CHIEFS SB DROUGHT RANT - Page 2

HC_Chief · 01-23-2006, 09:44 AM

With Seattle going to the SB this year, it makes this stat official: EVERY SINGLE AFCW TEAM OTHER THAN THE KC CHIEFS HAS HAD AT LEAST ONE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CARL PETERSON'S TENURE.

True, Seattle is now in the NFC, but they were AFCW when Peterson took the wheel.

In the same time period only Detroit and New Orleans have been as pathetic, playoff-wise.

So CP gets a fat new contract? Where do I apply for this job? Requirements: behave like a conceited ass, bray about ticket sales, continually increase parking and ticket prices, denegrate the media and fanbase, get PAID, and worry not about results on the field. Think I could do that for a cool $mil, or four.

MOhillbilly · 01-23-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

No, that's what Joe Posnanski said what Carl feels takling about how if given the choice of playoff seasons year in and year out with no guarantee of a super bowl or a superbowl but five 4 win seasons after that he would take the playoffs every year and hope to make the superbowl. There wasn't a quote from Carl about that.

What?

BigChiefFan · 01-23-2006, 10:13 AM

We AREN'T in the NFC, so why all the hypothetical what-ifs? The bottomline is we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade, but ownership couldn't be happier with the job Carl is doing. It's depressing to think our team has sucked for as long as they have and the powers that be are content.

Dr. Van Halen · 01-23-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

No, that's what Joe Posnanski said what Carl feels takling about how if given the choice of playoff seasons year in and year out with no guarantee of a super bowl or a superbowl but five 4 win seasons after that he would take the playoffs every year and hope to make the superbowl. There wasn't a quote from Carl about that.

Messier, how dare you bring truth into this! CP is evil, therefore the Chiefs suck!

Now, can we talk about baseball or golf?

Sincerely,
D. Clinkscale

ps -- I am very smart (compared to other broadcasters in this building)

HMc · 01-23-2006, 10:19 AM

One of the problems, in my opinion, is that the cardinals, saints and 49ers (for example) will make not a whole lot less profit than the Seahawks, Steelers and Broncos. Most of the cash is the even split from the DGR, and it doesn't provide financial incentive to win. Football teams are expensive businesses and owners may well want a return, every season.

If the after-costs money was split proportionally to performance (i.e. reverse of the draft order) (so a team covers its costs but they have to win to profit), you'd see the Cardinals winning more games and the Chiefs winning more playoff games.

MOhillbilly · 01-23-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

One of the problems, in my opinion, is that the cardinals, saints and 49ers (for example) will make not a whole lot less profit than the Seahawks, Steelers and Broncos. Most of the cash is the even split from the DGR, and it doesn't provide financial incentive to win. Football teams are expensive businesses and owners may well want a return, every season.

If the after-costs money was split proportionally to performance (i.e. reverse of the draft order) (so a team covers its costs but they have to win to profit), you'd see the Cardinals winning more games and the Chiefs winning more playoff games.

thats one of the best cop-outs ive ever read.

Thanks for clearing that up MR. Peterson.

**ChiTown** · 01-23-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

Yeah, we fared REAL well against our NFC opponents this year

No chit.

1-3, and we lost to Philly at Home!!!!!!!!!

HMc · 01-23-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

thats one of the best cop-outs ive ever read.

Thanks for clearing that up MR. Peterson.

Cop out? WTF are you on about? I'm pointing out that there are greater financial incentives associated with having constant 9-7, 10-6 seasons, than there are with going 4-12 for a couple of years then winning the superbowl. That seems the accepted wisdom, anyway.

Change that, however you want to do it, and i'd bet that a) some of the perrenial cellar dwellers would start to perform, and b) the chiefs would start pushing into the playoffs. But then there might be 3-13 seasons aswell.

greg63 · 01-23-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

With Seattle going to the SB this year, it makes this stat official: EVERY SINGLE AFCW TEAM OTHER THAN THE KC CHIEFS HAS HAD AT LEAST ONE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CARL PETERSON'S TENURE.

...

Hey, he's only in his fifteenth year of his five year plan to get there; give the poor guy a chance.

I really don't understand Hunt's infatuation with the guy.

htismaqe · 01-23-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg63

I really don't understand Hunt's infatuation with the guy.

$$$

**ChiTown** · 01-23-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

Cop out? WTF are you on about? I'm pointing out that there are greater financial incentives associated with having constant 9-7, 10-6 seasons, than there are with going 4-12 for a couple of years then winning the superbowl. That seems the accepted wisdom, anyway.

Change that, however you want to do it, and i'd bet that a) some of the perrenial cellar dwellers would start to perform, and b) the chiefs would start pushing into the playoffs. But then there might be 3-13 seasons aswell.

That's been the problem with the Chiefs for a while. We haven't been willing to field a 3-13 type team, for fear of fan retaliation (poor attendance). No, what we did was to put band aids on broken pipes for the last 8+ years (since the 1998 playoff game against Denver). It's called false hope. The Chiefs have been selling winning seasons since the early 1990's, but the product has no guts to it. No playoff wins in the last 12 years? Are you fuggin kidding me?

