Chiefs Whitlock: The person Hunt hires gets the best job in football - Page 2

FloridaMan88 · 01-03-2009, 11:28 PM

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/col...ry/963879.html

The person Hunt hires gets the best job in football

Clark Hunt is interviewing candidates for what could be the best job in football.

Maybe that explains his deliberate approach to finding and securing Kansas City’s next general manager.

If a qualified man wants to be an NFL GM, running the Kansas City Chiefs should be his dream job. Scott Pioli, Kevin Colbert and Chris Polian — the most qualified and coveted future GMs — have more reason to pursue Clark Hunt than Hunt has to pursue them.

Why?

•The Hunt family employed Carl Peterson for 20 years, demonstrating a level of loyalty and patience that is pretty much nonexistent in professional sports.

•The Hunts gave Peterson a degree of autonomy that is pretty much nonexistent in professional sports.

•The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason.

•The Chiefs are one season away from playing in a fancy, exciting renovated Arrowhead Stadium.

•There’s no one within the football side of the organization that a new GM has to show any loyalty. He can clean out the scouting department and coaching staff.

•Expectations are low.

My initial instinct in writing this column was to criticize Clark Hunt for appearing to go about fixing his broken franchise without a concrete plan. Things aren’t going the way I anticipated.

When Hunt fired Peterson with two weeks left in the regular season, I assumed Hunt had identified his next general manager. I thought within days of the season’s end, Hunt would lock up New England’s Pioli or Pittsburgh’s Colbert or Indy’s Polian.

Instead of a new football king to trumpet, we were treated last week to our departing King (Carl) granting an exclusive Internet podcast interview to his last loyal subject, Bob Gretz. Peterson doesn’t have the good sense to be embarrassed by his cowardice. But agreeing to a final, 7-minute Bob Gretz tongue bath further diminishes Peterson’s legacy.

Peterson has refused to discuss his dismissal with legitimate members of the media for three weeks. At this point what Peterson has to say about his tenure is irrelevant.

Like most Chiefs fans, I’m ready to move on.

And that includes moving on from Peterson’s last significant action — hiring Herm Edwards.

In fairness, Herm might just be collateral damage from the ugly end of Peterson’s era. But the Chiefs ended the 2008 season in poor fashion, including a gutless performance at Cincinnati.

Why hasn’t Hunt disposed of Edwards and his coaching staff? They’re unsalvageable. Why leave an unpleasant task to a GM who had nothing to do with the team’s 6-26 record the last two years?

And if Hunt would like to see a new GM retain Edwards, I don’t see how leaving Edwards publicly twisting for days (and potentially weeks) enhances his locker-room credibility. Herm is damaged goods.

But, after thinking everything through, I decided emotion was overruling sound judgment. None of my gripes (or yours) really matter.

Hunt has the job. He can afford to sit back a little and let candidates woo him.

He needs to hear from Pioli, Colbert and Polian what they’re going to do for the Kansas City Chiefs. What the Hunts will do for a general manager is a matter of record. Peterson, Jack Steadman and Hank Stram were all allowed to stay beyond their usefulness. Gunther Cunningham is the only head coach to be fired by the Chiefs during the last 20 years. Over the same time frame, the Browns, another team looking for new leadership, have canned coaches Bud Carson, Jim Shofner (interim), Bill Belichick, Chris Palmer, Butch Davis, Terry Robiskie (interim) and Romeo Crennel.

There’s no reason for desperation. The situation isn’t desperate.

If Hunt lands the right GM, the Chiefs can experience the kind of turnaround the Dolphins did this season. Bill Parcells and his coach, Tony Sparano, sparked a one-win-to-11-win turnaround in Miami.

I can’t imagine a scenario in which Hunt doesn’t land a top-flight general manager. I’m willing to wait.

orange · 01-04-2009, 12:27 AM

"The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason."

This is not a selling point for the Chiefs - it's a liability. Having a cushy, secure job is not the same as having an opportunity to succeed.

That $30 million unspent says the Chiefs are unwilling to compete financially. Unless Hunt guarantees the next GM he'll spend to the limit, guys who want to actually WIN will go somewhere else.

Mecca · 01-04-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

"The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason."

This is not a selling point for the Chiefs - it's a liability. Having a cushy, secure job is not the same as having an opportunity to succeed.

That $30 million unspent says the Chiefs are unwilling to compete financially. Unless Hunt guarantees the next GM he'll spend to the limit, guys who want to actually WIN will go somewhere else.

That's a little backwards thinking, the idea behind that is if a guy wants to build his own team the opportunity is there with this team.

**pr_capone** · 01-04-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Nothing, other than running an offense that disappeared in the 2nd half.

No new HC in his right mind is going to keep Gailey on board, for the same reasons no new GM in his right mind would keep Herm on board.

A new HC is going to want HIS GUYS, not the leftovers of a 2-14 staff.

Yeah... lets not take into consideration that on his way to 2-14 Chan had to game plan for 3 different QBs, had his star RB miss 4 games, had no viable #2 WR (including Bradley who could not stay healthy), and his #1 WR had a massive case of butter fingers.

