PDA

View Full Version : TJ's take on our defense from the donks site


BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 06:11 AM
TJ said:
Your defense sucks because Carl Peterson is a piss poor General Manager.

Why do you guys suck? You can answer that by trying to find out the answers to these questions:

Why did you resign Bartee this year? Why did you resign Warfield last year? Why didn't you fire Greg Robinson last year? Why did you draft a runningback last year when you knew you needed defense? If Priest went down, there's nothing LJ could have done to replace him. Why do you still have $5-7 million under the salary cap right now?

It's partly the Chiefs fan's fault too... Why would you all accept such a blatant public relations move (re-signing Gunther) and be convinced that he's all you need to get over the hump? I remember when Carl was talking about bringing Romanowski in. Some fans were up in arms actually writing letters and signing petitions demanding that the Chiefs not sign Romo. I doubt one of those people wrote a single letter demanding that the Chiefs get serious about a playoff run and not just accept PR ploys and call them "improvements."


You can never have enough bash carl threads on the planet......

As much as it pains me to admit it...he's mostly right. Our problem is not DV. It's personnel and the blame for that lays squarely at King Carl's doorstep. Can I get some Dammit Carl's :cuss:

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 06:17 AM
I like the part about it being the 'fans fault'...that is PURE comedy gold and probably the most retarded thing Ive ever read from Teej, and that's saying someting.

That's almost Packfan-bad...

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 06:18 AM
Our problem is not DV. It's personnel
Oxymoronic.
DV is a big proponent of letting players grow within the system, and our standing pat on D, and passing on certain players, and resigning most all of our FAs, is ALL on HIM.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 06:24 AM
More jokes at the Chiefs defense expense

A joke article from The Brushback.
http://www.thebrushback.com/chiefsD_full.htm
Chiefs To Use Power Of Positive Thinking To Repair Defense
KANSAS CITY, MO--The Kansas City Chiefs today announced a new strategy for repairing their struggling defense: the power of positive thinking. The defense, which was ranked last in the league a year ago, remains virtually unchanged. Instead of drafting young defenders and signing free agents, the team left the roster alone. Now that it’s too late to make any significant player upgrades, the Chiefs will simply hope with all their hearts that the defense improves.
“I think this is the perfect solution to our problem,” said GM Carl Peterson. “We’re not gonna sit on our hands and be passive here. The defense is broken and needs to be fixed. And we’re just gonna concentrate, visualize ourselves playing better, and hope that it does the trick. If the guys feel better about themselves, they’ll play better. You just watch. This is going to change everything.”
Peterson does not believe the team’s problems are personnel related. Though he did hire a new defensive coordinator in Gunther Cunningham, he was widely criticized for failing to upgrade his roster. Peterson believed that if the defense came into this season with a new attitude and fresh outlook, they would magically transform into a top-notch unit. So far he’s been wrong, as the Chiefs defense looked like its old ineffective self in Sunday night’s season opener against the Broncos.
“That was a tough game, but we’re going to put it behind us,” Peterson. “We’re going to do much, much better next week. You know why? Because I’m hoping for the best, that’s why.”
The team is following Peterson’s lead. Every player is really hoping that things turn out better for the defense. They’re hoping that interceptions suddenly fall into their hands and running backs fall down at their feet. They’re also hoping that they can somehow get some pressure on the quarterback, even though they have no dominant pass rusher.
“I hope all these things happen. I really do,” said linebacker <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12201" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12201" target="_blank">Shawn Barber</a></a>. “We are not a very talented bunch, so we’re going to just hope things turn out well for us. We’re all thrilled to be here and very excited and we feel that enthusiasm is going to carry over into next week. Actually, we know the enthusiasm is going to carry over to next week. We just hope that enthusiasm is enough to help us win because we certainly don’t have any talent.”
According to some coaches, the positive thinking and enthusiasm have already started to affect the team’s practices.
“Wow, guys are really excited right now,” said Gunther Cunningham. “You can see it in their eyes, in the way they carry themselves—there’s really a spring in their step. Guys are high fiving each other, laughing, smiling, and thinking extremely happy thoughts. They still can’t play defense though. It took three guys to take down a tackling dummy yesterday.”
The coaches are not panicking, however. They’re still convinced that the team’s new positive mind set will solve all of their problems.
“We’ll get better. We’ll get better. We’ll get better” said Vernon Dean, defensive backs coach. “I keep repeating that to myself. Eventually it’s going to come true. See, some teams go the conventional route, and actually replace those bad players with better players. But our front office likes to think outside the box. They really like to think outside the box. In fact Carl wanted to waive a few of our defensive players and their backups in the offseason. He was actually willing to put ten men on the field. Then we really would’ve had to think positive. At that point, I would've had to come to practice drunk.”
The power of positive thinking is pretty uncommon in the football world. Most NFL coaches s are surly and mean spirited, and use fear and discipline to get the most out of their players. That’s another reason why the Chiefs approach is a breath of fresh air.
“The negative approach is very popular among NFL coaches,” said head coach Dick Vermeil. “And I can understand the merits of self criticism and tough love, but I don’t think that’s really going to help us. You do need some semblance of talent in order for that to work. So we’re just going to do the same things we did last year with the same people and hope this time around it magically works out. Isn’t that a great strategy? It certainly is refreshing to see so many happy faces focused on staying upbeat. But honestly, I’d trade all this positive thinking for one damn stop on third down.”
With this roster, he may not get his wish. The defense has looked awful since training camp and there is nothing to indicate that they will improve. If the team finishes the year last in defense again, Peterson has vowed to take action.
“Next offseason will be a little different than this one if our defensive unit is still struggling,” said Peterson. “As a GM, you’ve got to take action. I may consider hiring a motivational speaker to get team pumped up before every game. I may even consider giving them some ecstasy on Sundays. That stuff always makes you think positive. Come to think of it, maybe we should give some to the fans, too.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 06:56 AM
more defense bashing from fox sports:
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3013202

