RAND: Gretz gets a bum rap

[shaneo69]

Apparently, Jason Whitlock has now dropped to #2 on the "Chiefs most hated media member" list. Rufus has been instructed to now turn his attention to analyzing SI articles.


RAND: Gretz gets a bum rap
Feb 10, 2005, 4:03:38 AM by Jonathan Rand

As a former Pro Football Hall of Fame elector, I’m almost astonished that one voter went straight to a web site interview with a kiss-and-tell account of the meeting.

When Sports Illustrated writer Paul Zimmerman told SI.com what transpired in last Saturday’s meeting at Jacksonville, he did a disservice to the Hall of Fame process and to KCFX’s Bob Gretz, the Kansas City representative among the 39 electors. Gretz, of course, also contributes to this web site.

Zimmerman’s criticism of Gretz’s presentation on behalf of Thomas was unfounded, not to mention inappropriate. I was always asked to keep Hall of Fame discussions confidential.

Zimmerman, asked why former Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas fell short in his first year of eligibility, replied, “The person who spoke for Thomas highlighted the incredible pass rushing skills, but made the mistake of mentioning that ‘some question his skills as an all-around linebacker.’ Once that was in (a) voter’s mind, it killed Thomas’ chances.”

First of all, Zimmerman wasn’t going to vote for Thomas no matter what Gretz said. How do I know this? Because Zimmerman in Sports Illustrated already had evaluated the most prominent candidates about to become eligible for the Hall of Fame during the next few years. Thomas did not make his cut as a first-year selection.

If you’re presenting the case for a Hall of Fame candidate, you’re wise to address his shortcomings before somebody else does. Nothing will kill your credibility as quickly as another elector bringing up an obvious knock on your candidate that you’ve ignored. Suddenly it looks as if you’ve tried to hoodwink everybody and you’re on the defensive.

Believe me, most electors are well aware of each candidate’s positives and negatives. Especially a candidate who played just five seasons ago.

It would have been wise, though probably unnecessary, to address the negatives even on behalf of slam-dunk candidates Dan Marino and Steve Young. Some question why Marino never won a Super Bowl. Though Young retired as the NFL’s most efficient passer of all time, some enjoy ridiculing the validity of the passer rating system.

How will Hall of Fame electors continue to have frank discussions about candidates when they know their remarks will be blabbed all over cyberspace? Though I’d like to see each elector’s ballot made public, the discussions should be private.

Strictly speaking, any journalist voting for the Hall of Fame has a conflict of interest. Ideally, no reporter should conceal the details of a news event. But a reporter unwilling to reach some kind of compromise in the Hall of Fame process should not participate.

The candidacy of Baltimore Colts tight end John Mackey raised tremendous controversy because pundits kept insisting he was blackballed from the Hall of Fame because of his union activities. Actually, he was voted down until his final year of eligibility because one influential elector thought Mackey dropped too many passes.

Whether you agreed with that elector or not, his candor improved the process. Would he have been as candid knowing his remarks would wind up on SI.com?

It’s a disservice to a candidate if electors bite their tongues when it comes to discussing why they’re voting against him. The elector making the presentation deserves to know why his candidate got rejected so he can better address the negatives the next time.

Thomas appeared a bubble candidate going into the election. So why the big deal over a vote that seemed almost a foregone conclusion?

Yet, I can tell you this from personal experience: when a player gets in the Hall of Fame, it’s because he was a great athlete, but when he’s voted down it’s because he got a poor presentation. The former is almost always true. The latter seldom is.

[siberian khatru]

Believe me, most electors are well aware of each candidate’s positives and negatives. Especially a candidate who played just five seasons ago.

This occurred to me before: If these voters are supposedly football experts, why do they need someone else to make a presentation for them about a candidate? Unless it's someone like Fritz Pollard, who played/coached 70 or 80 years ago, why would the voters need to be "informed" about Dan Marino or Derrick Thomas or anyone else who's played in the last 25 years?

