JoPo: Carl has us all fooled - Page 3

siberian khatru · 12-19-2006, 07:54 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/16270526.htm

Let’s face it — Chiefs aren’t that good

JOE POSNANSKI
The Kansas City Star

Picture, if you will, a football team. This is not any ordinary football team. This is a team that has made the playoffs one time in the last nine years. Once. In nine years. This obviously is not a particularly good football team.

In those nine years, this team has been led by four different head coaches (three defensive guys, one offensive guy), guided by four quarterbacks (all backups from other teams) and has finished, on average, 22nd in the league in total defense.

You have pictured a team in total disarray, yes? Let us divulge that team also has been miserable away from home — a 25-46 road record over those nine years. No toughness. This team has had just one of its drafted defensive players make the Pro Bowl over that nine-year drought (and that was a fluke, he was on the bench the very next year). This team has not been to a Super Bowl in Lance Armstrong’s lifetime.

This team embarrassed itself with a Monday night meltdown on national television. This team’s defensive slapstick inspired the commissioner to joke about them during his annual state of the NFL speech. This team had one coach quit suddenly and go into broadcasting, one coach resign to spend time with his grandkids and a third coach dismissed rather coldly and then brought back to be defensive coordinator.

Close your eyes. You are picturing one of the NFL dregs, right? The Detroit Lions? The Arizona Cardinals? The Houston Texans?

Of course, you know by now — you’ve known all along — that we are talking about the Kansas City Chiefs. And yet, somehow the Chiefs have avoided being considered one of those NFL dregs. Every home game sells out. People all over town wear red to work every Friday. Every July, no matter how many years since the team has tasted playoff success, Chiefs fans hope again.

How is this possible? You have entered the Chiefs zone.

•••

It’s strange. We all lived through every one of those Chiefs failures the last nine years. I was there for every one of them. And yet, until they were all piled up one after another like dominoes, I did not quite realize exactly how bad it has been. One playoff in nine years? Four coaches? Four backup quarterbacks? That bad a road record?

If the idea of the NFL is to make the playoffs — and I suspect most of us would say that’s the idea — the Chiefs are right there with the Lions, Cardinals and Browns.

But it doesn’t feel that way, does it? I suspect this has a lot to do with Chiefs president/CEO/general manager Carl Peterson. I know many people believe that he is somehow content with losing (as long as the stadium is filled), but I have never bought that. I think he wants very much to win. He has done everything he knows to win.

The truth of course is that under Peterson, the Chiefs haven’t won. In the early years, they couldn’t quite win playoff games. And over the last nine years, they haven’t even won enough to make the playoffs. Why not? I think the answer is more complicated than “he isn’t trying” or “he doesn’t care.” My quick explanation is that the hardest thing to do in football is a build a team with the right balance between offense and defense, and Peterson has never found that balance. Good teams can beat you more than one way. The Chiefs, under Peterson, have not had that variety.

But what Peterson has done — I think better than anyone in sports — is convince everyone that his mediocre teams are actually good and promising. How? He has kept the Chiefs from having one of those comical 3-13 seasons. He has always found players with star quality — Derrick Thomas to Joe Montana to Marcus Allen to Tony Gonzalez to Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson. And the Chiefs have just missed the playoffs enough times to keep everybody coming back for more.

I’ll bet if you asked big NFL fans to name the four teams that have made the playoffs just once since 1998, everybody would get Detroit. Most would pick Arizona. Most would pick Cincinnati (though the Bengals look on pace to make the playoffs this year and get out of this league of losers).

And I suspect very few would name Kansas City. They seem better than that.

This year’s team is a perfect example. These Chiefs were once 7-4 and two touchdowns ahead of Cleveland. They looked to be a playoff team for sure. They looked to be a team on the rise. Everybody in town was excited. Truth was, they were playing over their heads. They have lost three straight, and really they were not too competitive the last two.

Monday, someone asked me this simple question: If you had a choice to build for the future, would you take this year’s Chiefs team or the 4-11-1 team from 1988 that Marty Schottenheimer inherited?

The obvious answer is that you would take this year’s team. That was my thought.