MichaelH
09-16-2004, 07:19 AM
Those comments might hurt but they're so true. How many times have the Chiefs been oh so close but never sealed the deal due to at least one missing component. Most of the 90's and last year. Who was GM at this time? It makes you wonder. :hmmm:

ROYC75
09-16-2004, 07:21 AM
OK, since when does Taco know what he is talking about ? I mean, after all he believes in a Jackass for a team mascot and Rat for a head coach .

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 07:22 AM
Those comments might hurt but they're so true. How many times have the Chiefs been oh so close but never sealed the deal due to at least one missing component. Most of the 90's and last year. Who was GM at this time? It makes you wonder. :hmmm:

In the 90's the Chiefs supposedly had a best in the NFL defense, and as I understand it now, defense wins championships, so you tell me...is it GM or is it the team on the field?

Also, what part of 'it's the fans fault' is true? I need a genious (chiefsplanet spelling) explanation on that one too.

MichaelH
09-16-2004, 07:27 AM
We had the best defense, that is true. But we had Steve Bonehead and a running back by commitee offense. True, we had Joe Montana, at the end of his career. Hell throw in Marcus Allen as well. It always seems as though the necessary balance has never existed since the 70's. I'm not going to speculate as to who's fault it is, it just seems as though the Chiefs need to be better balanced to win the big show.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 07:32 AM
We had the best defense, that is true. But we had Steve Bonehead and a running back by commitee offense. True, we had Joe Montana, at the end of his career. Hell throw in Marcus Allen as well. It always seems as though the necessary balance has never existed since the 70's. I'm not going to speculate as to who's fault it is, it just seems as though the Chiefs need to be better balanced to win the big show.

The DV team and Marty teams are polar opposites...yet, the GM person remained the same. This should provide us some clue as to who the driving force behind personnel is...CP signs the people that DV/Marty/Gunther wanted.

The ONLY reason why KC won 2 playoff games in 1993 was due to the play of Montana, otherwise this franchise would have had nothing to show for it's 'playoff run' in the 90's.

MichaelH
09-16-2004, 07:40 AM
The DV team and Marty teams are polar opposites...yet, the GM person remained the same. This should provide us some clue as to who the driving force behind personnel is...CP signs the people that DV/Marty/Gunther wanted.

The ONLY reason why KC won 2 playoff games in 1993 was due to the play of Montana, otherwise this franchise would have had nothing to show for it's 'playoff run' in the 90's.

I agree, DV and Marty are polar opposites. DV equals offense and Marty defense. And that's why I say we have been unbalanced. Depending on who the coach was, the other side of the ball was neglected. Maybe Carl needs a bigger set of brass ones and needs to say no to his coaches.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 07:48 AM
Maybe Carl needs a bigger set of brass ones and needs to say no to his coaches.

I thought Carl was the problem, not the answer.

You can hardly say that one side of the ball or the other has been neglected when one coach or another was in charge. Most of Vermiel's higher draft picks have been of the defensive variety.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 07:48 AM
I agree, DV and Marty are polar opposites. DV equals offense and Marty defense. And that's why I say we have been unbalanced. Depending on who the coach was, the other side of the ball was neglected. Maybe Carl needs a bigger set of brass ones and needs to say no to his coaches.

I wouldnt say it's was/is neglected...KC did trade for Montana, signed Allen and attempted to draft offense during those years. Unfortunately, the players didnt work out.

Same with DV's teams, they signed 3 Defensive FA's last year that appeared to be the solution but turned out not to be the pancea everyone thought. The draft picks have been heavily weighted defensive as well.

WilliamTheIrish
09-16-2004, 08:06 AM
The fans fault?

What a twit.

I'm sure there has to be picture of TJ, in a one on one sit down with Bowlen, after the playoff loss to the Jags, DEMANDING that Bowlen win a Super Bowl. (For we all know how competitive TJ is as a fan)

nmt1
09-16-2004, 08:11 AM
As far as it being the fans fault, I think TJ has a point. There are so many around here who absolutely despise Carl and think he's the problem with the team yet they continue to buy tickets and merchandise. I'm not one of these people but I think if those that feel so strongly about Carl and his supposed negative effect on the team were serious, they'd get together and boycott or something.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 08:15 AM
As far as it being the fans fault, I think TJ has a point. There are so many around here who absolutely despise Carl and think he's the problem with the team yet they continue to buy tickets and merchandise. I'm not one of these people but I think if those that feel so strongly about Carl and his supposed negative effect on the team were serious, they'd get together and boycott or something.

