resigns.
But if he doesn't fire Gun and this whole group of morons running things on the field, then he proves himself to be as big a moron as they are.

------------------

Red Eyes
[i]Chinn Up, it ain't nothin' but a thang.</I>

elvislivesinkc
09-13-2000, 01:48 PM
I thought he already did when he hired them in the first place...especially when he allowed Stock to return after last season!!

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

The-Man
09-13-2000, 01:56 PM
I was willing to give Gun another season to show us h had what it took to lead this team, after last season. He showed he doesn't, when he decided to retain the 3 Stooges for this season. As I said, Carl isn't going anywhere. What I hope to see from him, fire Gun and the whole crew. As I said, if he doesn't, he's a moron also.

------------------

Red Eyes
[i]Chinn Up, it ain't nothin' but a thang.</I>

KCfanAHaz
09-13-2000, 02:31 PM
I'm still holding on to the chance of getting a win this week and turning our season around. If the 95? Chargers can start 0-4 and then win 10 of the next 11 for a play-off appearance, why couldn't we do it? Stranger things have happened. Yes, I agree our coaching staff needs to be overhauled, but I don't think Carl would pull the trigger until the season is at least half over.

------------------
Not disgruntled....yet.

KCfanAHaz
09-13-2000, 02:33 PM
Whoops, 11 of the next 12

Fort Chief
09-13-2000, 05:57 PM
I don't really understand. Was Marty a foot-shuffling porter? Was Vermiel (Carl hired him in Phili, right?)? I don't understand the whole argument against Carl hiring someone he can control. And what is Gun supposed to "have nuts" about? This is exactly the team Gun wants. They have a similar idea of what the team should look like. Carl didn't tell Raye to call 6 straight running plays. He even voiced his displeasure in the last game (with Stills being on the sideline). If Gun was "controlled" by CP, wouldn't Stills have been sent on?

Kurt Surber
09-13-2000, 06:04 PM
Cannibal: no one said anything about 'love' for Carl. If you read the posts you will see that most, including myself, realize that Carl is not going anywhere anytime soon. Frankly, no one has suggested another GM I would be willing to bring in even if the opportunity had presented itself.

I agree with G_Man, Gun WANTS this type of a team. This is not Carl dictating this type of team. Gun kept his coaching staff in tact even after they proved they dont have a clue, not Carl.

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 08:32 PM
I disagree; smashmouth is the type of football that Peterson believes in. He stated in a recent article that he prefers to build from the trenches first. He considers the skill positions second in order of importance to O-line; he stated it himself in a recent Star article.

If he truly thought offense wins championships he would have found a QB, RB and WR by now, he's had 11 fuggin years to try. He still thinks Grbac and Mike Cloud are the answer. He obviously has no clue how to build an offensive team in today's football.

During the whole Corey Dillon fiasco he stated he was comfortable with the RB's we have. He also stated he wanted to see what Mike Cloud could do. Guess what folks, Cloudís a bust, he's averaging 1.4 measly yards per carry on the season so far.

continued...<BR>

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 08:32 PM
This season is as much or more Peterson's fault than anyone elseís. He's the one who can't find a competent kicker and punter and he's been trying to fill those positions for most of his tenure here. He's the one who hired a Defensive Coach to be the Head Coach of the Chiefs. He's the who has the team 41 million over the cap next year with his highest paid players either being career underachievers or just not that talented to begin with.

Peterson is so overrated by some of you fans it's pathetic. The writing is on the wall. If Lamar doesn't fire him after this year he is prolonging the inevitable. We'll have many more seasons of bad offense and mediocre records with few trips to playoffs. And when we do by some miracle make the playoffs we'll be one and done.

Peterson DOES NOT aspire to win a championship. If he did he sure as hell wouldn't be satisfied with a 9-7 record. I still canít understand why everyone likes Peterson so much. He did good job of building a solid, competitive team in the early to mid 90ís. But looking back on it now, we werenít even legit contenders back then, we were pretenders.

