Whitlock Chiefs Article on ESPN.com [Archive]

View Full Version : Whitlock Chiefs Article on ESPN.com

BigRedChief

09-30-2004, 10:15 PM

Darien25

09-30-2004, 10:42 PM

Heres the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040930

He may be a joke and a fat fuk but he speaks the truth in the article. They have misjudged their talent. Just like we did in our last window of oppertunity with Bono and Elvis and Linn Elliot.

Not like we had any talent to begin with. I can't understand how professional sports managers/personnel can misjudge talent so badly. Our defense has been bottom of the barrel for a couple years plus now and the Chiefs management refuses to acknowledge or address the problem. At least in past years it appeared that management tried to make adjustments or tweak the team to make it better. Pretty much status quo this year. We are picking up from where we left off at last year's Indy playoff game.

teedubya

09-30-2004, 10:56 PM

well Darien... your point is not entirely factual. The Chiefs did get Barber, Holliday, and McCleon... and they have sucked mucho assness.

that is all.

wasi

09-30-2004, 10:59 PM

>>You could argue that only a group of idiots would watch the Colts >>score at will on the Chiefs' defense and conclude that coordinator >>Greg Robinson was the problem. Arrogance wasn't the only thing >>fueling Kansas City's foolish offseason philosophy.

Vermeil was against firing Robinson in the first place. The way I understood it, he asked to retire.

I think DV and Saunders where planning on really putting in a different look on offense and training camp was spent running that system. Injuries to Wilson and Boe changed that, and it will take a few games to get back to 'basics' in a sense.

TEX

10-01-2004, 12:01 AM

He speaks the truth. :cuss:

Darien25

10-01-2004, 12:18 AM

well Darien... your point is not entirely factual. The Chiefs did get Barber, Holliday, and McCleon... and they have sucked mucho assness.

that is all.

None of these guys were top tier free agents and all were signed off season before last. Chiefs did nothing this past off season besides bring in Gunther and a few backups. No changes to crappy defensive starters from last season=status quo. Chiefs management asleep at the wheel.

tk13

10-01-2004, 12:29 AM

None of these guys were top tier free agents and all were signed off season before last. Chiefs did nothing this past off season besides bring in Gunther and a few backups. No changes to crappy defensive starters from last season=status quo. Chiefs management asleep at the wheel.
To be fair we brought in Hugh Douglas and Warrick Holdman... but weren't able to get either one of them. We actually signed Holdman but the Bears matched the offer. I also think we had planned to bring in Grant Wistrom if the Seahawks didn't throw an entire Brinks truck at him. People just forget stuff like that for some reason. Does that mean the front office didn't do a good enough job? Possibly... although it takes two to tango. I just don't think Carl has completely sat on his behind, which is a big criticism of his....

teedubya

10-01-2004, 01:10 AM

Darien25

10-01-2004, 01:33 AM

To be fair we brought in Hugh Douglas and Warrick Holdman... but weren't able to get either one of them. We actually signed Holdman but the Bears matched the offer. I also think we had planned to bring in Grant Wistrom if the Seahawks didn't throw an entire Brinks truck at him. People just forget stuff like that for some reason. Does that mean the front office didn't do a good enough job? Possibly... although it takes two to tango. I just don't think Carl has completely sat on his behind, which is a big criticism of his....

Remember, Carl Peterson is the General Manager of the
Chiefs and as such he is ultimately responsible for the entire operation and success of the team. Hopefully he does what is necessary to improve the team. Our defensive ineptness has been staring us in the face now for quite a while and I think Carl should be aware of that by now. In the past I think it was more publicly visible that he was trying to improve the team. Lately it does not appear that they are putting forth the effort, especially in the defensive player department, to improve the team. We may or may not have cap space or dollars to spend apparently, but it does not seem that the Chiefs
are really serious about upgrading personnel. I am sure they contact players all the time and occasionally bring in the ones they are more interested in, but haven't made a real push to sign top notch talent on the defensive side for at least a couple of years. As close as this team is to being super bowl caliber, at least last year, I would have liked the Chiefs to make a strong push over the last off season to really upgrade the D, even if it meant mortgaging the future. The window of opportunity is only so long and I hope ours has not passed.

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 05:59 AM

... but haven't made a real push to sign top notch talent on the defensive side for at least a couple of years.