I don't wanna hear from CP how fuggin close we are, have been, going be to being a SB contender. We're no closer to that objective than we were when CP took over the Management of this Franchise in the late 80's. Seattle going to the SB just emphasizes how FN pathetic we truely have been.

MOhillbilly · 01-23-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMc

Cop out? WTF are you on about? I'm pointing out that there are greater financial incentives associated with having constant 9-7, 10-6 seasons, than there are with going 4-12 for a couple of years then winning the superbowl. That seems the accepted wisdom, anyway.

Change that, however you want to do it, and i'd bet that a) some of the perrenial cellar dwellers would start to perform, and b) the chiefs would start pushing into the playoffs. But then there might be 3-13 seasons aswell.

Its all about SB wins dude. Ive never heard a coach say "well its ok we suck cause we still made money through the CBA"
ever see a player or coach wearing a runners up SB ring?

Its all about SB wins.

**Nzoner** · 01-23-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

That's been the problem with the Chiefs for a while. We haven't been willing to field a 3-13 type team, for fear of fan retaliation (poor attendance). No, what we did was to put band aids on broken pipes for the last 8+ years (since the 1998 playoff game against Denver). It's called false hope. The Chiefs have been selling winning seasons since the early 1990's, but the product has no guts to it. No playoff wins in the last 12 years? Are you fuggin kidding me?

I don't wanna hear from CP how fuggin close we are, have been, going be to being a SB contender. We're no closer to that objective than we were when CP took over the Management of this Franchise in the late 80's. Seattle going to the SB just emphasizes how FN pathetic we truely have been.

Well put and the reason I'm done "buying" into the hype of a winning season.

greg63 · 01-23-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

$$$

AAHH yes; I was operating under the assumption that a SB was a priority for Lamar, and forgot about the money factor.

Ozarks-Chiefs-Fan · 01-23-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

That's been the problem with the Chiefs for a while. We haven't been willing to field a 3-13 type team, for fear of fan retaliation (poor attendance). No, what we did was to put band aids on broken pipes for the last 8+ years (since the 1998 playoff game against Denver). It's called false hope. The Chiefs have been selling winning seasons since the early 1990's, but the product has no guts to it. No playoff wins in the last 12 years? Are you fuggin kidding me?

I don't wanna hear from CP how fuggin close we are, have been, going be to being a SB contender. We're no closer to that objective than we were when CP took over the Management of this Franchise in the late 80's. Seattle going to the SB just emphasizes how FN pathetic we truely have been.

well put

**ChiTown** · 01-23-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg63

AAHH yes; I was operating under the assumption that a SB was a priority for Lamar, and forgot about the money factor.

Don't kid yourself. Lamar want's another SB in the worse way, hell, I'm sure he'd like to see the Chiefs name on his own Trophy (AFC Champs) before he dies. But, CP has convinced him that he's doing the right things (winning, making money, selling out the stadium, etc.) and it will eventually get him the SB. What he hasn't been completely truthful about is that his system doesn't work beyond the regular season. When the rubber meets the road, his system fails to perform. I'm sad to say that the owner purchased the same fools gold we've all been buying for the last 15+ years.

WE WUZ ROOOOOOOOOOOOOBBED!

01-23-2006, 09:44 AM
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	CHIEFS SB DROUGHT RANT With Seattle going to the SB this year, it makes this stat official: EVERY SINGLE AFCW TEAM OTHER THAN THE KC CHIEFS HAS HAD AT LEAST ONE SUPERBOWL APPEARANCE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CARL PETERSON'S TENURE. True, Seattle is now in the NFC, but they were AFCW when Peterson took the wheel. In the same time period only Detroit and New Orleans have been as pathetic, playoff-wise. So CP gets a fat new contract? Where do I apply for this job? Requirements: behave like a conceited ass, bray about ticket sales, continually increase parking and ticket prices, denegrate the media and fanbase, get PAID, and worry not about results on the field. Think I could do that for a cool $mil, or four.
Posts: 12,355

01-23-2006, 10:13 AM	#17
BigChiefFan MVP Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: In the Top 10 Casino cash: $9924205	We AREN'T in the NFC, so why all the hypothetical what-ifs? The bottomline is we haven't won a playoff game in over a decade, but ownership couldn't be happier with the job Carl is doing. It's depressing to think our team has sucked for as long as they have and the powers that be are content. __________________ A 35 year drought can make you thirsty.
Posts: 15,777

01-23-2006, 10:19 AM	#19
HMc from the very deep south. Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia. Casino cash: $9944900	One of the problems, in my opinion, is that the cardinals, saints and 49ers (for example) will make not a whole lot less profit than the Seahawks, Steelers and Broncos. Most of the cash is the even split from the DGR, and it doesn't provide financial incentive to win. Football teams are expensive businesses and owners may well want a return, every season. If the after-costs money was split proportionally to performance (i.e. reverse of the draft order) (so a team covers its costs but they have to win to profit), you'd see the Cardinals winning more games and the Chiefs winning more playoff games.
Posts: 2,792