There is no harm in trying to improve, itís not like you guyís are related or married to this schmuck. Just wish Peterson all the best and tell him itís time to move in another direction.<BR>

The-Man
09-13-2000, 08:50 PM
Cannibal,
I agree with everything you're saying. The thing is, we know CP's job is secure. Lamar's already stated that a losing record is not going to cause CP his job. He wants to sign him to an extention. Maybe he's happy. CP is makig him money.
So, with that in mind, I would like to see some changes in the coaching staff, starting with Gun Magoo, who clearly can't see the problems that have laed to this team losing the last 3 regular season games. Replace Magoo and the 3 Stooges, then maybe we can see a different team. I know that you and I disagree about Grbac. I still believe, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise, that Grbac could be much than he is if he had an OC who understood offense, and could teach it. IMO, Grbac's development has been completely stunted by Moe Raye, and any new QB brought in to replace him would suffer the same fate.
Until CP is gone, let's try to make someting out of what we have.

------------------

Red Eyes
Chinn Up.

[b]The SitCom must die!!</B>

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 09:00 PM
You're right, we do disagree about Grbac.

But as for Lamar...

All I can say is that if we continue the way we are, the fans will stop showing up. That's all there is to it. When fans stop showing up, that hurts Lamar's bottom line and he will make a move. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

The-Man
09-13-2000, 09:00 PM
With my last in mind, Cannibal, think about this. Let's assume, for the sake of arguement that I'm right about Raye stunting Grbac's development. CP cleans house, hires a new HC, who in turn brings in an OC that can really get the best out if Grbac. I don't believe that Grbac will ever be great, but I think he can be as good as Chandler, or Buerlien. If he is that good, the Chiefs already have Morris at WR, who has enormous potential. Their about to play themselves into a high draft pick. They just might pick that RB we have been searching for. Grbac, Morris, Gonzo and a RB (McAllister, Henry?). There is an offense with some serious potential. With a good OC, they might achieve that potential.

------------------

Red Eyes
Chinn Up.

[b]The SitCom must die!!</B>

The-Man
09-13-2000, 09:03 PM
I've got to run now. I'll check back in tomorrow to see you flame away at my post.

------------------

Red Eyes
Chinn Up.

[b]The SitCom must die!!</B>

ColoradoChief
09-13-2000, 09:12 PM
I'm sorry, but I still would rather have the team draft a QB and develop him from the start and keep him for his entire career.

I would like to see an inovative offense with a mobile QB that can improvise. A QB like Culpepper or McNabb. They both have rocket arms and quick feet. A QB that plays within the system the majority of the time, but can still win a game on sheer talent alone.

This team is dying for a playmaker like that. It doesn't take that long to develop them any more either [with the right coaching staff], Culpepper is in his first year as a starter, with McNabb being in his second season.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 09-13-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 07:32 AM
so much to respond to Cannibal, I dont know where to start...Here we go:

smashmouth is the type of football that Peterson believes in. He stated in a recent article that he prefers to build from the trenches first. - You must be using Gunther speak or something to read into this. I read this as he likes to build a team starting with the O-Line. He states nothing about offensive philosphy in that statement. I would like a link to this article (For Clint's sake)

If he truly thought offense wins championships he would have found a QB, RB and WR by now - When you draft at #20 and lower, you dont really get key QB's, RB's and WR's. We have gotten Gonzo and now Morris with our highest picks in recent memory. His RB drafts have been complete failures agreed, but how many outside the top 10 are? tons.