I'm handing out Dammit Carl's :cuss: with the best of them. But I'm also a big time homer. I can whine and moan and becheech my team to do the right thing (fire GR etc) but It's hard to start a petition organize a boycott etc against my team.

Otter
09-16-2004, 08:16 AM
Let's not forget their blatent disregard for quarterback development!

:D

Couldn't resist. It's only been 1 game people, cripes.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 08:21 AM
I did email my buddy Carl and complain about the ads inside of Arrowhead on the big screen and about the soccer lines on the field during game day....What a wimp fan I am huh....Maybe TJ is right....Nah he's to much of an A-hole to be right about anything...:p

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 08:23 AM
As far as it being the fans fault, I think TJ has a point. There are so many around here who absolutely despise Carl and think he's the problem with the team yet they continue to buy tickets and merchandise. I'm not one of these people but I think if those that feel so strongly about Carl and his supposed negative effect on the team were serious, they'd get together and boycott or something.

TJ doesnt have a point, he's a retard...it's idiotic to blame the fans for the teams performance.

The fans are fans for a reason, they want the team to win, regardless...the fan spectrum ranges from ultimate diehard to flippy bandwagon and there are all kinds of degrees in between, but there is not one fan, not a single one fan that has any bearing on the outcome of any game and it's moronic to say otherwise.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 08:30 AM
TJ doesnt have a point, he's a retard...it's idiotic to blame the fans for the teams performance.

The fans are fans for a reason, they want the team to win, regardless...the fan spectrum ranges from ultimate diehard to flippy bandwagon and there are all kinds of degrees in between, but there is not one fan, not a single one fan that has any bearing on the outcome of any game and it's moronic to say otherwise.

I disagree with part of your statement. You're right that the fans have no bearing on the outcome of the games or the performance of the players currently on the team. I think they could, theoretically, have an effect on who's on the team in the future by organizing to get Carl fired. Whether or not there's enough fans to do something like that is another story.
Also, some fans do want their team to lose. You see it from some here on a daily basis. Some fans are more interested in being able to say that if the team had done what they said to do, the team would've been more successful. Heck, some here think they could run the team better than Carl. That's laughable at best and moronic at worst.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 08:32 AM
...It's hard to start a petition organize a boycott etc against my team.

Some(not me) might say that you would a "better" fan if you did something like this.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 08:43 AM
They're not neglecting the defense, nor did they neglect the offense when Marty was here.

Almost 75% of our draft picks under Vermeil have been defense. Under Marty, we drafted 1st-round running backs and brought in free agents like Allen and Montana.

The problem is two-fold:

1) They don't appear to be particularly good talent evaluators. I think that's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT Carl. The common thread from 89 on is that, no matter if we pick offense or defense, they tend to be mediocre.

2) They have problems on the field with utilizing talent and being stubborn about it. This is the fault of the coaches and both Marty and Vermeil are guilty of it. I'll never forget the 1st game of the 1997 season, when Greg Hill took his first carry around end for a 19-yard game. His next carry came late in the SECOND quarter. Vermeil is just as guilty. He'd rather go with a guy like Holliday, just because he's a vet and done some things in the past, even though it's obvious that Holliday can't get it done HERE and NOW. He's afraid of putting a guy like Jared Allen in and having him melt down.

2bikemike
09-16-2004, 08:55 AM
What the Phug does Taco know he's never played a down of high school football.

But I will be the contrarian here and say that nobody knows the difficulty of any of the key players jobs from the the GM down to the lowliest assistants job until you walk a mile in their shoes.

Now Carl has made some mistakes but there ain't a swingin dick around here who could have done a better job. Reading this BB suggestions on what should be done we would be in serious cap hell for years and years.

Everybody clamors for that big name stud to come in with some high price contract and save the day. When at best its a 50/50 crap shoot as to whether that person will be worth what was paid for him. (Can anybody say Hugh Douglas) In todays NFL there are so many pitfalls with the salary cap that it makes it very difficult to have it all.

As for now I am not ready to throw in the towel on this defense. I will give Gunther more than 2 or 3 games to get these guys playing the way KC defense is supposed to be played. We have some young guys that will be here a while. Hopefully they will pan out and be the studs we need.

shaneo69
09-16-2004, 08:57 AM
...but there is not one fan, not a single one fan that has any bearing on the outcome of any game and it's moronic to say otherwise.

Steve Bartman

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:00 AM
Put me down in agreement of Taco on this. CP went on vacation the first week of FA. That shows me they are content and could give two shits about actually improving the team. $6 million in cap room and they are content? The only time you should be content with your players is if you have WON the Super Bowl. Christ, even the Super Bowl champs went out and got Corey Dillon. Why you may ask...Because they KNEW they needed to improve the running game. I'm really starting to believe the Chiefs are way too frugal to to be committed to going to the big dance. Carl's off-season was pathetic and he needs to be ripped a new one, IMO.