Baseball doesn't do it that way -- they trust the voters to do the research and make up their own minds. Why does the NFL need to conduct a show-and-tell session?

[whoman69]

This occurred to me before: If these voters are supposedly football experts, why do they need someone else to make a presentation for them about a candidate? Unless it's someone like Fritz Pollard, who played/coached 70 or 80 years ago, why would the voters need to be "informed" about Dan Marino or Derrick Thomas or anyone else who's played in the last 25 years?

Baseball doesn't do it that way -- they trust the voters to do the research and make up their own minds. Why does the NFL need to conduct a show-and-tell session?
Baseball makes so many mistakes with whom they select, they need some changes. Anyone who thinks they are such an expert, they know everyone, is delusional. Football has done a much better job getting deserving players in than baseball. I think its because of baseball writers depend too much on statistics while really not knowing the player they are voting for.

[BigRedChief]

They are both mouthpieces of the Chiefs pr machine nothing more. They are not "journalists". At least Thwitlock is an "opinion" even though its mostly wrong its still an opinion. Theses guys write as "journalist". They need blow torches to remove their lips from King Carl's backside.

King Carl should have sent someone with prestige to sway the voters. Bobby Bell, Lanier, Lenny someone other than their pr tools.

[htismaqe]

They are both mouthpieces of the Chiefs pr machine nothing more. They are not "journalists". At least Thwitlock is an "opinion" even though its mostly wrong its still an opinion. Theses guys write as "journalist". They need blow torches to remove their lips from King Carl's backside.

King Carl should have sent someone with prestige to sway the voters. Bobby Bell, Lanier, Lenny someone other than their pr tools.

This a joke right?

Just because Gretz' opinion doesn't agree with yours, doesn't somehow invalidate his opinion.

[Manila-Chief]

This occurred to me before: If these voters are supposedly football experts, why do they need someone else to make a presentation for them about a candidate? Unless it's someone like Fritz Pollard, who played/coached 70 or 80 years ago, why would the voters need to be "informed" about Dan Marino or Derrick Thomas or anyone else who's played in the last 25 years?

Baseball doesn't do it that way -- they trust the voters to do the research and make up their own minds. Why does the NFL need to conduct a show-and-tell session?

I fully agree with you. I was surprised to hear that someone presents a player ... If they are HOF material they don't need someone "selling them." I thought it was football experts voting ... if they are let them vote.... Then we the fans can have confidence they truly deserve to get in!!!!

[Chiefnj]

Dr. Z took a shot at Gretz for some reason. Does anyone really think Gretz said "Some people don't think DT was a great all around LB" and left it at that? That has always been a criticism of DT. Chief fans who adore the guy know that when teams ran at him, it wasn't always a pretty result. His play against the run was questionable, and Gretz did nothing wrong if he raised it and tried to prove it wrong because I'm sure it was in the minds of all the voters.

Many very good/great players get passed up for years.

[siberian khatru]

Baseball makes so many mistakes with whom they select, they need some changes. Anyone who thinks they are such an expert, they know everyone, is delusional. Football has done a much better job getting deserving players in than baseball. I think its because of baseball writers depend too much on statistics while really not knowing the player they are voting for.

On the contrary, I don't think they use statistics enough. The Hall is full of guys with less than stellar stats. That's due in large part to cronyism by the Veterans Committee, who ignore numbers and vote in their old buddies, and buddies of buddies. That practice was rampant in the 70s and 80s.

And I don't know if the NFL has done "a much better job" by ignoring the likes of Art Monk, Ray Guy, etc.

[htismaqe]

Dr. Z took a shot at Gretz for some reason. Does anyone really think Gretz said "Some people don't think DT was a great all around LB" and left it at that? That has always been a criticism of DT. Chief fans who adore the guy know that when teams ran at him, it wasn't always a pretty result. His play against the run was questionable, and Gretz did nothing wrong if he raised it and tried to prove it wrong because I'm sure it was in the minds of all the voters.

Many very good/great players get passed up for years.

Exactly.

Like I said in another thread...