But look again: That 1988 team had three defensive Pro Bowlers — Dino Hackett, Albert Lewis and Deron Cherry. Defensive end Neil Smith was about to emerge, cornerback Kevin Ross had Pro Bowl years ahead, and the Chiefs had a high draft pick (which Peterson used to take Derrick Thomas). That team also had a powerful running back (Christian Okoye), a solid offensive line, two productive wide receivers and a veteran quarterback (Steve DeBerg). There were some pieces there. And the Chiefs won.

Now, look at this year’s team. They will likely have no defensive Pro Bowlers this season. It’s way too early to predict that any of the young defenders will emerge the way Smith, Ross and others did. The Chiefs will have a mediocre draft pick, so they probably will not get a franchise player like Thomas. They do have the great running back, but the offensive line — especially at tackle — struggles. Hall of Famer Will Shields may retire. Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury, and he will be 37 before next season. The Chiefs do have the fabulous Tony Gonzalez, assuming they re-sign him. Otherwise, their receiving corps is shaky and aging fast.

The point is, this Chiefs team really isn’t very good. But, like always, they had people around town (at least for a while) believing they were good. Heck, I believed it, too. This is what the Chiefs do well. They get everyone to believe. Trouble is, they’re going to miss the playoffs again. And they do that well too. Too well.

htismaqe · 12-19-2006, 09:36 AM

Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

siberian khatru · 12-19-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Herm and Carl are not complete morons, but they're hardly difference makers, either.

I think that's fair and accurate. They're the definition of mediocrity, and it's reflected in the franchise.

**Donger** · 12-19-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

Does he have a contract? If so, how much time remains on it?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-19-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.

Question for you, htismaqe....

Even if CP was to be let go, wouldn't you expect Kuharich or Thum to get the job? Or do you think the whole FO would be scrapped?

Either of those two would basically be Carl D. Peterson Jr., IMO.

CupidStunt · 12-19-2006, 09:44 AM

Sh*t hits home, really.

Shame. Cardinals of the AFC.

Ouch.

Eleazar · 12-19-2006, 09:47 AM

Good, sensible analysis. Good to see someone not parroting the usual "Carl doesn't care about winning" tripe. It's ludicrous to say such a thing. He's tried to win. He's just failed, and nobody has ever held him accountable.

htismaqe · 12-19-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dongless

Does he have a contract? If so, how much time remains on it?

He's got 3 years remaining on a 4-year deal.

**Lzen** · 12-19-2006, 09:49 AM

I can't believe anyone would say that Trent isn't accurate. I'll admit that this year he hasn't been very accurate, especially on those passes out to the flats. But most years he's been with the Chiefs, he's been one of the most accurate QBs in the league. If you couldn't see that, you must be blind. Sure, he's not Peyton Manning. But Peyton Manning's don't come around that often.

htismaqe · 12-19-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Question for you, htismaqe....

Even if CP was to be let go, wouldn't you expect Kuharich or Thum to get the job? Or do you think the whole FO would be scrapped?

Either of those two would basically be Carl D. Peterson Jr., IMO.

I think Clark is just like his dad. Lamar cleaned house ONCE in the franchise's history, and it took a decade of averaging 4 or 5 wins a season to get him to do it. Beyond that, the guy that oversaw the whole mess (Jack Steadman) was not only retained by the team, but he's in the RING OF FAME.

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Carl get extended AGAIN, if that's what Carl wants. And if he decides to move on, a guy like Thum will take over.

Hootie · 12-19-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lzen

I can't believe anyone would say that Trent isn't accurate. I'll admit that this year he hasn't been very accurate, especially on those passes out to the flats. But most years he's been with the Chiefs, he's been one of the most accurate QBs in the league. If you couldn't see that, you must be blind. Sure, he's not Peyton Manning. But Peyton Manning's don't come around that often.

hahahaha

**Bob Dole** · 12-19-2006, 09:51 AM

Funny how Dawes already had a response to this article posted at 1:48:56am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doofus Rawes

RUFUS DAWES: There’s little sense to be made of who’s mediocre, who’s terrible and who’s great. The Kansas City Star’s Joe Posnanski says, “let’s face it – Chiefs aren’t that good.” (December 19, 2006) If 7-7 today gives you a chance to make the playoffs – and it does in the NFC — are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Yo Rufus...we're not in the NFC. Never have been. Likely never will be.

