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.