Whitlock LOLs at the Patsification of the Chiefs

[Hammock Parties]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/col...y/1682402.html

Wake me when the Chiefs sign Tom Brady, the one with two healthy knees and fearless pocket demeanor.

Until then, I’ll take a wait-and-see approach with Scott Pioli’s New England Relocation Plan.

Right now, this smells like a Jackson Five reunion tour without Michael (Brady) or Janet (Bill Belichick).

Romeo “Tito” Crennel, the defensive coordinator, joins Pioli, Charlie Weis, Matt Cassel, Mike Vrabel and ex-Pats to be named later in what appears to be a lame attempt at recreating the New England Dynasty.

Let me apologize for being unimpressed with this lineup.

You’re tired of reading it, and I’m tired of writing it. Unfortunately, I’m paid to tell you what I really think. Romeo Crennel sounds great on paper. He won three Super Bowls while holding the title of “defensive coordinator” for Belichick’s Patriots.

Tito sold a bunch of records plucking a guitar and singing backup for Michael Jackson. Without The Gloved One, we never heard of Tito again until Michael passed.

Romeo flamed out in Cleveland as a head coach. Of all the Belichick assistants during the Super Bowl years, Crennel was the one with the least amount of responsibility on his plate. Belichick designed the defenses.

When Crennel got the Cleveland job, I asked a longtime Patriots defender what he thought of the hire, and the player told me flat out that he never envisioned Romeo as a head coach.

It’s just one player, one opinion. And not being head-coach material doesn’t disqualify someone from being a top-flight coordinator.

In fact, I touched base with the player again on Wednesday, and he assured me that Crennel installed the defensive game plan throughout the week without interference from Belichick and that Crennel called the game.

The player also assured me that Belichick had his fingerprints on everything that transpired with the team — special teams, offense, defense and front-office decisions.

I’m just not sold on Crennel. As a coordinator, Crennel has far more to prove than Charlie Weis. No one I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to create innovative game plans. (Everyone I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to control his ego.)

Crennel worked for Belichick, who specializes in defense. Bill Parcells never won a Super Bowl without Belichick working as his defensive coordinator.

Hey, maybe one day we will be saying the same thing about Belichick and Crennel.

Today, all I’m sure of is that Crennel’s hiring increases the likelihood that Todd Haley is in a make-or-break season in 2010.

If things go poorly next season, don’t look for Pioli, Weis and Crennel to take the blame. They have nine Super Bowl rings among them. In their mind, they know exactly what it takes to win at the highest level in the NFL.

Haley either has no political savvy, no interest in playing the kind of politics that enhances a coach’s longevity or zero leverage when putting together a coaching staff.

Given the previous working relationship of Pioli, Weis and Crennel — and Weis’ oversized ego — it would be a seamless transition for Pioli to install Weis as head coach midway through the 2010 season or at the start of 2011.

My gut says Haley’s ego and gambling nature make him unaware of the ramifications of his decisions. Firing Chan Gailey was a colossal error. With the offensive personnel provided to him by Pioli, Haley should’ve held on to Gailey for a season. There was no reason for the head coach to attach his reputation and credibility to a receiver-less offense.

Good coaches are paranoid. They perceive every move by ownership/management as a potential threat to their power. Paranoia is what drives a good coach to be great. Paranoia is what makes a coach sleep at his office and punt on fourth down.

Look at Belichick. He’s been spoiled by success. That’s why he went for it on fourth and 2 against the Colts. He’s losing his paranoia.

Haley’s background is extremely unusual for an NFL head coach. Golfers focus on a single obstacle, the course. A football coach worries about a million things, including what his assistants may or may not be plotting.

[PunkinDrublic]

I love how Whitlock contradicts himself in a single column. He says he's taking a
wait and see approach with the hires but then questions their qualifications
and then dismisses any past success they've had. If you're going to be skeptical,
be skeptical but don't bullshit us and pretend you have an open mind about
this.
Posted via Mobile Device

[dtebbe]

Personally I think they hired the two best available candidates for the jobs. Neither of them have failed at the job we hired them for, and they have history with our front office, and in the case of Weis the head coach. And all jokes aside, we have 3 guys on staff who could probably be a head coach.

That being said I don't expect this to be a turning point for the Chiefs. We need players, not coaches.

DT

[Chiefnj2]

Crennel was obviously a serious candidate for the Giants, a team that prides itself on defense and a team that has a strong defensive history, yet he's not a good fit for the lowly Chiefs? People are reaching to complain about something.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

I think the idea that good coaches are paranoid is ludicrous. Good coaches know they have job security.

I don't see Shanahan, Cowher or Fisher as being paranoid and we're talking about three of the longest-tenured coaches in the last 20 years.

Yeah me too. I haven't read this thread, but I did just read the article. I've been very critical of Jason and I think he knocked this one out of the park. It was a great, and compelling read from start to almost finish.

I thoroughly disagree with the paranoia line as well. Other than that, I think he's spot on. I'm also impressed with the way he was able to present his opinion without the overkill of his "agenda". I didn't sense an agenda at all in this article. It was just honest journalism. I enjoyed it. And I think he brings up some very valid points.

Flame away.

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Yeah me too. I haven't read this thread, but I did just read the article. I've been very critical of Jason and I think he knocked this one out of the park. It was a great, and compelling read from start to almost finish.

I thoroughly disagree with the paranoia line as well. Other than that, I think he's spot on. I'm also impressed with the way he was able to present his opinion without the overkill of his "agenda". I didn't sense an agenda at all in this article. It was just honest journalism. I enjoyed it. And I think he brings up some very valid points.