If he hadn't have brought up the "pass rusher vs. complete LB" argument, everybody in KC would be bitching because DT didn't make the HoF and Gretz is at fault because he failed to prove that DT wasn't just a pass rusher.

Gretz is in a no-win situation...DT wasn't getting in no matter what he said.

[Phobia]

Isn't that special? Not only is Flanagan a dolt, but Rand is too. Why are we subjected to 2 articles (in one day, no less) defending Gretz? Come on, people. This is pathetic. If it weren't somebody these guys spend every sunday drinking coffee and eating pastries, you wouldn't see one article coming to his defense - much less two. Once again, pathetic.

[cdcox]

The discussion is the important thing. Think of the presentation as setting the context for the upcoming discussion. The presentation is a starting point. The discussion of the pros and cons of a particular candidate is useful because someone could offer a different perspective that you had not yet considered.

Gretz said (whether you believe him or not) that three panelists had called him and indicated that they had changed their votes as a result of the discussion/presentation.

[BigRedChief]

This a joke right?

Just because Gretz' opinion doesn't agree with yours, doesn't somehow invalidate his opinion.

I'm not saying his opinion is wrong. I'm saying he's nothing more than a tool for the Chiefs pr department. Everybody knows he's a tool. I'm sure the national media know hes a tool.

You want to impress a voter to vote for your cause do you send a pr tool to make a speech? Or maybe send someone well respected and already in the hall of fame to speak for DT?

[Chiefnj]

I'm not saying his opinion is wrong. I'm saying he's nothing more than a tool for the Chiefs pr department. Everybody knows he's a tool. I'm sure the national media know hes a tool.

You want to impress a voter to vote for your cause do you send a pr tool to make a speech? Or maybe send someone well respected and already in the hall of fame to speak for DT?

I'm not sure just anyone can go and speak for him.

How does DT make the top 10 finalists but Kevin Greene doesn't?

[htismaqe]

I'm not saying his opinion is wrong. I'm saying he's nothing more than a tool for the Chiefs pr department. Everybody knows he's a tool. I'm sure the national media know hes a tool.

You want to impress a voter to vote for your cause do you send a pr tool to make a speech? Or maybe send someone well respected and already in the hall of fame to speak for DT?

You said that Gretz is not a "journalist" and Whitlock is. That's an absolutely assinine statement.

Gretz is a mouthpiece for the Chiefs PR department. He's also a journalist. Regardless of how you spin it, he DID get on the HoF induction board somehow - there's only 39 of them.

As for Whitlock, he's a mouthpiece for himself. Different agenda, same result. He's no more, or less, a "journalist" than Gretz.

[Manila-Chief]

Isn't that special? Not only is Flanagan a dolt, but Rand is too. Why are we subjected to 2 articles (in one day, no less) defending Gretz? Come on, people. This is pathetic. If it weren't somebody these guys spend every sunday drinking coffee and eating pastries, you wouldn't see one article coming to his defense - much less two. Once again, pathetic.

Yep!!!

Also, I was thinking earlier ... "Why did Gretz defend him self?" Seems to me it would have been more professional for him to allow someone else to do that for him...

[nmt1]

You said that Gretz is not a "journalist" and Whitlock is. That's an absolutely assinine statement.

Gretz is a mouthpiece for the Chiefs PR department. He's also a journalist. Regardless of how you spin it, he DID get on the HoF induction board somehow - there's only 39 of them.

As for Whitlock, he's a mouthpiece for himself. Different agenda, same result. He's no more, or less, a "journalist" than Gretz.

I think one thing that gets lost in all this is that Gretz is an employee of KCFX.

[Phobia]

Yeah - I'm not sure anybody other than the 39 "journalist" are allowed in that room doing a presentation. If not Gretz - who?

[cdcox]

I'm not saying his opinion is wrong. I'm saying he's nothing more than a tool for the Chiefs pr department. Everybody knows he's a tool. I'm sure the national media know hes a tool.

You want to impress a voter to vote for your cause do you send a pr tool to make a speech? Or maybe send someone well respected and already in the hall of fame to speak for DT?