During the whole Corey Dillon fiasco he stated he was comfortable with the RB's we have. - He DID make attempts to get Corey from the Bengals anyway. You must not be much of a poker player.<P>

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 07:40 AM
a cont'd response to the diatribe:

He also stated he wanted to see what Mike Cloud could do. Guess what folks, Cloudís a bust, he's averaging 1.4 measly yards per carry on the season so far. - Uhh, ok. Is 'seeing what he can do' 9 rushes in 2 games? Im not sold on Cloud either, but I think we both agree that a RB has to get into the flow of the game and get 15-20 rushes per game. Using your skewed view of stats, Elvis is our #1 rusher and he's averaging 6 yds per carry!

Peterson is so overrated by some of you fans it's pathetic - for the umpteenth time, I dont see anyone better. Is that overrating Peterson? I guess if your opinion that any Joe schmo can GM a football team then yeah, I guess it would be overrating him. Only name I've heard mention is Donohoe and all I need to do is look at the 'offense' he created to say, 'no thanks'.

Peterson DOES NOT aspire to win a championship. If he did he sure as hell wouldn't be satisfied with a 9-7 record. - completely YOUR opinion and not a scintillia of fact in that statement. You confuse his 'optimism/homerism' after the end of last year with 'satisfaction'. NOT.

There is no harm in trying to improve, itís not like you guyís are related or married to this schmuck. Just wish Peterson all the best and tell him itís time to move in another direction. - Back to this again. No harm in trying to improve--TOTAL agreement, problem is no one better than Carl is available, sorry to say.

<BR>

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
09-14-2000, 08:16 AM
Thank you KCTitus.

I really just didn't have the energy to respond to Cannibal's assertions again. Besides, I think you did a better job of it.

What really surprises me about some people's attitude is that we have good (dare I say, in some cases great?) talent on this team.

We played toe to toe with two of the best in the AFC with a huge coaching handicap. True, one of those games we lost because the players didn't execute, but the other we should have won hands down.

The point is, we have the talent to go to the championship; our coaching is the problem. (Eddie George is convinced he'll see us in the playoffs)

Luz
get off the players; they're playing very well...

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 08:34 AM
You're grasping at straws hereÖ

I still totally disagree with you.

If smashmouth was not Peterson's philosophy, why would that be the type of coach he hired and worked with for 11 years now? Smashmouth is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy and Peterson is a conservative GM.

Don't give me that crapola about drafting in the low 20's either. Literally, almost every other team in the league has drafted a probowl type skill position player in the last eleven years. If you're drafting too low, you trade up, that's all there is to it. He's had 11 years to improve the offense and failed. If you're happy with that record [which you are, or you wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail to try and justify it.] then more power to you. But some of us know better.

Stop being scared of change Gregg. If Peterson is fired, there WILL BE MANY quality GM's lining up for a chance at total control of such a prestigious franchise. All Lamar has to do is fire Peterson after the season and make some phone calls. <BR>

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 08:36 AM
Titus and Luz, give me your honest opinions of the offense and offensive personel we've had over the last 11 years please.

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 08:44 AM
"We have enough talent to go to the championship"


Are you kidding me! We still have no RB, something we've never had under Peterson! We still have no kicker, or punter. And kicker has been a position Peterson has been trying to fill for most of his tenure. We still have an immobile, inacurate, mistake prone QB. We still don't have a quality # 2 receiver that can hang on to the ball. We are FAR from have enough talent to reach the championship.

Luz, you exactly the type of fan Peterson loves... totally blind!

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 08:44 AM
Cannibal: let's start off with a few things.

First, Im NOT happy with their failures. NO WHERE have I ever stated I was remotely happy with the failures. I am trying, as much as you hate it, to be realistic about your rantings about Carl.

How many times to I have to say this--SHOW ME SOMEONE BETTER! Read it again: SHOW ME SOMEONE BETTER THAN CARL.

Please quit trying to put that bull**** in my mouth about being satisifed with our failures. I have the objective mind enough to realize that not EVERYTHING is Carl's fault.

