Chiefs Whitlock LOLs at the Patsification of the Chiefs - Page 31

Hammock Parties · 01-14-2010, 01:33 AM

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

are you calling sanchez a franchise qb as of right now? seriously?

He's expected to be. Top 10 picks at QB are usually considered to be franchise QB's until they prove otherwise.

Regardless of how you categorize Sanchez right now, the point stands.

Odds of winning a championship without a franchise QB are extremely low. Almost non-existent, unless you have a once-in-a-lifetime defense like the 2000 Ravens.

Titty Meat · 01-14-2010, 05:32 PM

Sanchez has won more playoff games as a rookie than the loser Tony Gonzalez has his whole career.

**SAUTO** · 01-14-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

He's expected to be. Top 10 picks at QB are usually considered to be franchise QB's until they prove otherwise.

Regardless of how you categorize Sanchez right now, the point stands.

Odds of winning a championship without a franchise QB are extremely low. Almost non-existent, unless you have a once-in-a-lifetime defense like the 2000 Ravens.

doesnt matter whats expected. as of RIGHT NOW he hasnt played to that level

**SAUTO** · 01-14-2010, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

Sanchez has won more playoff games as a rookie than the loser Tony Gonzalez has his whole career.

if tg had the #1 rush o and #1 d im sure he would have a super bowl ring

Titty Meat · 01-14-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

if tg had the #1 rush o and #1 d im sure he would have a super bowl ring

He had the #1 offense and didn't win a playoff game, He played for a team that had a great defense and didn't win a playoff game. Sanchez is a winner period. He did everything the Jets asked anyone who said otherwise didn't watch the Bengals game.

Saccopoo · 01-14-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

He's expected to be. Top 10 picks at QB are usually considered to be franchise QB's until they prove otherwise.

Regardless of how you categorize Sanchez right now, the point stands.

Odds of winning a championship without a franchise QB are extremely low. Almost non-existent, unless you have a once-in-a-lifetime defense like the 2000 Ravens.

And you said you didn't have a thing for Sanchez...

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

If his deficiencies are just masked, welcome to a game or two either side of .500 ball and a possible one-and-done in the playoffs.

Manning
Rivers
Palmer
Brady
Flacco
Sanchez

Brees
Favre
Romo
Warner
Rodgers
McNabb

All franchise QB's. (Palmer can be argued now, but definitely was a FQB before his knee was destroyed)

Let's see...

Wayne/Clark
Sproles/Gates/Jackson/Tomlinson
Ochocinco/Benson
Moss/Welker/Faulk
Rice/McGahee/Mason/Heap
Edwards/Jones/Cotchery/Keller/Greene

Meachem/Henderson/Bush/Thomas/Colston/Shockey
Harvin/Berrian/Peterson/Rice/Shiancoe
Witten/Austin/Williams/Barber/Crayton
Fitzgerald/Boldin/Breaston/Wells/Hightower
Jennings/Driver/Grant/Finley/Jones
Jackson/Maclin/Avant/Celek/McCoy

No correlation between those QB's and the pieces around them...
Whatsoever.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

doesnt matter whats expected. as of RIGHT NOW he hasnt played to that level

You're arguing just to argue.

Every top 10 QB picked in this league in the last 20 years was considered a franchise QB until their play proved otherwise, and you know it.

Guys like the Manning's, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc proved it.

Guys like Carr, Akili Smith and Ryan leaf didn't.

**DeezNutz** · 01-14-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

if tg had the #1 rush o and #1 d im sure he would have a super bowl ring

In '97 the Chiefs had the #5 offense (pts) and the #1 D (pts).

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Let's see...

Wayne/Clark
Sproles/Gates/Jackson/Tomlinson
Ochocinco/Benson
Moss/Welker/Faulk
Rice/McGahee/Mason/Heap
Edwards/Jones/Cotchery/Keller/Greene

Meachem/Henderson/Bush/Thomas/Colston/Shockey
Harvin/Berrian/Peterson/Rice/Shiancoe
Witten/Austin/Williams/Barber/Crayton
Fitzgerald/Boldin/Breaston/Wells/Hightower
Jennings/Driver/Grant/Finley/Jones
Jackson/Maclin/Avant/Celek/McCoy

No correlation between those QB's and the pieces around them...
Whatsoever.