Second, you could probably define "mediocre" by looking at KC's record next to the record of the team leading the AFC West.

12-2
7-7

See the difference?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 12-19-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Funny how Dawes already had a response to this article posted at 1:48:56am.

Yo Rufus...we're not in the NFC. Never have been. Likely never will be.

Second, you could probably define "mediocre" by looking at KC's record next to the record of the team leading the AFC West.

12-2
7-7

See the difference?

This line kills me......

are you mediocre and, if so, what does that say about some other teams?

Who gives a flying **** about other teams?

All I know is that the team I root for is 7-7. And honestly, they're lucky not to be 5-9 or 4-10.

**Donger** · 12-19-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He's got 3 years remaining on a 4-year deal.

Well, that little nugget of information made me vurp.

CupidStunt · 12-19-2006, 09:59 AM

It says that the other teams suck.

Truth be told, they do. The NFL just isn't very good this year.

**Donger** · 12-19-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Who gives a flying **** about other teams?

I do. Since the Chiefs have to compete with them and all, in order to get to the playoffs.

Or not.

12-19-2006, 07:54 AM
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2574950	JoPo: Carl has us all fooled http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/16270526.htm Let’s face it — Chiefs aren’t that good JOE POSNANSKI The Kansas City Star Picture, if you will, a football team. This is not any ordinary football team. This is a team that has made the playoffs one time in the last nine years. Once. In nine years. This obviously is not a particularly good football team. In those nine years, this team has been led by four different head coaches (three defensive guys, one offensive guy), guided by four quarterbacks (all backups from other teams) and has finished, on average, 22nd in the league in total defense. You have pictured a team in total disarray, yes? Let us divulge that team also has been miserable away from home — a 25-46 road record over those nine years. No toughness. This team has had just one of its drafted defensive players make the Pro Bowl over that nine-year drought (and that was a fluke, he was on the bench the very next year). This team has not been to a Super Bowl in Lance Armstrong’s lifetime. This team embarrassed itself with a Monday night meltdown on national television. This team’s defensive slapstick inspired the commissioner to joke about them during his annual state of the NFL speech. This team had one coach quit suddenly and go into broadcasting, one coach resign to spend time with his grandkids and a third coach dismissed rather coldly and then brought back to be defensive coordinator. Close your eyes. You are picturing one of the NFL dregs, right? The Detroit Lions? The Arizona Cardinals? The Houston Texans? Of course, you know by now — you’ve known all along — that we are talking about the Kansas City Chiefs. And yet, somehow the Chiefs have avoided being considered one of those NFL dregs. Every home game sells out. People all over town wear red to work every Friday. Every July, no matter how many years since the team has tasted playoff success, Chiefs fans hope again. How is this possible? You have entered the Chiefs zone. ••• It’s strange. We all lived through every one of those Chiefs failures the last nine years. I was there for every one of them. And yet, until they were all piled up one after another like dominoes, I did not quite realize exactly how bad it has been. One playoff in nine years? Four coaches? Four backup quarterbacks? That bad a road record? If the idea of the NFL is to make the playoffs — and I suspect most of us would say that’s the idea — the Chiefs are right there with the Lions, Cardinals and Browns. But it doesn’t feel that way, does it? I suspect this has a lot to do with Chiefs president/CEO/general manager Carl Peterson. I know many people believe that he is somehow content with losing (as long as the stadium is filled), but I have never bought that. I think he wants very much to win. He has done everything he knows to win. The truth of course is that under Peterson, the Chiefs haven’t won. In the early years, they couldn’t quite win playoff games. And over the last nine years, they haven’t even won enough to make the playoffs. Why not? I think the answer is more complicated than “he isn’t trying” or “he doesn’t care.” My quick explanation is that the hardest thing to do in football is a