According to ESPN Rich McKay out in Atlanta

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

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

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

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

Neither has Atlanta.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Neither has Atlanta.

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

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bowser

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

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.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Hootie

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

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

[dtebbe]

Originally Posted by Hootie

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

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

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by dtebbe

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'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?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dtebbe

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

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.

[RedThat]

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.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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 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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bowser

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.

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.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

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