Back to the diatribe:

If smashmouth was not Peterson's philosophy, why would that be the type of coach he hired and worked with for 11 years now? Smashmouth is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy and Peterson is a conservative GM. - No facts only opinion here. For my sake and Clint's please provide facts. I cant tell you why he hired Gun, because Im not clairvoyant, but I can tell you that it was stupid to do so when Billick, etc, we're available.

If Peterson is fired, there WILL BE MANY quality GM's lining up for a chance at total control of such a prestigious franchise. All Lamar has to do is fire Peterson after the season and make some phone calls. - not scared of change in the slightest, this is more conjecture/opinion and no fact. It's obviously so easy in your opinion Im assuming it's only a matter of time before you are proving me wrong by GM'ing an NFL team to the SB.

<BR>

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 08:48 AM
True, we dont have an RB and that is extremely frustrating for a team that wants to run the ball ad naseum. I think with the right stud RB, EG becomes more effective.

DA could be a good #2 receiver.

Last, how many FG kickers have we had in the last 11 years? 3? sounds like a real 'revolving door' at that position, huh?

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 08:52 AM
He's brought in two kickers and they've cost us games. He said he would solve this problem and still hasn't been able to.

Maybe he should have taken Grammatica in the 99 draft instead of Gary Stills. It would be one less personel problem on this team.

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 08:54 AM
Probably. Maybe we should have the type of team that doesnt RELY on kickers to win games. Thinking back to 1995, had we actually played football, we might not have needed to rely on ol' greasy toe elliott.

alanm
09-14-2000, 08:57 AM
I can submit a guess as to why he hired Gun. If you remember back to '98, discipline was a big problem. The Chiefs had gotten a reputation as thugs and lead the league in penalties. This team was fairly cap heavy, and couldn't afford to make big roster moves. I'm guessing Carl believed in the guys on the roster then, and needed to make them work out due to cap constraints.

So, if the guesses are correct the requirements for a HC would be someone familiar with current personnel. He would also be a tough disciplinarian. I think Carl believed we still had most of the personnel to field a good team. Actually, I believe that right now myself.

If you remember back to Gun's hiring and his intial press conferences, I felt he was saying all the right things. In short he probably interviewd very well. He talked about game speed in practice and a focus on quick execution rather than Marty's style of long slow teaching practices. He talked about a professional attitude toward the game and practice. He talked about throwing deep and having big fast recievers.

(cont.)

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:03 AM
The reason we had to rely on Elliot was because our skill players were Steve Bono, Willie Davis and J.J. Birden, none of which belonged in the NFL as starters for any team, let alone the Chiefs. RRBC didn't help either.

[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 09-14-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:09 AM
yeah, during that 13-3 regular season we relied on Elliott a lot didnt we? As I recall, we had some close games but in the end won most times NOT the result of Elliott.

Our TEAM led the league in rushing offense scoring, defense and turnover ratio. None of which showed up in that Indy game. Maybe we should have played like we did in the regular season rather than hide our heads in the sand like Marty allways did in the playoffs. But I digress...

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 09-14-2000).]

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:14 AM
The exact philosophy you just listed has been a PROVEN FAILURE in the playoffs. It has also been a staple of Peterson's football teams.

The Chiefs have not had a QB, WR or RB drafted by Peterson make the probowl. That is a horrible record anyway you slice it.

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:19 AM
I need to correct you on one thing...not Peterson's teams, but MARTY's teams. Marty did the same thing before he got to KC and I dont believe Carl was the GM in Cleveland.

I agree the philosophy is flawed and that's why we need to get rid of the current staff of coaches we have. The problem here is you give Carl way too much credit to think that he not only hires the coaches but forces the philosophy. - your opinion maybe but not fact and facts are what I and Clint like to have.

I agree that is sad, but like I said before, you dont draft quality probowl talent at those three positions when you draft #20 or lower.

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:22 AM
We'll just have to agree to disagree. There is obviously no getting through to you even though it staring you right in the face.

This franchise needs to clean house starting with Peterson and his entire staff IMO.