Oh yeah... lets not forget the travesty that we started at offensive line. Everyone from Center on over (to the right) have no business wearing a NFL uniform much less starting for ANY team in this league.

We also can't forget the fact that our Kick return game was so pitiful that our average starting position was at the 21.5 yard line. Pitiful.

Mecca · 01-04-2009, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Yeah... lets not take into consideration that on his way to 2-14 Chan had to game plan for 3 different QBs, had his star RB miss 4 games, had no viable #2 WR (including Bradley who could not stay healthy), and his #1 WR had a massive case of butter fingers.

Oh yeah... lets not forget the travesty that we started at offensive line. Everyone from Center on over (to the right) have no business wearing a NFL uniform much less starting for ANY team in this league.

We also can't forget the fact that our Kick return game was so pitiful that our average starting position was at the 21.5 yard line. Pitiful.

Dude, a new HC gets to pick his guys, saddling a new coach with old coaches is how we end up with stupid shit like Gunther Cunningham.

ChiefsCountry · 01-04-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

"The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason."

This is not a selling point for the Chiefs - it's a liability. Having a cushy, secure job is not the same as having an opportunity to succeed.

That $30 million unspent says the Chiefs are unwilling to compete financially. Unless Hunt guarantees the next GM he'll spend to the limit, guys who want to actually WIN will go somewhere else.

You do realize most of that was the cause of gutting the roster. Chiefs will pay up, they dont signing bonus wise but cap wise they will.

orange · 01-04-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

That's a little backwards thinking, the idea behind that is if a guy wants to build his own team the opportunity is there with this team.

Hunt's going to have to convince whoever that he's serious about reversing the Chiefs' almost 40 year tradition of settling.

Credit Whitlock for trying to put a positive spin on things - he really is a true-blue Chiefs homer - but Hunt has his work cut out for him.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 01-04-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

"The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason."

This is not a selling point for the Chiefs - it's a liability. Having a cushy, secure job is not the same as having an opportunity to succeed.

That $30 million unspent says the Chiefs are unwilling to compete financially. Unless Hunt guarantees the next GM he'll spend to the limit, guys who want to actually WIN will go somewhere else.

I don't blame you for making that reach. If I were a Broncos, Raiders, or Chargers fan I'd definitely want to forget that the NFL is what it is today because of Lamar Hunt and the Hunt family. They were in cap hell just 3 years ago and have suffered through a rebuild in order to put themselves in this position. You can rest assured knowing that while the Chiefs may not compete in the next 3 years it won't be because they didn't spend the money or try.

It's interesting to me watching everyone on the Mane say that Mike Shannahan would never end up in KC because he won't coach for a team that's not committed to winning. That's wishful thinking if I've ever heard it. I'll laugh my ass off through 4 bannings on that site if Mike Shannahan ends up with the Chiefs.

orange · 01-04-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

You do realize most of that was the cause of gutting the roster. Chiefs will pay up, they dont signing bonus wise but cap wise they will.

They gutted the roster, alright, but then they didn't refill it. Relying on 5-7 round draft picks and undrafted free agents for the bulk of your players screams "loser."

[edit] And let's not forget, alot of that unspent cap money was due to trading away their best player rather than pay the market price.

ChiefsCountry · 01-04-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

They gutted the roster, alright, but then they didn't refill it. Relying on 5-7 round draft picks and undrafted free agents for the bulk of your players screams "loser."

Because they are building the team right ****ing way for once instead of signing a bunch of free agents.

**pr_capone** · 01-04-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Dude, a new HC gets to pick his guys, saddling a new coach with old coaches is how we end up with stupid shit like Gunther Cunningham.

I understand that the new HC gets to pick his coordinators.

I'm simply saying that Chan is not a sack of shit that NEEDS to be discarded. In fact, quite the opposite. He turned a team that was struggling to score any points at all into a team that put up 27 points on a top 10 D (Bucs).

With any semblance of a defense, our record would be vastly different.

If you had to keep just one guy from this list. Who would you keep?

HC- Herm
DC - Gunther
OC - Chan
QBc- Curl
ST - Priefer

kansas hawk · 01-04-2009, 12:46 AM

If anyone says herm I'm killing myself... just saying

orange · 01-04-2009, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Because they are building the team right ****ing way for once instead of signing a bunch of free agents.

53 roster spots / Seven rounds in the draft = more than 7 years to turn over an NFL roster.

That's IF
- you hit on every draft pick
- no one is ever lost to injury
- everyone re-signs

Face reality. Free Agency is part of modern football and to succeed teams need to use every tool available to them.

ChiefsCountry · 01-04-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

53 roster spots / Seven rounds in the draft = more than 7 years to turn over an NFL roster.

That's IF
- you hit on every draft pick
- no one is ever lost to injury
- everyone re-signs

Face reality. Free Agency is part of modern football and to succeed teams need to use every tool available to them.

