In any event that "bad luck" that plagues Marty still enables him to get his team into the postseason routinely. I kind of miss that "bad luck."

Yes, getting to the playoffs nearly every year was wonderful.

That is, until we got knocked out in the first round. Even when we had home field advantage a couple times. :shake: :rolleyes:

Just like with DV, except we don't make the postseason nearly as often.

Dick Vermeil has coached for 15 years. 6 playoff appearances, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 1 win.

Marty has coached for 20 years. 12 playoff appearances, 0 Super Bowl appearances.

You're saying you'd rather have a 60% chance of making the playoffs and a 0% chance of going all the way over a 40% chance of making the playoffs, even though a full one-third of that 40% resulted in a Super Bowl berth.

Do you want to compare Marty's first 4 years with KC and Vermeil's first 4 years with KC?

You also know very well that the stats you are throwing out have no relevance to the chances of KC winning a Super Bowl. It's kind of like relying on the mythical "DV will have the Chiefs in the Super Bowl in three years just like he did with the Rams and Eagles."

What's that got to do with anything.

It's a simple fact: DV has proven he can get there, Marty has proven he can't.

Some chance is ALWAYS better than no chance.

It's got everything to do with it. How the coach does with the Chiefs is all that matters. What Vermeil did with the Rams was nice when used as a factor when he was first hired, but it doesn't mean a damn thing now, 4 years later when KC hasn't had a playoff win and more often than not doesn't even make the playoffs.

DV hasn't proven he can get there in KC. DV hasn't proven he can get past the wild card round in KC.

I understand you hate all things Marty. There is no point discussing this any further.

DV Rules!!

If you're not using what they've done with other teams, and confining it SOLELY to the Chiefs, then you're not comparing COACHES at all. The only valid comparison is the whole of their careers. Marty has been with 5 teams and won nothing.

To confine it to the Chiefs requires inclusion of factors peculiar to the Chiefs, including Lamar Hunt and Carl Peterson (perhaps they're the REAL reason neither has done it with the Chiefs), the fans, the stadium, the city, etc.

First off, I think Marty did the smart thing in that game. When you have the lead late, you burn clock by running. Especially when you have Ladanian Tomlinson. The only thing I might have done different is throw on 3rd and medium.

He also did the right thing by kicking the FG 99 out of 100 times, the worst thing that can happen is you miss or it's blocked. The odds of that block resulting in a TD are miniscule.

He did the right thing. A few weeks ago, the media was flaming him for not putting the ball in the hands of LT when the game is on the line. Now all of a sudden it's the wrong thing? Hindsight is 20/20.

There may be a lot of times that Marty has lost games due to his conservative ways, but that series of downs shouldn't have been called any other way.

In other words, Vermeil has been with 3 teams and been to the Super Bowl with 2 of them. The only team he hasn't taken there is KC. A very valid argument could be made that the reason for that is KANSAS CITY, not Dick Vermeil.

On the other hand, Marty has been with 5 teams and never been to the Super Bowl. It would be very difficult to make a case that anybody but him was responsible for his failure.

It's the stadium. They haven't won $hit there.

I'm not sure Vermeil's resume matters much if he can't get it done with his current team.

I didn't see anyone saying they wanted Marty over DV. But the comparison between the two is not unwarranted.

I agree on both points.

However, the two points are not mutually inclusive.

One cannot compare the two without taking into account what they've done with other teams.

It's my previous argument:

Did they not get to the Super Bowl because of themselves, or because of something peculiar to KC?

In Vermeil's case, his ENTIRE BODY of work would suggest that either answer could be true. In fact, he's been to the Super Bowl with every team he's coached, except this one.

In Marty's case, considering his entire career, it would be hard to suggest that anything other than the former is true.

Exactly. Sure, I haven't been completely happy with Vermeil. And I wish we would be able to make the playoffs more often. Frankly, I'm not real confident on a SB run this year. But I feel much more confident in the chance that he'll take us there than I would if Marty was still coaching. I loved Marty, but I was ready for someone new by the time he announced his resignation.