There should nothing left standing from Peterson/Schottenhiemer era.



[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 09-14-2000).]

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 09:23 AM
IMO, KC could acquire a GM that is not quite as "good" as Carl, but totally different in his approach to the game, and actually be better off in the long run.

I can't believe that even people that want the Chiefs to clean house want Lamar to retain the services of Carl. We've SEEN what he can do. We've witnessed his best "stuff". It's time to move on. Carl should've followed Marty out the door.

Any fool can assemble a non-playoff team and "F" the salary cap up. That is what has happpened in the last 3 years.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:25 AM
You're right Clint. I guess everyone would be happy going back to the Steadman days-- Yeah, that would really be a lot of fun--his approach to the game was much different than Carl's, so yeah, that would work out great.

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 09:28 AM
I didn't say I wanted a retard as the GM! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Even if the next GM wasn't as capable as Carl, what's the difference between losing by a little and losing by a lot? At least KC would get into position to FINALLY draft a stud QB or RB. Right now we're just being teased.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:30 AM
Cannibal: I guess we will. I guess when you pick an average of #21 overall since 1990, it's amazing we actually have what we have.

With #'s 13 and 14 we got a PB TE in 1997 and a potential PB WR in 2000.

I have no idea why we dont trade up in the draft, but by the same token, I have no idea that Carl is not trying to trade up.

The only pick we've totally blown is in 1990 when we passed up Emmitt Smith.

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 09:33 AM
If you want a good QB or RB bad enough, you do what it takes to trade up. If you're too scared to pull the trigger, you sign an experienced retread and take whatever happens to fall to your draft position.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:33 AM
Yes, I know Clint. I share in the frustration that we're stuck in this rut. I know there are better coaches than Gun, Raye, Stock and Kurt out there, therefore Im willing to see them go. Im not convinced that we could find any better GM, not that we'll see that opportunity present itself until another owner comes along.

If Carl fired the staff and hired another completely inept staff then I'd be willing to call for Carl's head for making the same mistake twice. One would hope he's not that stupid.

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:34 AM
No it's not "amazing" we've had what we've had at all.

Carl has passed up numerous skill players not just Emmitt Smith.

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:35 AM
And I think CP has done the latter, Clint. I dont know that it's scared, but once again it takes two to trade and I dont want to see Carl making an idiot trade like Ditka.

There's got to be some kind of reasonable trade to trade up.

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 09:37 AM
I feel that Carl will only hire a head coach that shares his approach to the game. IMO THAT is why Carl should be included in any housecleaning.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:38 AM
I glad others on the board can make themselves feel better about our inept GM situation.

I know I can't and it sucks.

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:38 AM
Ok, Cannibal, I know you expect Carl to be clairvoyant about who will become an All Star by missing that 6th rounder Terrell Davis.

Im objective enough to realize that most of the playmakers are drafted in the first round.

From 1990-2000, we've picked an average of #21 overall. While we may have missed some 2nd and 3rd rounders, not to mention 6th rounders and Kurt Warner, so have all the other teams.

The biggest failures are those we passed over in the first round. We've had our share of failures, but like I said, you cant expect greatness when your drafting an average of #21 out of 30, 31 teams.

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 09:39 AM
Ditka went too far, but I would gladly give up one entire draft for a Peyton Manning or an Edgerrin James.

The Saints now have a more impressive "big 3" than the Chiefs, IMO. Sad.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 09:43 AM
LOL @ Cannibal, if you try to be objective, you might notice that not everything bad that happens is the fault of Carl.

You've found your scapegoat, Im glad for you. I still give Carl some, not much, but some credit.

You want to talk inept, try before Carl came to town. That's inept, Carl is far from that. -- Again just and objective view of the situation.

Gotta head to a meeting, I'll check in later.

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 09:51 AM
What you call "objective" I call blind.