38yrsfan
09-16-2004, 09:07 AM
IMHO .....

In most corporate settings if the company is not profitable, overhead is reduced and leadership is subject to change. The Chiefs however are profitable regardless of continuing seasons of disappointment for the fans. There is no "the buck stops here" philosophy in the organization and failure is diluted by the process of spreading it around.

The coach, while instrumental in player selections, ultimately has to work with what is available. The philosophy should be that the salary cap should be utilized to the maximum to get the best product for the consumer. That is a failure of top management. If there isn't success a different formula should be attempted, personnel changes, coaching changes, management changes, mixes of all three. I'm still reluctant to say hiring Gunther wasn't a good move because I like his style of defense; he just needs a Derrick Thomas or two, maybe even a Champ.
The defense has shown improvement and there is still a possiblity for respectability regardless what the pundits in the media and rival boards like to make their story of the day.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:09 AM
Put me down in agreement of Taco on this. CP went on vacation the first week of FA. That shows me they are content and could give two shits about actually improving the team. $6 million in cap room and they are content? The only time you should be content with your players is if you have WON the Super Bowl. Christ, even the Super Bowl champs went out and got Corey Dillon. Why you may ask...Because they KNEW they needed to improve the running game. I'm really starting to believe the Chiefs are way too frugal to to be committed to going to the big dance. Carl's off-season was pathetic and he needs to be ripped a new one, IMO.

:deevee:

An effective manager listens to his employees or he's not a manager very long.

Did you ever think Carl went on vacation because the plan was already in place? His BOSS said "no more money" and his coaches said "we can do it with what we have".

This bulletin board acted like schoolgirls touching themselves at the thought of Gunther coming back. GUNTHER is the one that said he could get it done with the guys we have.

2bikemike
09-16-2004, 09:09 AM
They're not neglecting the defense, nor did they neglect the offense when Marty was here.

Almost 75% of our draft picks under Vermeil have been defense. Under Marty, we drafted 1st-round running backs and brought in free agents like Allen and Montana.

The problem is two-fold:

1) They don't appear to be particularly good talent evaluators. I think that's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT Carl. The common thread from 89 on is that, no matter if we pick offense or defense, they tend to be mediocre.

2) They have problems on the field with utilizing talent and being stubborn about it. This is the fault of the coaches and both Marty and Vermeil are guilty of it. I'll never forget the 1st game of the 1997 season, when Greg Hill took his first carry around end for a 19-yard game. His next carry came late in the SECOND quarter. Vermeil is just as guilty. He'd rather go with a guy like Holliday, just because he's a vet and done some things in the past, even though it's obvious that Holliday can't get it done HERE and NOW. He's afraid of putting a guy like Jared Allen in and having him melt down.

These are statements that I can agree with. But would add that as far as evaluating talent Carl has a staff of scouts. Carl is overall responsible and needs to do something about it.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:10 AM
Steve Bartman

Heh...even that one could be debated, but I was referring primarily to the beautiful game--football.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 09:11 AM
Steve Bartman

He didn't change the game. He was lawfully trying to catch the ball. He didn't enter the field of play or interfere with the play. The player went into the stands after the ball. It was the curse of the goat.:p

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:19 AM
Ive never understood the concept that KC's front office 'shuts down' if Carl isnt sitting at his desk.

As somewhat of a techno geek myself, I thought I might let some of you know that there are some neato gadgets that can make travel and work possible at the same time.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:30 AM
:deevee:

An effective manager listens to his employees or he's not a manager very long.

Did you ever think Carl went on vacation because the plan was already in place? His BOSS said "no more money" and his coaches said "we can do it with what we have".

This bulletin board acted like schoolgirls touching themselves at the thought of Gunther coming back. GUNTHER is the one that said he could get it done with the guys we have.
I agree with what you are saying up to a point, however, and I don't care if it's CP or Lamar Hunt, somebody, somewhere is content with just filling the seats at Arrowhead. Winning is an added bonus. After how many failed years of the 5 year plan can we have the RIGHT as season ticket holders and fans to be dissatified? I mean, you can't actually be content with where the Chiefs have gone in recent years. Believe me, I haven't given up on the Chiefs, but it is unexcusable to virtually do nothing to improve the team in FA when we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade. I'm tried and true on Sundays, but during the rest of the week, I think it's painfully obvious the Chiefs are content, hence the vacationing during the 1st week of FA. Like I said, I don't care who's feet the blame falls too, I just know it does fall at somebodies feet at Arrowhead. The even funnier thing about this is they want us to dig deeper into OUR OWN POCKETS to foot the bill for renovations, but aren't willing to do the same in return. I want the best for my team and I don't see the effort it takes to get there. I call bullbutter on them. Let the "I'm not a true fan" mantra begin.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:32 AM
I agree with what you are saying up to a point, however, and I don't care if it's CP or Lamar Hunt, somebody, somewhere is content with just filling the seats at Arrowhead. Winning is an added bonus. After how many failed years of the 5 year plan can we have the RIGHT as season ticket holders and fans to be dissatified? I mean, you can't actually be content with where the Chiefs have gone in recent years. Believe me, I haven't given up on the Chiefs, but it is unexcusable to virtually do nothing to improve the team in FA when we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade. I'm tried and true on Sundays, but during the rest of the week, I think it's painfully obvious the Chiefs are content, hence the vacationing during the 1st week of FA. Like I said, I don't care who's feet the blame falls too, I just know it does fall at somebodies feet at Arrowhead. The even funnier thing about this is they want us to dig deeper into OUR OWN POCKETS to foot the bill for renovations, but aren't willing to do the same in return. I want the best for my team and I don't see the effort it takes to get there. I call bullbutter on them. Let the "I'm not a true fan" mantra begin.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Honestly, BCF, if you dont like the product, dont buy it. Seriously, the games are on TV, you could save a ton of money by not going and you'd have the satisfaction of knowing you're not contributing to a team not willing to take the steps necessary to get better.