Flame away.

^Not This^

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic

I love how Whitlock contradicts himself in a single column. He says he's taking a
wait and see approach with the hires but then questions their qualifications
and then dismisses any past success they've had. If you're going to be skeptical,
be skeptical but don't bullshit us and pretend you have an open mind about
this.
Posted via Mobile Device

^But This^

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Yeah me too. I haven't read this thread, but I did just read the article. I've been very critical of Jason and I think he knocked this one out of the park. It was a great, and compelling read from start to almost finish.

I thoroughly disagree with the paranoia line as well. Other than that, I think he's spot on. I'm also impressed with the way he was able to present his opinion without the overkill of his "agenda". I didn't sense an agenda at all in this article. It was just honest journalism. I enjoyed it. And I think he brings up some very valid points.

Flame away.

I think coaches are very paranoid. Belichick makes the odds favorite decision to go for it on 4th and 2 and writers are still bringing it up months later as if it is some major flaw. How could you not be paranoid in such an environment?

[wild1]

Wow. Who knew Whitlock would be negative about what the Chiefs did. I'm so shocked. I can't believe this has happened. Really. I'm shocked. Just floored. You could knock me over with a feather.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by wild1

Wow. Who knew Whitlock would be negative about what the Chiefs did. I'm so shocked. I can't believe this has happened. Really. I'm shocked. Just floored. You could knock me over with a feather.

This...

Love reading the posts of Whitlocks little hate cronies as well....

Pure Gold...

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I think most of you guys are excited about these hires, and you have every reason to be. I'm excited about these hires. Whatever one thinks of the strategy being employed at 1 Arrowhead Dr. there is simply not better choices for these jobs.

For what the front office and head coach are trying to do, Weis and Crennel are the best fits. But, that doesn't mean it's going to work. That's really all Jason is saying. I don't see the problem.

Stop being homers for 2 seconds and read the article with some objectivity. Then put the homer glasses back on. That's pretty much what I did. I really don't think this was a negative article. It was just filled with skepticism. Why shouldn't it be?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

I think coaches are very paranoid. Belichick makes the odds favorite decision to go for it on 4th and 2 and writers are still bringing it up months later as if it is some major flaw. How could you not be paranoid in such an environment?

Because you're Bill ****ing Belicheck?

[donkhater]

Maybe someone pointed this out already, but the biggest problem I have with the hires is that it smacks of laziness.

I am a research scientist and when we try to hire new people we purposefully don't keep going to the same graduate program or professor for our hires. That is a sure-fire way for your ideas to stagnate. Rather, pulling people in with different backgrounds and talents really opens up the imagination. Everyone critically analyses data rather than just taking it for granted.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I think most of you guys are excited about these hires, and you have every reason to be. I'm excited about these hires. Whatever one thinks of the strategy being employed at 1 Arrowhead Dr. there is simply not better choices for these jobs.

For what the front office and head coach are trying to do, Weis and Crennel are the best fits. But, that doesn't mean it's going to work. That's really all Jason is saying. I don't see the problem.

Stop being homers for 2 seconds and read the article with some objectivity. Then put the homer glasses back on. That's pretty much what I did. I really don't think this was a negative article. It was just filled with skepticism. Why shouldn't it be?

so you're saying that you agree with Whitlocks ability to find the grey cloud for every silver lining?

i mean we wouldn't want Chiefs fans to become too full of themselves, too fat and happy considering all the success we've enjoyed lately.

[PunkinDrublic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I think most of you guys are excited about these hires, and you have every reason to be. I'm excited about these hires. Whatever one thinks of the strategy being employed at 1 Arrowhead Dr. there is simply not better choices for these jobs.

For what the front office and head coach are trying to do, Weis and Crennel are the best fits. But, that doesn't mean it's going to work. That's really all Jason is saying. I don't see the problem.

Stop being homers for 2 seconds and read the article with some objectivity. Then put the homer glasses back on. That's pretty much what I did. I really don't think this was a negative article. It was just filled with skepticism. Why shouldn't it be?

You don't think Whitlock contradicts himself? It's one thing to be skeptical it's completely moronic to just dismiss someones past success.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I don't think he's dismissing their past success. They have the rings to show for it. He's questioning whether they can do it again, almost a full decade later with another franchise. That's a fair question.

This comes down to Whitlock. He's burned his bridges with a lot of you guys because of how over the top he's come across with the new regime. That's fair too. I called him out on his agenda over and over and over again.

But this article is toned down. He's just bringing up valid points, and I think he's doing it in a much more constructive way than he has up until this point.

I'm not some guy that runs around here blasting everything the Chiefs do. What the hell do I know? I have questioned a lot of their moves, but at the end of the day I'm a Chiefs fan. I want to hear both sides of the argument as long as it's presented in a constructive fashion. I felt like this article did just that.

Does he take a couple of shots? Yeah. Of course. That's his job though, to make everyone talk about the article. Mission accomplished. It's not hard to go back through and see all of my criticism of his past articles. I really think he did a good job on this one.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Laz

so you're saying that you agree with Whitlocks ability to find the grey cloud for every silver lining?

i mean we wouldn't want Chiefs fans to become too full of themselves, too fat and happy considering all the success we've enjoyed lately.

That's the thing. We never got over the hump with Marty but no other team won more regular season games than we did during the 90's. Then Dick comes in and again, we can't get over the hump. This franchise is DUE for some success, and all of us should be questioning everything until it does. We have earned that right for supporting them all this time.