Chief Nathan
09-14-2000, 10:11 AM
I think Cannibal is feeding on his hypothalamus AGAIN.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
09-14-2000, 10:17 AM
Cannibal,

We've drafted very well on the D side of the ball. When we've used a #1 on O we have one glaring bust (Trezelle), but the four other times I can think of are starting for our team: Two on what is usually described as (one of) the best O Lines in the NFL, one in a starting skill position ~ WR, and the other as a Pro Bowl TE. That's pretty good drafting.

Your mistake is in assuming that Carl CAN'T draft O playmakers... where do you get that? Because of the only handful of attempts to use a LOW second or third round pick to get a RB?

The fact is, the Chiefs have traditionally placed more priority on drafting D talent. Your problem is with that priority or philosophy. You also make a guess that this is all because of Carl (and not the HC). Can you understand why some of us point out to you that your logic is flawed (only to have you then accuse us of 'loving Carl', or 'settling for mediocrity')?
(cont.)<BR>

Traveller
09-14-2000, 10:17 AM
As for giving up an entire draft for Manning..

When Manning was first drafted their was large faction here in Indy that wanted to either take Leaf or trade down for extra picks and grab Greise or someone later.

When Manning went 3-13 and had 20 some int's his first two years, the Colts braintrust was squirming and the fans were loud.

What I'm getting at, is that no draft pick is a sure thing and giving up an entire draft for any of them is stupid.

Overall, I'd give CP a B for his drafts. and a B+ for his trades. Passing on Dillon raised it from a B.

[This message has been edited by ck_IN (edited 09-14-2000).]

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
09-14-2000, 10:18 AM
(cont.)
The other blatant mistake you make is in assuming that everything is static ~ that it always stays the same. Carl/Marty/Gun have modified their philosophies over the years and (for example) for you to continue saying that Carl doesn't place a priority on O in light of where he has been spending his #1 picks the last several years (not to mention going after Dillon) is ludicrous. It started out that way 11 years ago ~ but that's the past.

You're unhappy because Carl doesn't roll the dice much. You want to go all-or-nothing. You want to risk a number of terrible seasons for the shot at one championship.

I would rather build a team that is always competitive, that gets us into the playoffs more often than not, and usually has a chance of winning it all (preferably without a HC that changes his style of play once he gets to the playoffs). This will bring us that Championship sooner or later.

So cool down on your rhetoric, you're not some football guru that sees things that the rest of us don't see, in fact, it just might be you that finally figures out that he's complaining about the wrong thing.

Luz
no offense... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif<BR>

Chief Nathan
09-14-2000, 10:39 AM
Well-

The topic post is way off, although some of the Man Eater's arguments appear more rational. Losing to the Chargers is not reason enough to demand a house cleaning now. Knee Jerk reaction. Besides, divisional games are always closer than talent/records dictate them to be and Chiefs have had trouble with the Chargers game plan (save for Whelihan and Baby Leaf at QB).

elvislivesinkc
09-14-2000, 11:09 AM
I agree that cleaning house because of one loss vs. San Diego would be a knee-jerk reaction, but it's the last 3 seasons that would cause the housecleaning to occur. The SD game would be the last straw.

What I hope for every year is a Super Bowl victory. I don't get excited about a one-and-done playoff appearance, even if they occur every year.

GMs have a shelf life IMO, similar to head coaches. Carl has been here long enough to establish the sort of team he wants, and I think we saw those teams in '95 and '97. In today's game, when it's crunch time, a conservative philosphy almost never works.

The Chiefs can either:

A. Keep Carl and remain somewhat competitive, assuring that Arrowhead will be full and that the Chiefs will never acquire that stud QB or RB we've been waiting for for over a decade, or

B. Roll the dice & go for it all within a couple of years with a new offensive philosophy, GM, coaches, etc. while unloading many of the old, familiar faces on the team that make too much money for their production.