KC has not had a sports journalist with that kind of sway since Joe McGuff retired, IMO.

[Phobia]

I think one thing that gets lost in all this is that Gretz is an employee of KCFX.

Why is it that you're the only one who cares? Everybody else recognizes that Gretz is essentially a voice for the Chiefs. Even the people defending Gretz know this.

[nmt1]

Why is it that you're the only one who cares? Everybody else recognizes that Gretz is essentially a voice for the Chiefs. Even the people defending Gretz know this.

I never said I don't think Gretz defends the Chiefs. I was merely interested in making sure that people understand who Gretz's real employer is.

[Phobia]

Ok. Fair enough.

[Ozarks-Chiefs-Fan]

lets not forget what an ahole paul zimmerman is.

[htismaqe]

Why is it that you're the only one who cares? Everybody else recognizes that Gretz is essentially a voice for the Chiefs. Even the people defending Gretz know this.

I recognize that Gretz is essentially a PR tool for the Chiefs.

But suggesting that the fact he is somehow invalidates his opinion is just flat out ridiculous.

In fact, why would we want someone who is NOT a PR person for the Chiefs (ie. Whitlock) presenting to the HoF committee? It would seem to me that a bigger homer is better in this particular case...

[shaneo69]

I never said I don't think Gretz defends the Chiefs. I was merely interested in making sure that people understand who Gretz's real employer is.

That's B.S. His real employer is KCChiefs.com, just like Rand. He works for KCFX like Dawson and Holthus work for KCFX. When the Chiefs leave KCFX, he will too. And if CP is still running the Chiefs, Gretz will suddenly become the "Sports Director" at whatever station is awarded the Chiefs broadcast rights.

[htismaqe]

lets not forget what an ahole paul zimmerman is.

Exactly.

[nmt1]

That's B.S. His real employer is KCChiefs.com, just like Rand. He works for KCFX like Dawson and Holthus work for KCFX. When the Chiefs leave KCFX, he will too. And if CP is still running the Chiefs, Gretz will suddenly become the "Sports Director" at whatever station is awarded the Chiefs broadcast rights.

Life sucks when you're a Carl hater, doesn't it?

[Phobia]

I recognize that Gretz is essentially a PR tool for the Chiefs.

But suggesting that the fact he is somehow invalidates his opinion is just flat out ridiculous.

I'm suggesting that the articles I've read from Gretz and the commentary on the radio for the past decade invalidates his opinion. He's become a pawn and I can't possibly view him as a legitimate journalist. Which is why I question his appearance on the HOF committee. If he's the one presenting and representing Chiefs, I guess we know why Otis Taylor isn't in the HOF.

[siberian khatru]

I never said I don't think Gretz defends the Chiefs. I was merely interested in making sure that people understand who Gretz's real employer is.

His "real" employer? Does he get paid for the pieces he writes that get posted on kcchiefs.com? Can any free-lance writer get published on kcchiefs.com? He's also a member of the Chiefs Radio Network. Do the Chiefs have a say in who gets to be a member of the broadcast team? Is he paid by the Chiefs to be a member of said team? If so, then it sounds to me like Gretz has more than employer.

He's sports director of KCFX, which apparently doesn't care that Gretz has a massive conflict of interest in working officially for the team he "covers." Because they're just a radio station that wants to be the Chiefs' flagship radio station. I fail to see how working for KCFX changes anything.

[shaneo69]

In fact, why would we want someone who is NOT a PR person for the Chiefs (ie. Whitlock) presenting to the HoF committee? It would seem to me that a bigger homer is better in this particular case...

Someone who has criticized the Chiefs organization, yet is objective enough to make a strong case for a Chiefs player to get in, would hold more weight with me.

The HoF selectors were probably sitting there listening to Gretz, thinking, this guy can't even criticize G reg R obinson, no wonder he thinks Derrick Thomas walked on water.

