after he signs Shanahan, the two of them are going together to work on their tan

Maybe even further reductions in attendance.

I have been to two games since Herm has been the coach, both were his first season.

I won't be attending any more as long as he is HC, and I would bet there are plenty of others that feel this way.

BS. If the players give up after an 0-4 start because they're scared of the possibility of a new coach the season after, then I don't want a single one of them on the team. You really believe they play with that attitude? You really think their egos are so brittle that they can't handle losing unless the head coach is guaranteed to be there the next season? That seems absurd. If they hire a new coach and still go 0-4, will it be that different simply knowing the coach's job is safe?

The idea that a team can't or won't play hard or play together unless the coaching situation is guaranteed long term is just stupid.

That's not my point.

It's not about playing hard. It's about listening to the coach and buying into what he's telling them to do.

If players think Herm is full of crap, and there's a faction of players on every team that thinks this about their coach, and they also think they're going to be with KC longer than he is, what do you think the situation will be like?

This has nothing to do with effort or being scared and everything to do with buying into the "plan" that any coach has to sell to his team.

When players start saying, "**** you. I'm doing it my own way.", there's trouble.

That's different altogether. If players won't listen to the coach, then you get rid of those players. You don't set up coaching extensions to appease the players. If the players think Herm is full of crap, then they're going to think he's full of crap regardless of when his contract is up. They're not going to change their mind about him being full of crap just because he has a contract extension. Buying into the "plan" has no relevance to contract extensions beyond the current season. The locker room isn't going to fall apart because of possible uncertainty after the season is over. They play one game at a time, one season at a time. If players can't stay focused because they're worrying about next season after 4 games, then that's the player's problem.

But where we're apparently disagreeing is that I think there would be A LOT of players no longer listening to the coach. Too many to simply get rid of.

The players aren't stupid. It's about accountability. If the writing is on the wall that Herm's going to get fired because things aren't going well (at whatever point that is, 0-4 was just a random number), players realize they aren't going to be accountable to him anymore. What he says and thinks won't matter.

IMO, what would happen next is that players would tune him out and start going about things their own way. The result would be a complete cluster****.

It's really a matter of getting quality assistant coaches. A good coach isn't going to want to uproot his family to move to KC for a year. You are going to get people desperate for a job because they have failed before or have no experience, etc.

And again, if that were to happen, that would happen regardless of the coach's contract. And the coach isn't going to get a contract extension simply to prevent the possibility of that happening. Which is the point of the whole "lame duck" discussion. If there are a lot of players no longer listening to the coach, then it should make Pioli's decision much easier. If there is, or will be, civil unrest in the locker room, then it's Pioli's job to see that and address that. We have to trust him to do so. But don't think that he's going to grant an extension out of fear that the players will rebel unless the coach gets an extension.

Bingo

nah, they're gonna pay Herm $4M to be the janitor. Those better be some #$%@#$% spotless floors!

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think the contract is very important in indicating to the players that this is someone you have to pay attention to because he's going to be around, suggesting that you can't outlast him.

It also is a sign of faith from the organization.

As a sometimes columnist for kcchiefs.com, I want to stress that this doesn't come from any inside information. It's just a hunch. From what I've seen in New England and Clark Hunt's handling of the g.m. search, major Chiefs business is going to be conducted very much behind the scenes. It's going to drive the local media batshit. But that's how it will be.

I'm guessing this guy has a major ace up his sleeve. But first he has to fire Herm, and then he has to interview a minority candidate a la the Rooney Rule. Then he can produce the coach I'm guessing he already has in the bag.

And my guess is this coach will be a blockbuster.

Just like Pioli was a blockbuster. And we won't learn about the Chiefs blockbusters until they are damned good and ready for us to know.

like Seattle...

OK then. I just don't think that contract length is indication of anything these days. Most contracts these days never ever make it full term, so I don't see how you can put any importance in that whatsoever. And under contract or not, if you're not doing an acceptable job, you're still going to get fired. It's the same for coaches as it is for players. And the players can see that.

And speaking of "sign of faith from the organization", you're also ignoring the fact that by firing Edwards before his contract expires sends the message that "Yeah we gave you a 4 year contract, but we're firing you anyway after the 3rd year." In essence, we gave you a "sign of faith from the organization" in your 4 year contract, but now that you suck we're going back on that sign of faith. Does that still sound like the message you'd want to send?

Yeah we're giving the new coach a 5 year deal, and we feel that contract length is a good indicator of faith and commitment. Never mind that we just ignored that and fired the last guy....

The Pioli factor points to Parcells and the Gailey factor points to Cowher. Yeah, I'd say those are blockbusters.