How much of that was McKay, and how much was Blank?

Blank had a hard on for Vick

Hire Parcells GM let him have the grocery list go shopping New Coaches at every position :)


Get it done Clark

The post I was responding to (post #12), specifically compared the seriousness of the two franchises. If the dope who posted post #12 wanted to focus on McCay instead of the franchises, the dope should have said so.

short of me drawing pictures on a big marker board, I don't know how else to clue you in to what we're talking about....asking you to read the thread is obviously pointless....

so, until Chiefsplanet introduces a picture-based bulletin board, we'll all just have to pat you on the head and pretend it is cute to watch the kid trying to tie his shoes...

Well, I guess if you want to make that comparison, I'd compare the respective futures of the two. One is making a bold move to hire Bill Parcells, and the other one is crafting Rufus Dawes articles to explain why Peterson needs to stay and "finish what he started".

That's wonderful, Nostradamus. Remind me about this thread when Bill Parcells takes the Falcons to a Super Bowl Championship. Until then, I'm comfortable with my analysis and grateful to Carl Peterson for providing Kansas City with a superior product compared to what Atlanta fans have been offered over the past two decades.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding your words. Perhaps you're frustrated at your inability to say what you mean. Or maybe you just didn't remember saying it and are now too embarrassed to admit that my post was directly responsive to the idiotic point you raised. :shrug:

Atlanta was in the NFC champioship game just a few years ago. They went to the Super Bowl in 1998.


When did the Chiefs win a playoff game again???

You're telling me you'd rather have Carl Peterson than Bill Parcells.....wow, brilliant....

Personally, I couldn't care less about "the last two decades" beyond the fact that this team hasn't won a playoff game for the last decade and a half. Here, let me make you a turd sandwich, something tells me you won't complain about it.

19 years of mediocrity is considered a superior product? He hasn't won SHIT

What was the name of the bus driver?

I pointed that out already. Are you telling me that you'd trade all of the success of the Chiefs of the 90's for one appearance in the Superbowl where your team gets embarrassed? If so, who am I to judge? For me though, I'll take the Peterson-led Chiefs' track record over that of the Falcons despite their one, semi-successful season.

Neither has Atlanta.

Didnt mean that at all.

I havent read through the whole thread, but if you think that it isnt time for Carl Peterson to go, then something is wrong.


Hes coasting on accomplishments from 15 years ago.

They've won in the playoffs with McKay. At Lambeau, no less.

How many Superbowls did Bill Parcells get the Jets or the Cowboys into? Parcells has never gone to a Superbowl without Bill Belichick. Does Belichick come with the deal?

Well that was my original point.

He's only got 2 more years left on his contract. I can wait. I want to let him leave on his own terms and I think he will when this contract ends. He resurrected Chiefs football and for that I'll always be grateful. If Clark Hunt decided it was time to make a change though, I wouldn't be critical of him. I doubt he will though.

And, besides, I certainly don't see any reason to dump him for an old guy like Bill Parcells. If Parcells takes Atlanta to a Superbowl championship, I'll admit I was wrong.

I don't get the Parcel's love either. He's freaking 66 years old. DV's a pup

Curious, what if Carl stays? Even after he said he would consider resigning after this season?

What if he stays and then the Chiefs go 4-12 the next year? What if they just completely suck, and ownership doesn't do a thing about it? Could this happen? I could only imagine the implosion if it does.

Bill Parcells is the reason the Cowboys are where they are. Carl Peterson is the reason the Chiefs are where they are.

Carl will stay. What titles he has, is the question IMO

I'll take McKay's tenure in Tampa Bay over CP's tenure here...I'll take Peterson's tenure over McKay's tenure in Atlanta...

When you look at Atlanta's product since 1989 and decide that winning a playoff game at Lambeau and making an embarrassing appearance in the Superbowl are more desireable than what the Chiefs have done over the same time period, then you should disagree with me. I'm OK with that.

I disagree. The reason the Cowboys are what they are is because they have an owner who won't settle for anything less than success. The Chiefs other hand do. Just a big difference in attitude when you look at the 2 sides.

Yep. I don't understand why some people still want CP around it makes zero sense.

I will absolutely take the Chiefs from 1989 over the Falcons from 1989...

we haven't made a Super Bowl...that's for sure...

but you can't erase the several quality seasons with Carl Peterson that were fun from week 1 all the way until we choked in the playoffs...did the choke job hurt? Absolutely! It sucked! But being perennial Super Bowl contenders in the 90's and even one or two seasons with Vermeil at the helm (people at least thought we were Super Bowl caliber) was pretty exciting IMO.

The Falcons played in a Superbowl you know...

I would take it from 89-98 after that the Chiefs have been complete shit hole team

Me too. But we are talking about Rich McKay, so lets compare his tenure with the same period for King Carl. That is what we are debating, right?

DT

I was referring specifically to the McKay years in Atlanta.

And really, your point is who sucked worse in that timeframe, and based on playoff/Super Bowl stats, it would be the Chiefs, depressingly. You're sounding like a Carl apologist, pat.

No, we didn't know..... :drool:

Well Hootie was sure acting like the Chiefs somehow attained more success.

I'm indifferent when it comes to our GM.

If we want to replace Carl with McKay...go for it! But it's going to be the same old thing when we don't reach a Super Bowl next year, the year after, or the year after that...

Carl has done some good things, and he has done some bad things...but can you blame him for trying to compete this year? Look at how the fans have reacted...