IMO it comes down to what satisfies you as a fan. Carl clearly doesn't have what it takes to assemble a Super Bowl champion, but he can make an awful team competitive with defense, which is exactly what Lamar wanted, IMO. I personally would rather go through up-and-down cycles & have a real shot at a Super Bowl every now and then.

IMO, winning the Lombardi Trophy should be the #1 goal for KC. Do that, and the money & fan base will take care of themselves. It almost seems like Chief fans have been duped for over a decade by a couple of brilliant and shrewd businessmen.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

G_Man
09-14-2000, 11:49 AM
Luz,

You stated "I would rather build a team that is always competitive, that gets us into the
playoffs more often than not, and usually has a chance of winning it all (preferably without a HC that changes his style of play once he gets to the playoffs). This will bring us that Championship sooner or later."

1. In recent years the Chiefs have NOT made it to the playoffs "more often than not". 3 of the last 4 years we have NOT made it to the postseason. I think you would agree that our chances of making it this year are slim. That will leave KC out of the playoffs the last 4 of 5 years, something which I and many others feel is completely unacceptable.

2. "Usually has a chance of winning it all"? Do you honestly beleive that KC has had a chance to win it all recently?

3. "That will bring us the Championship sooner or later." I think 12 years moves us well past the "sooner" part.


- Carl Peterson, the man who has gotten more out of a single AFC Championship game than any other G.M. in the history of football.

Kurt Surber
09-14-2000, 12:07 PM
Cannibal: I guess you dont read my posts much then. Im not blind to the 'problems' of this team. Find me a GM that is comparable or better than Carl, and I might agree with you.

That said, he's not going anywhere, so the best you and I can hope for is that he fires all of the current coaches and brings in an offensive minded HC and let's that new guy bring in a new staff.

Clint:

, winning the Lombardi Trophy should be the #1 goal for KC - please tell me you dont believe that this is not their #1 goal.

It almost seems like Chief fans have been duped for over a decade by a couple of brilliant and shrewd businessmen. - duped, how? While that may be true for you, the best last chance we had for the SB in 1993, since the 1995 playoff debacle, I have been of the opinion that our PHILOSOPHY of the game had to change before we become contenders again. If you chose to believe that Marty could do it after that time, then yeah, you were duped.

Carl clearly doesn't have what it takes to assemble a Super Bowl champion, - Opinion, no fact. How much better do you expect him to do when your average draft position is #21 since 1990? Didnt Carl build a SB team in Philly?<BR>

ColoradoChief
09-14-2000, 12:26 PM
Clint's post hit the nail on the headÖ


It comes down to what you're satisfied with.

Some of us are not satisfied with missing the playoffs three out of the last four years, [soon to be 4 out of the last 5].
Some of us are not satisfied with our lack of skill position talent.
Some of us are not satisfied with Peterson's lack of ability to find a freaking kicker and punter.
Some of us are not satisfied with the conservative philosophy that is at the root of the Chiefs problems.
Some of us are not satisfied with this team having a cap situation that resembles that of the 49er's even though we are not rebuilding from 4 Superbowl teams like the 9ers are.


We are still fans, but it's very hard with Peterson at the helm. I myself have reduced to rooting for the team to lose, just so changes can be made.


If you want an answer to a replacement.

What you do is hire an offensive head coach that has an eye for talent. You let the coach have the final say on personnel decisions and you hire the coach an assistant to help the coach with salary cap issues.

What did Mike Holmgren do when he entered the league?

He was offensive coordinator for the 9ers. He became head coach for Green-Bay. He is now on his way to becoming a good GM in this league with the Seahawks. Even though the Hawks are in for a bad season. They are in a great position for the future. He cut large slabs of fat off of their salary cap and they will have 4 top ten draft picks in the next two years. They will complete their "Big 3" at the skill positions and they will be in contention for a Superbowl while Carl and Co. with still be "developing" Grbac and drafting Offensive Guards and Tackles in the first round of the draft.<BR>