Bottom line, this is a game and it's entertainment...I cant for the life of me figure out why people would keep spending money on entertainment they dont like.

shaneo69
09-16-2004, 09:39 AM
GUNTHER is the one that said he could get it done with the guys we have.

Just my opinion, but I think maybe he was toeing the company line when he said that. I think if Gunther had any say whatsoever, he would've been allowed to bring Chuck Cecil along with him.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:40 AM
I agree with what you are saying up to a point, however, and I don't care if it's CP or Lamar Hunt, somebody, somewhere is content with just filling the seats at Arrowhead. Winning is an added bonus. After how many failed years of the 5 year plan can we have the RIGHT as season ticket holders and fans to be dissatified? I mean, you can't actually be content with where the Chiefs have gone in recent years. Believe me, I haven't given up on the Chiefs, but it is unexcusable to virtually do nothing to improve the team in FA when we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade. I'm tried and true on Sundays, but during the rest of the week, I think it's painfully obvious the Chiefs are content, hence the vacationing during the 1st week of FA. Like I said, I don't care who's feet the blame falls too, I just know it does fall at somebodies feet at Arrowhead. The even funnier thing about this is they want us to dig deeper into OUR OWN POCKETS to foot the bill for renovations, but aren't willing to do the same in return. I want the best for my team and I don't see the effort it takes to get there. I call bullbutter on them. Let the "I'm not a true fan" mantra begin.

We spent almost SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS last offseason.

What did it get us? NOTHING. We still lost in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Why do you not see that your argument completely lacks logic? You're pissed off because we didn't sign any free agents this offseason. Yet, last year, when we signed THREE fairly high-profile free agents, we STILL DIDN'T WIN A PLAYOFF GAME. Why would this year be any different?

And if you're so pissed off about the team "pocketing" money at your expense, don't vote for Bi-State 2. While you're at it, don't buy tickets, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, and don't watch the games on TV. That is their main sources of revenue.

If they're truly content with just "filling the seats" that's the ONLY way you'll ever get what you want.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Just my opinion, but I think maybe he was toeing the company line when he said that. I think if Gunther had any say whatsoever, he would've been allowed to bring Chuck Cecil along with him.

Then there's even more reason for those of us that felt it was a bad move to believe we're right.

He's still the same foot-shuffling porter he was when he left.

shaneo69
09-16-2004, 09:50 AM
Then there's even more reason for those of us that felt it was a bad move to believe we're right.

He's still the same foot-shuffling porter he was when he left.


You're already bringing out the "I told you so's," after just one game?

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:52 AM
You're already bringing out the "I told you so's," after just one game?

You know better than that.

I'm the VP and CEO of the Blind Homer Apologists.

However, if Gunther came back here without getting anything that he asked for, how does that make him look?

I can think of a word -- it's DESPERATE.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:59 AM
We spent almost SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS last offseason.

What did it get us? NOTHING. We still lost in the 1st round of the playoffs.

Why do you not see that your argument completely lacks logic? You're pissed off because we didn't sign any free agents this offseason. Yet, last year, when we signed THREE fairly high-profile free agents, we STILL DIDN'T WIN A PLAYOFF GAME. Why would this year be any different?

And if you're so pissed off about the team "pocketing" money at your expense, don't vote for Bi-State 2. While you're at it, don't buy tickets, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, and don't watch the games on TV. That is their main sources of revenue.

If they're truly content with just "filling the seats" that's the ONLY way you'll ever get what you want.
Do I need to remind you of the 1980's? Lamar Hunt and Jack Steadman could have given two shits about putting a competitive team on the field. Your asking me to give up something that I truly love. Even when you love somebody or something you can still be displeased with the way they are approaching things. Like I said on Sundays I'm tried and true, but the rest of the week I try not to take the blind-homer approach. It's disappointing, especially when they EXPECT us(Kansas Citians) to dig into our own pockets so they can profit even more and aren't willing to give the same in return. That, by definition is a double-standard.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:01 AM
Do I need to remind you of the 1980's?

Different era...no salary cap, no free agency so the comparisons are tough. I will say that after years of attendance in the low teens, Lamar did make a change.