False. Last offseason KC signed 3 defensive FA's. Im not going to argue about what is or isnt 'top notch'...at the time of the signings they were celebrated on this BB.

Wile_E_Coyote

10-01-2004, 06:05 AM

I was thinking there was a player or two who publicly stated they where not interested in playing for KC because of Robinsons scheme.

They had already spent all they could afford to spend on defense the year before, according to Carl. Gonzo, Green, Priest, Dante, Wiegman, Woods, Wesley(1 year?) all got new deals. Resigning Dunn was a big pick up we tend to forget.

BigRedChief

10-01-2004, 07:20 AM

Resigning Dunn was a big pick up we tend to forget.

A back up run blocking te.....thats not a big pick up if you ask me...

whoman69

10-01-2004, 07:21 AM

I think Whitlock is being fair in some claims in this article and unfair in others. The comparison to Martz is ludicrous. This offense is so much better than what St. Louis has without the talent at receiver. Martz doesn't protect his QB which leads to them giving up the ball on turnovers far more often. Saunders cannot make the claim anyone can get 1300 yards in his offense. Could Mike Cloud get 1300 yards?
The FA thing is rather unfair as well. This year's market had some highly overpriced talent pass us by. Kearse was a big gamble, Wistrom had a boatload of money thrown at him, Owens was not really an FA and is not really a team player. The problems I have are with Vincent whom DV forced away with his statement that he would have to compete for the starting job and Sapp who we let go to our archenemies after a paltry effort to sign him. Both of those players chased the money instead of the ring. We were also hamstrung by the cap hit for keeping Tait on transitional.
Where I really fault CP is thru the draft. If you can't go for the FAs because they demand too much, you better be able to draft. Despite protest from many that defended him on draft day the last two years, I again state the Chiefs reach on way too many players. I said it last year that Mitchell was a big reach and that Wilson, Parker and Allen were reaches this year. They may be talented players, but for various reasons they would not be on any other teams radar. Wilson is not built to be a starting TE in this league, but he fulfills the H-back slot that only the Chiefs and less than a handfull of other teams could utilize. Parker is clearly undersized and was not developed enough in college. Allen was picked that high seemingly for his abilities to long snap. Way too early in the 4th round to look at that.
We also seem to love these tweener players. We need to stop looking at a player and say we can move this guy around so he'll provide good depth when your starting unit still lacks talent. We also need to take less chances on that guy who could be very good vs that guy who will be good. The draft is a crap shoot. You can't keep letting it ride.

bricks

10-01-2004, 08:40 AM

Not a bad article by Whitlock. What he is saying is somewhat true.
I do agree with Whitlock when he stated "Vermeil is an offensive-minded coach". Just look at our offensive side of the ball, the key guys we acquired since the Vermeil era began. Priest Holmes, Willie Roaf, Trent Green all these guys are Vermeil's guys. With the exception of Roaf, Green and Holmes weren't exactly hot commodities when they were pursued by KC. They were developed very well under Vermeil, and have performed very well. Look at the defensive side of ther ball, I give the Chiefs credit, yes, they did try to improve the defensive of the ball by acquiring Holliday, Barber, and McCleon. So far, these guys have stunk it up. If Vermeil knew a thing or 2 about defense, these guys probably wouldn't be here.

Now let's take the '90's as another example. We had Marty, many of you would probably agree with me, Marty is a "defensive-minded coach", just look at who we had acquired under Marty; Neil Smith, Derrick Thomas, Dale Carter, James Hasty, Donnie Edwards, Jerome Woods, etc. All very good players under Marty. we all know they dominated defensively, and had a pitiful offense. But, again, I do give them credit, they tried to improve offensively under Marty. they acquired guys like Marcus Allen, Andre Rison, Elvis Grbac, Steve Bono, drafted Greg Hill, etc. And it didn't work out. If Marty knew a thing or 2 about offense, maybe our offenses back then would've been very complimentary to our defenses.