Not this year. Chiefs didnt need to - they went to rock bottom and gutted the whole mess. Most championship teams have an average of 5 free agent starters. Add 1 or 2 this offseason and the same in 2010 and we are right on track for 2010/11 when we should be able to compete.

orange · 01-04-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Not this year. Chiefs didnt need to - they went to rock bottom and gutted the whole mess. Most championship teams have an average of 5 free agent starters. Add 1 or 2 this offseason and the same in 2010 and we are right on track for 2010/11 when we should be able to compete.

That kind of goes along with what I'm saying - Clark Hunt has to convince his new hire that he's going to do that. His track record as the Chiefs' owner says otherwise.

**pr_capone** · 01-04-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kansas hawk

If anyone says herm I'm killing myself... just saying

herm

now go kill yourself

01-03-2009, 11:28 PM
FloridaMan88 Mahomes: We Are All Witnesses Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, FL Casino cash: $-577094	Whitlock: The person Hunt hires gets the best job in football http://www.kansascity.com/sports/col...ry/963879.html The person Hunt hires gets the best job in football Clark Hunt is interviewing candidates for what could be the best job in football. Maybe that explains his deliberate approach to finding and securing Kansas City’s next general manager. If a qualified man wants to be an NFL GM, running the Kansas City Chiefs should be his dream job. Scott Pioli, Kevin Colbert and Chris Polian — the most qualified and coveted future GMs — have more reason to pursue Clark Hunt than Hunt has to pursue them. Why? •The Hunt family employed Carl Peterson for 20 years, demonstrating a level of loyalty and patience that is pretty much nonexistent in professional sports. •The Hunts gave Peterson a degree of autonomy that is pretty much nonexistent in professional sports. •The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason. •The Chiefs are one season away from playing in a fancy, exciting renovated Arrowhead Stadium. •There’s no one within the football side of the organization that a new GM has to show any loyalty. He can clean out the scouting department and coaching staff. •Expectations are low. My initial instinct in writing this column was to criticize Clark Hunt for appearing to go about fixing his broken franchise without a concrete plan. Things aren’t going the way I anticipated. When Hunt fired Peterson with two weeks left in the regular season, I assumed Hunt had identified his next general manager. I thought within days of the season’s end, Hunt would lock up New England’s Pioli or Pittsburgh’s Colbert or Indy’s Polian. Instead of a new football king to trumpet, we were treated last week to our departing King (Carl) granting an exclusive Internet podcast interview to his last loyal subject, Bob Gretz. Peterson doesn’t have the good sense to be embarrassed by his cowardice. But agreeing to a final, 7-minute Bob Gretz tongue bath further diminishes Peterson’s legacy. Peterson has refused to discuss his dismissal with legitimate members of the media for three weeks. At this point what Peterson has to say about his tenure is irrelevant. Like most Chiefs fans, I’m ready to move on. And that includes moving on from Peterson’s last significant action — hiring Herm Edwards. In fairness, Herm might just be collateral damage from the ugly end of Peterson’s era. But the Chiefs ended the 2008 season in poor fashion, including a gutless performance at Cincinnati. Why hasn’t Hunt disposed of Edwards and his coaching staff? They’re unsalvageable. Why leave an unpleasant task to a GM who had nothing to do with the team’s 6-26 record the last two years? And if Hunt would like to see a new GM retain Edwards, I don’t see how leaving Edwards publicly twisting for days (and potentially weeks) enhances his locker-room credibility. Herm is damaged goods. But, after thinking everything through, I decided emotion was overruling sound judgment. None of my gripes (or yours) really matter. Hunt has the job. He can afford to sit back a little and let candidates woo him. He needs to hear from Pioli, Colbert and Polian what they’re going to do for the Kansas City Chiefs. What the Hunts will do for a general manager is a matter of record. Peterson, Jack Steadman and Hank Stram were all allowed to stay beyond their usefulness. Gunther Cunningham is the only head coach to be fired by the Chiefs during the last 20 years. Over the same time frame, the Browns, another team looking for new leadership, have canned coaches Bud Carson, Jim Shofner (interim), Bill Belichick, Chris Palmer, Butch Davis, Terry Robiskie (interim) and Romeo Crennel. There’s no reason for desperation. The situation isn’t desperate. If Hunt lands the right GM, the Chiefs can experience the kind of turnaround the Dolphins did this season. Bill Parcells and his coach, Tony Sparano, sparked a one-win-to-11-win turnaround in Miami. I can’t imagine a scenario in which Hunt doesn’t land a top-flight general manager. I’m willing to wait.
Posts: 49,807

01-04-2009, 12:27 AM	#16
orange MVP Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver, CO Casino cash: $10004900	"The Chiefs are more than $30 million below the salary cap and are in position to unload a few more unproductive, expensive veterans this offseason." This is not a selling point for the Chiefs - it's a liability. Having a cushy, secure job is not the same as having an opportunity to succeed. That $30 million unspent says the Chiefs are unwilling to compete financially. Unless Hunt guarantees the next GM he'll spend to the limit, guys who want to actually WIN will go somewhere else.
Posts: 11,661

01-04-2009, 12:46 AM	#26
kansas hawk Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Casino cash: $1084437	If anyone says herm I'm killing myself... just saying
Posts: 376