You act as if those guys JUST became franchise QB's.

Guys like Brees, Manning, McNabb, Brady, to name a few, had shit to work with early in their careers. Maybe one guy they could lean on.

Christ, this is the first year in McNabb's career he's had more than one legitimate playmaker at WR.

Brady won a SB with Antowain Smith, Troy Brown, Davis Patten and Jermaine Wiggins, FFS.

Over time, they've all been fortunate to have some talent added to thier arsenal.

But it takes years to do so, and they all have had the benefit of starting from a young age, and growing with the young playmakers their franchise acquired.

Cassel, OTOH, will likely be 33+ before all of those pieces can be accumulated.

That's the downside of trading for an inexperienced QB that "should" be in his prime.

**SAUTO** · 01-14-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You're arguing just to argue.

Every top 10 QB picked in this league in the last 20 years was considered a franchise QB until their play proved otherwise, and you know it.

Guys like the Manning's, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc proved it.

Guys like Carr, Akili Smith and Ryan leaf didn't.

i'm not arguing just to argue. that makes NO sense. every qb drafted top ten is HOPED HOPED to be a franchise level qb. his PLAY to this point hasnt shown that.

**SAUTO** · 01-14-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

In '97 the Chiefs had the #5 offense (pts) and the #1 D (pts).

still not 1 and 1

**SAUTO** · 01-14-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

He had the #1 offense and didn't win a playoff game, He played for a team that had a great defense and didn't win a playoff game. Sanchez is a winner period. He did everything the Jets asked anyone who said otherwise didn't watch the Bengals game.

not AT THE SAME TIME BILLAAAAY.

keg in kc · 01-14-2010, 05:49 PM

The Sanchez talk's a little over-the-top. If they do happen to win it this year, it won't be because they have a franchise quarterback, because regardless of what he's expected to be, that's not what he was in 2009. He was a rookie who had a bad season and still got into the playoffs despite himself. Because his team's defense was #1 in yards and #1 in scoring. And because his team's running game was #1 in yards. Those are the things that carried the Jets -and carried him, the league's 28th rated quarterback, centerpiece of the league's 31st ranked passing offense - into the playoffs.

When he's carrying the Jets, and not vice-versa, that's the time to talk about him as a franchise player. Right now he's an expensive Trent Dilfer, for all intents and purposes. I'm not saying that's what he's going to be in the long run, but that's what he was and is in 2009.

He looked pretty good last week, for the 15 throws he had to make, no question about that. Once he does that for a whole season and beyond, then it's time to talk about his stature among NFL qbs.

**DeezNutz** · 01-14-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

still not 1 and 1

Right, it's points, which matters the most.

Guess what the Jets were this year? #17.

01-14-2010, 01:33 AM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $960478	Whitlock LOLs at the Patsification of the Chiefs 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.
Posts: 296,875

01-14-2010, 05:32 PM	#452
Titty Meat Inmem 2.0 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: My house Casino cash: $-1032442	Sanchez has won more playoff games as a rookie than the loser Tony Gonzalez has his whole career.
Posts: 78,095

01-14-2010, 05:49 PM	#464
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	The Sanchez talk's a little over-the-top. If they do happen to win it this year, it won't be because they have a franchise quarterback, because regardless of what he's expected to be, that's not what he was in 2009. He was a rookie who had a bad season and still got into the playoffs despite himself. Because his team's defense was #1 in yards and #1 in scoring. And because his team's running game was #1 in yards. Those are the things that carried the Jets -and carried him, the league's 28th rated quarterback, centerpiece of the league's 31st ranked passing offense - into the playoffs. When he's carrying the Jets, and not vice-versa, that's the time to talk about him as a franchise player. Right now he's an expensive Trent Dilfer, for all intents and purposes. I'm not saying that's what he's going to be in the long run, but that's what he was and is in 2009. He looked pretty good last week, for the 15 throws he had to make, no question about that. Once he does that for a whole season and beyond, then it's time to talk about his stature among NFL qbs.
Posts: 58,682