So what does that tell you?

shaneo69
09-16-2004, 10:03 AM
...if Gunther came back here without getting anything that he asked for, how does that make him look?

I can think of a word -- it's DESPERATE.

I don't think he was desperate for a job; he could've stayed in TN, and he was the supposed top choice for DC in NYJ and Atl. I think he came back because he loves the tradition of the team, he loves CP and Lamar Hunt, and he loves the fans of KC. Plus, I think he liked the idea of DV letting his DC's do their own thing.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:09 AM
Different era...no salary cap, no free agency so the comparisons are tough. I will say that after years of attendance in the low teens, Lamar did make a change.

So what does that tell you?
After a decade he made a change and I believe making more money was the motivating factor behind it.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:15 AM
After a decade he made a change and I believe making more money was the motivating factor behind it.

Sure it was...when you're not selling even 20% of the stadiums capacity, revenues are going to be down. Today, with the popularity of the sport and the huge TV contracts, things are considerably different.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:19 AM
Sure it was...when you're not selling even 20% of the stadiums capacity, revenues are going to be down. Today, with the popularity of the sport and the huge TV contracts, things are considerably different. I agree with this and my point was that they were content with that approach in the 1980's. Fielding a competitive team was secondary.

Rausch
09-16-2004, 10:22 AM
I agree with this and my point was that they were content with that approach in the 1980's. Fielding a competitive team was secondary.

The best way to make money is to win a super bowl.

Period.

If the team loses people don't go to the games. If people don't go to the games we don't sell out and the game is blacked out. That cuts team exposure and advertising.

That means you make less money. A super bowl is winning the NFL lottery.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:22 AM
I agree with this and my point was that they were content with that approach in the 1980's. Fielding a competitive team was secondary.

maybe you dont remember the 80's...I wouldnt exactly call those years 'fielding competitive' teams in any way you want to define it.

If they were content, then why the change?

Hel'n
09-16-2004, 10:26 AM
more defense bashing from fox sports:
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3013202


Unfortunately, they might be right... :(

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:30 AM
maybe you dont remember the 80's...I wouldnt exactly call those years 'fielding competitive' teams in any way you want to define it.

If they were content, then why the change?Re-read it, I said fielding a competitive team was SECONDARY and I already answered your question originally when I said money was the motivating factor as to why they changed.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 10:32 AM
Do I need to remind you of the 1980's? Lamar Hunt and Jack Steadman could have given two shits about putting a competitive team on the field. Your asking me to give up something that I truly love. Even when you love somebody or something you can still be displeased with the way they are approaching things. Like I said on Sundays I'm tried and true, but the rest of the week I try not to take the blind-homer approach. It's disappointing, especially when they EXPECT us(Kansas Citians) to dig into our own pockets so they can profit even more and aren't willing to give the same in return. That, by definition is a double-standard.

You act as if you actually KNOW all of the things that go into running an NFL team, or any other billion-dollar business for that matter.

It's quite simple. You have no proof of the things you say, other than we didn't sign any high-profile free agents.

The ONLY fact here is that -- we didn't sign any high-profile free agents.

You and I have NO CLUE as to why they didn't.

And that's the difference. I wanted free agents. I want McCardell. I wanted Troy Vincent. I didn't want Gunther.

But I'm a homer because I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion it's because everybody from the owner on down is:

1) cheap
2) out to screw the fans
3) completely unconcerned about winning.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:34 AM
The best way to make money is to win a super bowl.

Period.

If the team loses people don't go to the games. If people don't go to the games we don't sell out and the game is blacked out. That cuts team exposure and advertising.

That means you make less money. A super bowl is winning the NFL lottery.Or to have the most loyal fans in the NFL. I agree winning the Super Bowl is the best way to make money, but it isn't the only way to make money in the NFL.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:34 AM
Re-read it, I said fielding a competitive team was SECONDARY and I already answered your question originally when I said money was the motivating factor as to why they changed.

Sorry, it cannot be the 'same' as the 80's and different at the same time.

Either they are or are not fielding a competitive team. I'd say there have been at least 3-4 teams over the last 15 years that have been 'competitive'...a far cry from the teams of the 80's.

Again, we're comparing apples to oranges because of the many different factors and league changes since then and now.

If you truly believe it's nothing but profit, you know what you have to do.

Coach
09-16-2004, 10:34 AM
What is the difference between saying their defense is terrible and our defense is terrible?

I watched the game too you know, we couldn't stop them from running and they couldn't stop us from running.

They had a better completion percentage, mostly because we had to continually bring up safeties for blitzes and run support but only 2 more completions for 60 yards. We had 2 sacks to their 1, 2 interceptions to thier 1 and 3 fumbles with one recovery to their 0.

Their defense is supposed to be rock solid yet I see NOTHING at all to indicate that it was anything above and beyond ours.

Speaking of us stopping them because of bonehead plays, what about Green running backwards 23 yards on that one sack and a good ways when he threw that interception? If that wasn't boneheaded I don't know what was.