[nmt1]

His "real" employer? Does he get paid for the pieces he writes that get posted on kcchiefs.com? Can any free-lance writer get published on kcchiefs.com? He's also a member of the Chiefs Radio Network. Do the Chiefs have a say in who gets to be a member of the broadcast team? Is he paid by the Chiefs to be a member of said team? If so, then it sounds to me like Gretz has more than employer.

He's sports director of KCFX, which apparently doesn't care that Gretz has a massive conflict of interest in working officially for the team he "covers." Because they're just a radio station that wants to be the Chiefs' flagship radio station. I fail to see how working for KCFX changes anything.

Well, I fail to see how being the sports director at the Chiefs flagship radio station and having columns posted on the team's official website, paid or unpaid, automatically marginalizes Gretz's opinions and makes him less qualified to be a HoF presenter than someone else.
Bottom line is that Zimmerman wasn't going to vote for Thomas in the first place and committed a faux paux by identifying the person presenting for the player. Sounds like someone really does have an agenda but it wasn't to constantly defend an organization, it was to keep someone out of the HoF.

[siberian khatru]

Well, I fail to see how being the sports director at the Chiefs flagship radio station and having columns posted on the team's official website, paid or unpaid, automatically marginalizes Gretz's opinions and makes him less qualified to be a HoF presenter than someone else.
Bottom line is that Zimmerman wasn't going to vote for Thomas in the first place and committed a faux paux by identifying the person presenting for the player. Sounds like someone really does have an agenda but it wasn't to constantly defend an organization, it was to keep someone out of the HoF.

I have no dog in this fight other than to question your invoking KCFX as his "real" employer as somehow validating Gretz's status as a journalist. I'm not criticizing Gretz's presentation, DT's qualifications, the vote or Zimmerman. I'm just not impressed by Gretz's job at KCFX. He works for the Chiefs. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone else will have to decide on their own how that colors their perception of Gretz. But KCFX is, IMO, irrelevant.

[htismaqe]

I'm suggesting that the articles I've read from Gretz and the commentary on the radio for the past decade invalidates his opinion. He's become a pawn and I can't possibly view him as a legitimate journalist. Which is why I question his appearance on the HOF committee. If he's the one presenting and representing Chiefs, I guess we know why Otis Taylor isn't in the HOF.

It in no way invalidates his opinion. It's just that, an OPINION.

Now, if you're suggesting that he can't be considered a source for "objective" news concerning the Chiefs, I wholeheartedly agree.

By the same token, Keitzman and Whitlock should not be considered legititmate sources for Chiefs news either.

As for his appearance on the HoF committee, just look at it's members. There's no wonder he's there.

I wonder if Rick Gosselin is on the committee? If he isn't, he should be.

[htismaqe]

Someone who has criticized the Chiefs organization, yet is objective enough to make a strong case for a Chiefs player to get in, would hold more weight with me.

The HoF selectors were probably sitting there listening to Gretz, thinking, this guy can't even criticize G reg R obinson, no wonder he thinks Derrick Thomas walked on water.

The only person that I know of that possibly fits that bill is Soren Petro. Honestly, there's nobody in the KC media that really is "objective". They're either shills for the Chiefs or have gravitated to the other end of the spectrum because of a grudge.

As for what the HoF voters were thinking, we already can assume that what you're suggesting is incorrect, at least based on Dr. Z's comments. The problem was that, apparently, Gretz suggested Thomas wasn't an all-around LB instead of suggesting that he did indeed walk on water.

[Chiefnj]

Well, I fail to see how being the sports director at the Chiefs flagship radio station and having columns posted on the team's official website, paid or unpaid, automatically marginalizes Gretz's opinions and makes him less qualified to be a HoF presenter than someone else.
Bottom line is that Zimmerman wasn't going to vote for Thomas in the first place and committed a faux paux by identifying the person presenting for the player. Sounds like someone really does have an agenda but it wasn't to constantly defend an organization, it was to keep someone out of the HoF.