Everyone was PRAYING for a rebuilding year...that's essentially what happened...Brodie is playing...a lot of young guys are playing...we're going to draft in the top 10...and everyone is crying about it.

Is this NOT what everyone wanted?

we didn't make a Super Bowl...

Duh.

BUT

and everyone knows this...

We were Super Bowl contenders for pretty much Marty's entire tenure...how much of that can you blame on Carl? Apparently he was fielding the right staff and players to build a Super Bowl contender...but at the end of the day, he's not throwing the passes or kicking the field goals...

AND I'm pretty sure everyone knows we were an average defense away from being the best team in the NFL during the Vermeil tenure...when you have coaches telling Carl it's the system, it's the system...what can he do?

He can't predict the future...I would say he's done an ADEQUATE job since Marty...and I definitely would have no problem with him being fired...

But he's not even close to the worst GM in the NFL...

My posts were related to the Talking Bong's comparison of the two franchises, not McKay vs. Peterson. There were two different discussions going on.

OK, but you were replying to me and I've made it clear multiple times in this thread that I was talking about the "seriousness" of the Atlanta franchise versus that of the Chiefs franchise. I understand the confusion though.

I suppose I am a Carl apologist, if that's what you call someone who wants to see him finish his current contract.

Then they should have started rebuilding during the past off season and then be honest with the fans about it.

They did neither and they wasted 3/4 of a season before starting the rebuild process when it should been done from day 1 this year.

In 1989-98 we hired a coach who brought winning, success, and stability to this franchise. A large part of the Chiefs success is in credit to Marty. Marty is the best coach that the Chiefs have had since Peterson has been around.

I think that makes a difference when you hire a guy who wins! Marty is that. But when you change coaches all the time it has an affect on how you do things. How many times have the Chiefs changed HC's in the last decade? 3 times.

I really think it would help this franchise if they brought in a REALLY good head coach who can bring in a winning attitude and one who knows what he's doing and that has a really good plan. One who can win consistently and just do a great enough job where he can stay and have success and longevity thats what we need. There are a handful of coaches in this league that are like that. Andy Reid, Mike Shanahan, Bill Cowher(Ok well till he resigned), Jeff Fisher, Bill Belichek. These are to name a few, and good NFL head coaches.

But it helps when you dont change coaches all the time and hire a winner. Chiefs need to do that. Maybe Herm is that guy? Who knows? But honestly, I don't interpret it as a good sign when in your second year as a head coach you go from ok to really bad especially after you've had the opportunity to upgrade your roster. 2nd year should always be an improvement for coaches. That hasn't been the case for Herm, and that's what's bothersome.

IMHO the sole reason we were a SB contender was because of Marty. Every year he was handcuffed by a cheap GM\owner who never spent the necessary dollars to upgrade the team except for the every other year 1 big FA bust that they signed excluding Marcus and Montana.

The Chiefs routinely over achieved based on the rosters overall talent and that was because Marty willed them and coached them to succeed.

But in the playoffs you have to have superior talent and great coaching to win and we didn't have neither.

And what is the reason the Chiefs are having to rebuild in the first place? "Rebuilding" means you didn't maintain it properly. It means you didn't prepare replacements for Roaf, Shields, Law, etc. It means you blew important draft picks on a fat samoan, a TE/FB/WR hybrid, and a MLB with the shortest arms in the world.

Apologist would be the last word I would choose more like idiot or moron would be more appropriate. :)

I honestly never thought they really were. I just think it caught up to them eventually. The outcome of this season determined the direction where they are headed and what they should do. And I think they are feeling it now not drafting replacements for Roaf, Shields, Law..One of Peterson's weaknesses as a GM that I have noticed is not thinking ahead. always clingy towards those veterans and not thinking of replacing them sooner rather than later.

And I am lead to believe that if it wasn't for the injuries this year to Huard, LJ, etc...We wouldn't have seen the young guys play. jmo

How about "Get over it"?

I have to admit that I thought letting Marty go was a good move. But now I know I was wrong, Carl was the one who needed to go. I have more respect for Marty now than I ever have, especially after the whole fiasco in SD.

DT

We missed our chance for Pacells!!!

Nope ........... Chiefs miss the boat again.

Everyone wanted a rebuild year from the start with the expectation that by this point in the season some of the young players would be improving and the playcalling and competitiveness of the team would improve.

What we got was half a season of non-rebuild where the team fell apart, lost their will, at times quit and the coaching has remained questionable at best. Instead of getting better things have steadily worsened.

perfect

rep

...yet CP has still has a job. Simply stunning.

And a coach...

Dave

This is a joke right?

The stuff that everyone is griping about today is 'Marty lite'...did everyone enjoy KC's playoff appearance in January, because it was very much like the 'SB contending' Marty versions of the 90's...the mere fact that anyone could type that and not break out in uproarious laughter is beyond me. I certainly couldnt do it.

The ONLY reason that Marty got to the AFC Championship was on one player, Joe Montana. Pure and simple. Marty had ZERO to do with that and Carl made that call. While I can find many things to fault Carl for and the list is a 1000 miles long, but this is just absurd.

Marty/Herm are two sides of the same coin. Playing not to lose sucks now and it sucked back in the 90's. Holy crap.

I realize the 'grass is always greener on the other side' but this is ridiculous.

Chiefs spent like crazy in the 90's. They werent cheap by any means, now they spent it stupidly but they werent cheap on players.

I thought I would revisit this thread. This whole move seems to have worked out for Atlanta.. maybe the Chiefs should do the same thing.. raid the Patriots.