Point is that our offense didn't play as well as they should have, our special teams were all but nonexistant and our defense played as good if not better than I expected for the first time out at a tough opposing rivals house in a new more aggressive scheme with a new coordinator.

Do we need to get better?

Hell yes, but so does the Denver squad compared to last night.

Should we worry about it right now? No, because not only will it do absolutely no good at all other than frustrate everyone but it was one game! The first game.

If they look the same 3 games from now I would say it would be safe to be concenred a bit.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:35 AM
Or to have the most loyal fans in the NFL.

Where were those 'fans' in the 1980s and 70's? Did they just 'appear' in 1991?

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 10:40 AM
Or to have the most loyal fans in the NFL. I agree winning the Super Bowl is the best way to make money, but it isn't the only way to make money in the NFL.

The average fan in 300 is of little consequence.

The money for a team comes from private skyboxes. It's not a coincidence that the Washington Redskins make more money than any other team in football, they have 10 times as many skyboxes as Arrowhead. And it's not secret that Snyder is using that money to buy free agents.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:44 AM
The average fan in 300 is of little consequence.

The money for a team comes from private skyboxes. It's not a coincidence that the Washington Redskins make more money than any other team in football, they have 10 times as many skyboxes as Arrowhead. And it's not secret that Snyder is using that money to buy free agents.

teh rep...

(teh used in honor of Clint)

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:48 AM
You act as if you actually KNOW all of the things that go into running an NFL team, or any other billion-dollar business for that matter.

It's quite simple. You have no proof of the things you say, other than we didn't sign any high-profile free agents.

The ONLY fact here is that -- we didn't sign any high-profile free agents.

You and I have NO CLUE as to why they didn't.

And that's the difference. I wanted free agents. I want McCardell. I wanted Troy Vincent. I didn't want Gunther.

But I'm a homer because I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion it's because everybody from the owner on down is:

1) cheap
2) out to screw the fans
3) completely unconcerned about winning.
Why take pot shots? Business is business no matter how much volume you are doing. It's the law of supply and demand. I don't need to go into what makes me business savvy or not, that's irrelevant to this discussion and actually nobody else's business except my own.

You want proof, I provided the 1980's as an example of how dedicated the team really is to getting to the big dance, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That's an entire DECADE to use as a reference, if you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it's still very valid in my book.

Another example of proof would be the lack of FA moves and still having ample cap room to work with and doing nothing with it. Your treating me as the enemy when that couldn't be further from the truth. I won't apologize for demanding excellence. We have invested money, time, and passion and expecting the most on your investment isn't too much to ask, IMO. Like I said they want me to dig deeper into my pockets to help them make more profit, but they aren't willing to do the same in return. I call bullbutter.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:54 AM
The average fan in 300 is of little consequence.

The money for a team comes from private skyboxes. It's not a coincidence that the Washington Redskins make more money than any other team in football, they have 10 times as many skyboxes as Arrowhead. And it's not secret that Snyder is using that money to buy free agents.
So the tickets are free? I agree the skyboxes are huge revenues for teams, but the fans contribute to the bottom line as well. At an average of roughly $55 a ticket multilpied by 79,000 people plus parking and you can see that we do contribute to their bottomline.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 10:55 AM
You want proof, I provided the 1980's as an example of how dedicated the team really is to getting to the big dance, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That's an entire DECADE to use as a reference, if you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it's still very valid in my book.

I guess the fact that Arrowhead has sold out since 1991, the fact that we've gone 13-3 three times in the last 15 years, and the fact that the Chiefs were the 2nd winningest team in the 1990's all aren't evidence that the Chiefs have changed their philosophy about getting to the Superbowl.

What's fallen on deaf ears is my call for proof, real proof not John Clayton numbers, that we actually have this $6 million under the cap. Anyone...Anyone...Bueller...Bueller...

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:03 AM
So the tickets are free? I agree the skyboxes are huge revenues for teams, but the fans contribute to the bottom line as well. At an average of roughly $55 a ticket multilpied by 79,000 people plus parking and you can see that we do contribute to their bottomline.

2/3 of those 79,000 tickets are owned by CORPORATIONS, not the "little guy". And some skybox season tickets can go for as much as 1500-times the price of one seat. In addition, the NFL has revenue sharing and their last TV contract was worth several billion dollars.

You overestimate how much you contribute to their bottom line.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:09 AM
Why take pot shots? Business is business no matter how much volume you are doing. It's the law of supply and demand. I don't need to go into what makes me business savvy or not, that's irrelevant to this discussion and actually nobody else's business except my own.

You want proof, I provided the 1980's as an example of how dedicated the team really is to getting to the big dance, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That's an entire DECADE to use as a reference, if you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it's still very valid in my book.


Who is taking pot shots? You're the one that decided to base your argument on faulty logic and lack of evidence.

The 1980's may be a valid reference for you, but those of us who are willing to open our eyes know better. Do you even realize what has changed since then? PSL's, skybox revenues, TV REVENUE, free agency, the salary cap, just to name a few of the more "trivial" changes. :rolleyes:

Another example of proof would be the lack of FA moves and still having ample cap room to work with and doing nothing with it. Your treating me as the enemy when that couldn't be further from the truth. I won't apologize for demanding excellence. We have invested money, time, and passion and expecting the most on your investment isn't too much to ask, IMO. Like I said they want me to dig deeper into my pockets to help them make more profit, but they aren't willing to do the same in return. I call bullbutter.