Gretz's opinions to many, myself included, are marginalized because after reading his columns for years one can be led to believe that he is merely a corporate shill. I agree, it doesn't make him less qualified to be a presenter, and I think it makes sense to have such a big homer making the presentation.

Just as Gretz has demonstrated through the years that he has leanings towards the Chiefs, "Dr." Z similarly demonstrated a prejudice against Thomas in his writings where he said he wasn't going to vote for the guy prior to the presentation.

[htismaqe]

Bottom line is that Zimmerman wasn't going to vote for Thomas in the first place and committed a faux paux by identifying the person presenting for the player. Sounds like someone really does have an agenda but it wasn't to constantly defend an organization, it was to keep someone out of the HoF.

That to me is the KEY issue here.

[Phobia]

It in no way invalidates his opinion. It's just that, an OPINION.

Now, if you're suggesting that he can't be considered a source for "objective" news concerning the Chiefs, I wholeheartedly agree.

By the same token, Keitzman and Whitlock should not be considered legititmate sources for Chiefs news either.

As for his appearance on the HoF committee, just look at it's members. There's no wonder he's there.

I wonder if Rick Gosselin is on the committee? If he isn't, he should be.

His opinion is bought and paid for by the organization he supposed to be objectively covering. THAT (combined with all the evidence in his wake) invalidates his opinion, IMO.

Keitzman and Whitlock should also be taken with a grain of salt, but at least they report both positive and negative regarding the Chiefs.

The rest of this crap I totally agree with. I'm tired of hearing that Peter King carries a lot of stroke with the committee - that he shouts people down. That sounds like a major problem to me. Are there any checks and balances for the HOF committee?

[nmt1]

Gretz's opinions to many, myself included, are marginalized because after reading his columns for years one can be led to believe that he is merely a corporate shill. I agree, it doesn't make him less qualified to be a presenter, and I think it makes sense to have such a big homer making the presentation.

Just as Gretz has demonstrated through the years that he has leanings towards the Chiefs, "Dr." Z similarly demonstrated a prejudice against Thomas in his writings where he said he wasn't going to vote for the guy prior to the presentation.

I understand what you're saying. I guess I look at Gretz in a different light. He is someone, IMO, that knows more than me about the team and is a potential source of information. When he writes his articles for KCChiefs.com, it's obvious that he's trying to put a positive spin on the Chiefs but I think some of that is due to the fact that many, many more are doing their best to put a negative spin on them, most times with no facts or inside knowledge.

[htismaqe]

His opinion is bought and paid for by the organization he supposed to be objectively covering. THAT (combined with all the evidence in his wake) invalidates his opinion, IMO.

Keitzman and Whitlock should also be taken with a grain of salt, but at least they report both positive and negative regarding the Chiefs.

The rest of this crap I totally agree with. I'm tired of hearing that Peter King carries a lot of stroke with the committee - that he shouts people down. That sounds like a major problem to me. Are there any checks and balances for the HOF committee?

I guess I never assumed that his is supposed to be objective. I've always just assumed that he's NOT.

[BigRedChief]

You said that Gretz is not a "journalist" and Whitlock is. That's an absolutely assinine statement.

Gretz is a mouthpiece for the Chiefs PR department. He's also a journalist. Regardless of how you spin it, he DID get on the HoF induction board somehow - there's only 39 of them.

As for Whitlock, he's a mouthpiece for himself. Different agenda, same result. He's no more, or less, a "journalist" than Gretz.
Check the facts dude. Why are you jumping on me here? WTF did I say? I said neither were journalists. Whitlock has an opinion. These guys I'm refering to are Rand and Gretz
Exact words were:
Posted by BigRedChief - Today at 10:55 AMThey are both mouthpieces of the Chiefs pr machine nothing more. They are not "journalists". At least Thwitlock is an "opinion" even though its mostly wrong its still an opinion. Theses guys write as "journalist". They need blow torches to remove their lips from King Carl's backside.

King Carl should have sent someone with prestige to sway the voters. Bobby Bell, Lanier, Lenny someone other than their pr tools.