So all in all, this a repeating trend. Except vice-versa. From what i see, it seems like Carl is relying on his coaches and scouting department to evaluate talent for him. So what does this say about Carl, it says a lot, that he knows NOTHING when it comes to talent. Look, my point is, if he was such a good GM then he wouldn't have to rely on his coaches and scouting department to judge and evaluate talent, this doesn't sound like a good GM, nor is it something good GM's would do. No wonder were always a one-dimensional team! Dammit Carl :cuss:

BigRedChief

10-01-2004, 08:51 AM

TO would have come here if we would have pursed him. The #1 offense . Why wouldn't he? But I'm glad he didn't come and we didn't pursue him

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 08:51 AM

Look, my point is, if he was such a good GM then he wouldn't have to rely on his coaches and scouting department to judge and evaluate talent, this doesn't sound like a good GM, nor is it something good GM's would do. No wonder were always a one-dimensional team! Dammit Carl :cuss:

So If I follow this, only the GM should pick up players, and if they do, the player succeeds more times than not.

Bad GM's or GM's that know nothing about talent who rely on coaches and scouts typically pick up bad players because the coaches and scouts cannot evaluate talent?

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 08:53 AM

TO would have come here if we would have pursed him. The #1 offense . Why wouldn't he? But I'm glad he didn't come and we didn't pursue him

TO was traded for...he was NOT a FA to be 'pursued'. Besides DV would never want a player like that in his locker room.

BigRedChief

10-01-2004, 08:56 AM

"traded" was bs in this case. He was a free agent that you had to compensate to get. but I repeat I'm glad he's not here. I don't care how many passes or TD's he catches. I ve had enough of that kind of crap on my team. My team had a frigging drug ring run by team members. Domn't want to go there again. Bringing in suspect charecter players. nope. no thanks

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 09:04 AM

"traded" was bs in this case. He was a free agent that you had to compensate to get.

No, it wasnt...he failed to file the paperwork to void the final 3 years of his contract to become a FA. He was not a FA and a trade had to be made with SF to acquire his services.

The baltimore/philly thing was weird but it was more the 49ers trying to get Owens out of the NFC

ChiTown

10-01-2004, 09:10 AM

The defense isn't killing the Chiefs right now, it's the offense, or lack thereof. If the offense was churning like it did last year, we'd be 3-0 right now.

So Whit is right about one thing, we fugged up by ignoring outside receiving threats. It's one thing to ignore the defense, but you better damn well make sure the offense is stacked and playing like a scoring machine. Right now, this offense is too predictable and very easy to cover if they aren't playing with a convincing lead.

BigRedChief

10-01-2004, 09:16 AM

Dang KC I know that technically he wasn't a free agent but he was by threatning to hold out and cause problems. He had to be moved.

philfree

10-01-2004, 09:18 AM

Vermeil, Saunders and Cunningham are three of the best human beings working in professional football. Seriously. They're truly good people. But when it comes to football Xs and Os and motivation, they're disgustingly full of themselves.

If anyone in KC is disgustingly full of himself it's Whitlock :shake:

I wish I hadn't of read this. I feel like by doing so I'm supporting someones rib addiction. Seriuosly I'm trying not to read anything Whitlock because by doing so I feel like I'm helping him keep his job/jobs. No more Whitlock! Who needs a turd in the punchbowl?

PhilFree :arrow:

bricks

10-01-2004, 09:45 AM

So If I follow this, only the GM should pick up players, and if they do, the player succeeds more times than not.

Bad GM's or GM's that know nothing about talent who rely on coaches and scouts typically pick up bad players because the coaches and scouts cannot evaluate talent?

answer to 1st paragraph: yes the gm should cause he has the final say, and I'm not necessarily gonna say if they did the players would succeed more times than not. And if the coaches agree fine, if not f*ck 'em. Perfect example LJ. LJ was Peterson's choice not Vermeil's. Vermeil didn't agree with the pick. Another example was the hiring of Gunther, Carl's choice, not Vermeil's. Although Vermeil did agreed with it. GM's should know just as much about talent if not more than what the coaches and scouts know. If i'm wrong in that case then maybe our scouting department is bad, or maybe DV and the rest of his staff are bad evaluaters of talent on defense. Maybe that is why we brought in Gunther.

answer to 2nd paragraph: Somewhat true. We've been horrid on the defensive side of the ball, for the last 3 years. Take #1 draft pick Ryan Sims. He's been a bit of a disappointment so far. Sims was a Vermeil pick. If Vermeil knew a thing or 2 about defense this pick woulda probably never happened. To make things worse, Vermeil had to ask his old Pal, John Bunting about Sims cause he didn't know much about him. Bunting recommended Sims to Vermeil. Look at Holliday, Barber, and McCleon. Has Holliday ever got 10 sacks in his career, and made Probowls? No. Has Shawn Barber ever impressed anyone? No. What has McCleon done? 2nd or 3rd corner? All these guys are under achievers. If Vermeil was a defensive mind I guarentee those guys wouldn't be here. Now, this is the time for Carl to step in, he should know these guys are underachievers. why not sign guys that are probowlers and that will make a difference in your defense,
instead of signing underachieving players, not smart.