Once again, you are providing a PREMISE as "proof" when in it simply CANNOT BE PROVEN. Let me repeat so that you might understand:

YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH CAP ROOM THE CHIEFS HAVE.

You have no way of proving that they "aren't willing to do the same in return". This is an assumption on your part. Nothing more. I'm treating you as someone who has chosen to overlook the facts, not as an "enemy".

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 11:16 AM
CP went on vacation the first week of FA. That shows me they are content and could give two shits about actually improving the team.
How many times do I have to repeat, DV wants to percolate this stew of talent he has assembled, not add new ingredients. CP didn't go and get big FAs because none of them interested DV sufficiently. It's HIS philosophy that camraderie and learning each other inside and out as a band of brothers is more effective than bringing in 'the new guy' to save the day at a position.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:26 AM
How many times do I have to repeat, DV wants to percolate this stew of talent he has assembled, not add new ingredients. CP didn't go and get big FAs because none of them interested DV sufficiently. It's HIS philosophy that camraderie and learning each other inside and out as a band of brothers is more effective than bringing in 'the new guy' to save the day at a position.

You must be on the payroll. You know as well as anyone else that they're only interested in filling the seats. Mediocrity is the goal.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:46 AM
Who is taking pot shots? You're the one that decided to base your argument on faulty logic and lack of evidence.

The 1980's may be a valid reference for you, but those of us who are willing to open our eyes know better. Do you even realize what has changed since then? PSL's, skybox revenues, TV REVENUE, free agency, the salary cap, just to name a few of the more "trivial" changes. :rolleyes:



Once again, you are providing a PREMISE as "proof" when in it simply CANNOT BE PROVEN. Let me repeat so that you might understand:

YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH CAP ROOM THE CHIEFS HAVE.

You have no way of proving that they "aren't willing to do the same in return". This is an assumption on your part. Nothing more. I'm treating you as someone who has chosen to overlook the facts, not as an "enemy".
I realize things have changed, but the 1980's are PROOF that there wasn't much of a committment to improve the team. Let it fall by the wayside if you must, but I believe it's ample evidence how committed they were to improving the team. You can't just sweep it under the rug like it never happened, because it did.

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 11:52 AM
I realize things have changed, but the 1980's are PROOF that there wasn't much of a committment to improve the team. Let it fall by the wayside if you must, but I believe it's ample evidence how committed they were to improving the team. You can't just sweep it under the rug like it never happened, because it did.
WTF kind of case are you trying to make?
The 1980s also PROVED that we'll never need more than a megabyte of data storage for a home PC.
The 1980s PROVED that Michael Jackson is one cool black dude.
The 1980s PROVED that The Soviet Union is a superpower.

38yrsfan
09-16-2004, 12:29 PM
WTF kind of case are you trying to make?
The 1980s also PROVED that we'll never need more than a megabyte of data storage for a home PC.
The 1980s PROVED that Michael Jackson is one cool black dude.
The 1980s PROVED that The Soviet Union is a superpower.


Thanks for the chuckle, especially about the PC!

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 06:01 PM
You overestimate how much you contribute to their bottom line.

I know thats probably true. But it still sucks that as a frigging homer I have to feel like my team is not doing all it could to win. It's different whiffing on draft picks or busting a free agents signing.

I understand your point that we don't know for sure what the real cap $'s are. But the mere thought that Carl would leave cap dollars on the table just plain pisses me off...

WilliamTheIrish
09-16-2004, 06:53 PM
The 80's also 'proved' that the Chiefs tried to be competitive.

Playoffs in '86.

ChiefsCountry
09-16-2004, 07:05 PM
1980's built the foundation for the team that made the playoffs in 1990. John Alt, Christian Okoye, Deron Cherry, etc.

ChiefsCountry
09-16-2004, 07:06 PM
Another thing if we signed a big name free agent this offseason, we will be in cap h*ll in the seasons to come and I would love for us to win a Super Bowl, but I also would like us be competive and not end up like the Chargers.

stumppy
09-16-2004, 07:23 PM
Ooops

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 07:39 PM
Another thing if we signed a big name free agent this offseason, we will be in cap h*ll in the seasons to come and I would love for us to win a Super Bowl, but I also would like us be competive and not end up like the Chargers.

Give me cap hell for 4 years and a trip to the Super Bowl.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 08:32 AM
Give me cap hell for 4 years and a trip to the Super Bowl.

Me too.

Hell I might be willing to accept a DECADE of cap hell for a Super Bowl win.

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 08:35 AM
1980's built the foundation for the team that made the playoffs in 1990. John Alt, Christian Okoye, Deron Cherry, etc.

Actually the 2 names I would have listed would have been Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith -- a #4 and #2 overall respectively.

DT was the single biggest reason for much of the defenses success of the 90's and this defense fell off the cliff after his passing--it's no coincidence.