2009 = 2013

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by tk13

This idea keeps coming up. All it's going to do is make you angry. You aren't going to ever hire anyone who cares about this kind of history. If Reid and Dorsey are fired in 4 years, the next guy isn't going to care about the mistakes they made. Just like Dorsey doesn't care about *****.
Posted via Mobile Device

Look at the history. Herm didn't care about Marty's mistakes. Vermeil didn't care about Gunther's mistakes (though Vermeil was primarily a mistake unto himself when it concerned certain aspects of coaching). Pioli didn't care about Carl's mistakes. Carl didn't care about Steadman's mistakes.

Like it or not, when you take over a team, you inherit all the successes and failures of that team's past. And that means it would behoove somebody like Reid and Dorsey to look at the Chiefs and say, "Maybe Alex Smith isn't going to work. Maybe we should go a different direction that they haven't tried before. How about the draft?"

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by SNR

Look at the history. Herm didn't care about Marty's mistakes. Vermeil didn't care about Gunther's mistakes (though Vermeil was primarily a mistake unto himself when it concerned certain aspects of coaching). ***** didn't care about Carl's mistakes. Carl didn't care about Steadman's mistakes.

Like it or not, when you take over a team, you inherit all the successes and failures of that team's past. And that means it would behoove somebody like Reid and Dorsey to look at the Chiefs and say, "Maybe Alex Smith isn't going to work. Maybe we should go a different direction that they haven't tried before. How about the draft?"

It may be nice to think it would work that way, but do you really think Andy Reid is going to draw his conclusions based upon the history of the Chiefs, or will he draw them based upon his own personal history as head coach of the Eagles?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

It may be nice to think it would work that way, but do you really think Andy Reid is going to draw his conclusions based upon the history of the Chiefs, or will he draw them based upon his own personal history as head coach of the Eagles?

In an ideal world, he'd do both.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SNR

Look at the history. Herm didn't care about Marty's mistakes. Vermeil didn't care about Gunther's mistakes (though Vermeil was primarily a mistake unto himself when it concerned certain aspects of coaching). ***** didn't care about Carl's mistakes. Carl didn't care about Steadman's mistakes.

Like it or not, when you take over a team, you inherit all the successes and failures of that team's past. And that means it would behoove somebody like Reid and Dorsey to look at the Chiefs and say, "Maybe Alex Smith isn't going to work. Maybe we should go a different direction that they haven't tried before. How about the draft?"

[tk13]

Originally Posted by SNR

Look at the history. Herm didn't care about Marty's mistakes. Vermeil didn't care about Gunther's mistakes (though Vermeil was primarily a mistake unto himself when it concerned certain aspects of coaching). Pioli didn't care about Carl's mistakes. Carl didn't care about Steadman's mistakes.

Like it or not, when you take over a team, you inherit all the successes and failures of that team's past. And that means it would behoove somebody like Reid and Dorsey to look at the Chiefs and say, "Maybe Alex Smith isn't going to work. Maybe we should go a different direction that they haven't tried before. How about the draft?"

That is all absolutely correct... but nobody is going out there making moves just to avoid repeating what the previous guy did. They're going to do what they think is right. No GM is ever going to draft a QB just because it hasn't been done in 30 years.
Posted via Mobile Device