build a team with the right balance between offense and defense, and Peterson has never found that balance. Good teams can beat you more than one way. The Chiefs, under Peterson, have not had that variety. But what Peterson has done — I think better than anyone in sports — is convince everyone that his mediocre teams are actually good and promising. How? He has kept the Chiefs from having one of those comical 3-13 seasons. He has always found players with star quality — Derrick Thomas to Joe Montana to Marcus Allen to Tony Gonzalez to Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson. And the Chiefs have just missed the playoffs enough times to keep everybody coming back for more. I’ll bet if you asked big NFL fans to name the four teams that have made the playoffs just once since 1998, everybody would get Detroit. Most would pick Arizona. Most would pick Cincinnati (though the Bengals look on pace to make the playoffs this year and get out of this league of losers). And I suspect very few would name Kansas City. They seem better than that. This year’s team is a perfect example. These Chiefs were once 7-4 and two touchdowns ahead of Cleveland. They looked to be a playoff team for sure. They looked to be a team on the rise. Everybody in town was excited. Truth was, they were playing over their heads. They have lost three straight, and really they were not too competitive the last two. Monday, someone asked me this simple question: If you had a choice to build for the future, would you take this year’s Chiefs team or the 4-11-1 team from 1988 that Marty Schottenheimer inherited? The obvious answer is that you would take this year’s team. That was my thought. But look again: That 1988 team had three defensive Pro Bowlers — Dino Hackett, Albert Lewis and Deron Cherry. Defensive end Neil Smith was about to emerge, cornerback Kevin Ross had Pro Bowl years ahead, and the Chiefs had a high draft pick (which Peterson used to take Derrick Thomas). That team also had a powerful running back (Christian Okoye), a solid offensive line, two productive wide receivers and a veteran quarterback (Steve DeBerg). There were some pieces there. And the Chiefs won. Now, look at this year’s team. They will likely have no defensive Pro Bowlers this season. It’s way too early to predict that any of the young defenders will emerge the way Smith, Ross and others did. The Chiefs will have a mediocre draft pick, so they probably will not get a franchise player like Thomas. They do have the great running back, but the offensive line — especially at tackle — struggles. Hall of Famer Will Shields may retire. Trent Green doesn’t look the same after his injury, and he will be 37 before next season. The Chiefs do have the fabulous Tony Gonzalez, assuming they re-sign him. Otherwise, their receiving corps is shaky and aging fast. The point is, this Chiefs team really isn’t very good. But, like always, they had people around town (at least for a while) believing they were good. Heck, I believed it, too. This is what the Chiefs do well. They get everyone to believe. Trouble is, they’re going to miss the playoffs again. And they do that well too. Too well.
Posts: 69,130

12-19-2006, 09:36 AM	#31
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	Carl's not going anywhere. Sad really.
Posts: 100,022

12-19-2006, 09:44 AM	#35
CupidStunt offense > defense Join Date: Jul 2005 Casino cash: $2553332	Sh*t hits home, really. Shame. Cardinals of the AFC. Ouch.
Posts: 8,904

12-19-2006, 09:47 AM	#36
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	Good, sensible analysis. Good to see someone not parroting the usual "Carl doesn't care about winning" tripe. It's ludicrous to say such a thing. He's tried to win. He's just failed, and nobody has ever held him accountable.
Posts: 80,659

12-19-2006, 09:49 AM	#38
Lzen Supporter Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Jan Quadrant Vincent 16 Casino cash: $2250692	I can't believe anyone would say that Trent isn't accurate. I'll admit that this year he hasn't been very accurate, especially on those passes out to the flats. But most years he's been with the Chiefs, he's been one of the most accurate QBs in the league. If you couldn't see that, you must be blind. Sure, he's not Peyton Manning. But Peyton Manning's don't come around that often. __________________ If at first you don't succeed ...skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 41,319

12-19-2006, 09:59 AM	#44
CupidStunt offense > defense Join Date: Jul 2005 Casino cash: $2553332	It says that the other teams suck. Truth be told, they do. The NFL just isn't very good this year.
Posts: 8,904