[htismaqe]

Check the facts dude. Why are you jumping on me here? WTF did I say? I said neither were journalists. Whitlock has an opinion. These guys I'm refering to are Rand and Gretz
Exact words were:
Posted by BigRedChief - Today at 10:55 AMThey are both mouthpieces of the Chiefs pr machine nothing more. They are not "journalists". At least Thwitlock is an "opinion" even though its mostly wrong its still an opinion. Theses guys write as "journalist". They need blow torches to remove their lips from King Carl's backside.

King Carl should have sent someone with prestige to sway the voters. Bobby Bell, Lanier, Lenny someone other than their pr tools.

OK, it's much clearer now. You didn't say Whitlock was not a journalist, but you implied that he wasn't.

And King Carl can't "send" anyone, the way I understand it. Gretz is a member of the committee. It's closed to outsiders.

[htismaqe]

As for what you said that caused me to "jump on you"?

It's your posting style. You just wildly throw out the fact that you don't like Carl Peterson on just about every thread you post on. You jump on anyone that might dare defend the front office, even if they're NOT defending the front office but rather questioning faulty logic.

I just wonder if you think before you type sometimes.

[shaneo69]

As for what you said that caused me to "jump on you"?

It's your posting style. You just wildly throw out the fact that you don't like Carl Peterson on just about every thread you post on. You jump on anyone that might dare defend the front office, even if they're NOT defending the front office but rather questioning faulty logic.

I don't understand why anyone wastes their time nitpicking about faulty logic. It's not faulty logic, it's an opinion. If I wanted to debate someone's logic, I would be posting on the BB at www.philosophy.com.

[BigRedChief]

As for what you said that caused me to "jump on you"?

It's your posting style. You just wildly throw out the fact that you don't like Carl Peterson on just about every thread you post on. You jump on anyone that might dare defend the front office, even if they're NOT defending the front office but rather questioning faulty logic.

I just wonder if you think before you type sometimes.

Think before I type? Never! :harumph:

[htismaqe]

I don't understand why anyone wastes their time nitpicking about faulty logic. It's not faulty logic, it's an opinion. If I wanted to debate someone's logic, I would be posting on the BB at www.philosophy.com.

Because that somebody came into the thread, chest puffed, saying "I'm a season ticket holder! Who the **** are you?"

When you make BOLD statements, you should expect to get a response - good or bad.

That's why this is called a discussion board.

[htismaqe]

Think before I type? Never! :harumph:

ROFL

:thumb:

Honestly, I hope you realize that this is all part of the discussion...

[BigRedChief]

This is a Chiefs BB. We discuss Chief issues and problems. We offer our opinion on these issues. IMHO the biggest long term issue with the Chiefs is King Carl's inabliity to use the draft to help the organization.


Lots of people don't have the same opinion. I voice mine, they voice their opinion. Seems to me thats the way a bb works.

[htismaqe]

This is a Chiefs BB. We discuss Chief issues and problems. We offer our opinion on these issues. IMHO the biggest long term issue with the Chiefs is King Carl's inabliity to use the draft to help the organization.

Lots of people don't have the same opinion. I voice mine, they voice their opinion. Seems to m thats the way a bb works.

Some of us DO have the same opinion, but despite the fact that the "ends" are the same, the "means" are not. Carl Peterson is a failure as a football person.

Unfortunately, Carl Peterson is a raving success when it comes to making this franchise profitable, and as much as we don't want to acknowledge the fact, the number one reason this franchise even exists is to make money.

However, you are 100% correct. This is exactly the way the BB is supposed to work.

[BigRedChief]

Some of us DO have the same opinion, but despite the fact that the "ends" are the same, the "means" are not. Carl Peterson is a failure as a football person.

Unfortunately, Carl Peterson is a raving success when it comes to making this franchise profitable, and as much as we don't want to acknowledge the fact, the number one reason this franchise even exists is to make money.

However, you are 100% correct. This is exactly the way the BB is supposed to work.

So make it work that way and quit giving me crap because I got a boner for firing King Carl.