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 09:48 AM

...Perfect example LJ. LJ was Peterson's choice not Vermeil's. Vermeil didn't agree with the pick. Another example was the hiring of Gunther, Carl's choice, not Vermeil's. Although Vermeil did agreed with it. ... Sims was a Vermeil pick. If Vermeil knew a thing or 2 about defense this pick woulda probably never happened. To make things worse, Vermeil had to ask his old Pal, John Bunting about Sims cause he didn't know much about him. Bunting recommended Sims to Vermeil.

Im interested in how you know this information. Are you a member of the front office or something?

bricks

10-01-2004, 09:53 AM

Im interested in how you know this information. Are you a member of the front office or something?

ROFL no. I'm just a fan like you, what I do, is simple, pay close attention to what these guys say and do.

Brock

10-01-2004, 10:07 AM

To make things worse, Vermeil had to ask his old Pal, John Bunting about Sims cause he didn't know much about him. Bunting recommended Sims to Vermeil.

What do you mean he "had to ask" Bunting about Sims? That's an elementary part of the selection process.

KCTitus

10-01-2004, 10:13 AM

ROFL no. I'm just a fan like you, what I do, is simple, pay close attention to what these guys say and do.

Ok, fine...just so Im clear the proper way things should be done is:

GM should consult the coaches only if they're good at the side of the ball that the prospective player is playing, but in the end the GM should make the pick because he has the final say and should not listen to the coach because he has final say except when he's about to pick someone that the coach doesnt like then he should consult the coach.

Got it.

nmt1

10-01-2004, 10:20 AM

ROFL no. I'm just a fan like you, what I do, is simple, pay close attention to what these guys say and do.

...and then make stuff up about what it could mean.

bricks

10-01-2004, 11:05 AM

Ok, fine...just so Im clear the proper way things should be done is:

GM should consult the coaches only if they're good at the side of the ball that the prospective player is playing, but in the end the GM should make the pick because he has the final say and should not listen to the coach because he has final say except when he's about to pick someone that the coach doesnt like then he should consult the coach.

Got it.

Titus, your kinda confusing me :p. All I'm trying to say is in the end the GM has the final say in anything that transpires. Obviously, the coaches, scouts, and GM's are going to consult with each other when it comes to the decision making via free-agency, trade or draft. If they all agree, great. now, in a case scenario, where the coaches and scouts agree with the selection of a player, but, the GM doesn't agree. Then the GM has the right to overrule them. That's all I'm saying. In our case, with the selection of our defensive players through free-agency, draft. I strongly feel that the decision making of our defensive players weren't solely on the shoulders of Carl Peterson. I think Dick Vermeil, Greg Robinson contributed along with Carl Peterson to making decisions on that side of the ball. Now, I, like many other fans here, frustrated by our horrid defense, could only wish that Carl Peterson was more aware and had realized that Holliday, Barber, and McCleon are underachievers. The facts don't lie, Holliday never made any pro-bowls, was never known as a relentless pass-rusher, never getting 10 sacks in his career says a lot. Shawn Barber was always known as an average LB. Barber is known as a coverage LB more than anything else. He was never good at stopping the run, if you review the game tapes from this year and last year you will see the truth to what I'm saying. He also never made any probowls. McCleon was at best a 2nd corner. When he was with the Rams he always had to fight to keep his starting job with Dre Bly. And, he also, never made any Probowls. these guys are underachievers, that's the bottomline. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, Carl should know that. Bottomline, Probowlers make a difference in your defense, not signing adequate to below average players. And whats their excuse for not signing any probowlers on defense, what, we don't have the money? that B.S. cause at the time when they did sign Holliday, Barber, and McCleon, they coulda signed players like Takeo Spikes or Kevin Hardy.

bricks

10-01-2004, 11:10 AM

What do you mean he "had to ask" Bunting about Sims? That's an elementary part of the selection process.

Well ok your looking at it from a different perspective than me. And I somewhat do agree with your last sentence. I'm just trying to prove that DV doesn't know a thing or 2 about defense.