From a poster over at the Chiefscoalition site. Anyone remember this?

Anyone remember this statement?
By Bob Gretz
January 14, 2004 (morning)--
If you are one of those people, like the classless folks who started a web site to promote the firing of Robinson, please seek help. You believe the success of the team is more important to you, than the people who give their blood, sweat and tears each and every day to make it work. You are deranged and can not hold a candle to a man like Robinson

[siberian khatru]

Uh, if a person is voicing their opinion that your boner for Carl is causing you to think irrationally regarding the Chies organization, then the BB is very much "working that way".

Since when do boners make you think irrationally?

[BigRedChief]

Uh, if a person is voicing their opinion that your boner for Carl is causing you to think irrationally regarding the Chies organization, then the BB is very much "working that way".

Fricking Logic. :banghead:

[htismaqe]

So make it work that way and quit giving me crap because I got a boner for firing King Carl.

From a poster over at the Chiefscoalition site. Anyone remember this?

Anyone remember this statement?
By Bob Gretz
January 14, 2004 (morning)--
If you are one of those people, like the classless folks who started a web site to promote the firing of Robinson, please seek help. You believe the success of the team is more important to you, than the people who give their blood, sweat and tears each and every day to make it work. You are deranged and can not hold a candle to a man like Robinson

It IS working that way.

If you make bold statements like the ones you have made over the last 2 days, you're going to get responses just like the ones you got.

It's not because anyone is "picking on you". When you go about things the way you did (which were somewhat inflammatory) you're going to get inflammatory responses.

And yes, several of us remember that. Who cares? I don't see how it's relevant.

[htismaqe]

I will be soon. Baseball season is just around the corner. BRC is the Cards fan, right?

Yes he is.

So don't **** WITH HIM, got it?

:D

[BigRedChief]

I will be soon. Baseball season is just around the corner. BRC is the Cards fan, right?

Fricking Mods ganging up on me already.....:mad: wait a mintue htismage is also a Cardinal fan. :hmmm: Maybe I am just parinoid :)

[htismaqe]

Fricking Mods ganging up on me already.....:mad: wait a mintue htismage is also a Cardinal fan. :hmmm: Maybe I am just parinoid :)

Read my last post, idget...

:D

[redbrian]

[QUOTE=Phobia]His opinion is bought and paid for by the organization he supposed to be objectively covering. THAT (combined with all the evidence in his wake) invalidates his opinion, IMO.

Keitzman and Whitlock should also be taken with a grain of salt, but at least they report both positive and negative regarding the Chiefs.

QUOTE]

If you ever really took the time to listen to Gretz report from the side line, you would have heard him talk negative about the Chiefs on several occasions.

He has been critical of the use of the clock, of the failure of the coaches to perform on simple matters such as getting a play called in time.

He has criticized the play of members of the Chiefs such as everyone’s bag boy burnt T.

For what ever reason some members of this board have gotten their panties in a bind about Gretz.

I’ll take Gretz’s commentary over anything uttered on Monday Night football any day of the week.

[shaneo69]

Expecting the appearance of sound logic in a discussion is nitpicking in your mind.... duly noted.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. You've obviously mastered nmt1's Philosophy 101. Congrats.

[jspchief]

Isn't that special? Not only is Flanagan a dolt, but Rand is too. Why are we subjected to 2 articles (in one day, no less) defending Gretz? Come on, people. This is pathetic. If it weren't somebody these guys spend every sunday drinking coffee and eating pastries, you wouldn't see one article coming to his defense - much less two. Once again, pathetic.

I can't figure out why this bothers you so much. What do you think would happen if one of the midwest boys took a cheap shot at one of those east coast reporters? Not only would they be writing articles, they'd be talking about it on Sports Reporters, and using national radio to put in their two cents.

It was a cheap shot and a ridiculous premise. I find nothing suprising or offensive about some of Gretz's colleagues coming to bat for him.

[shaneo69]

If you ever really took the time to listen to Gretz report from the side line, you would have heard him talk negative about the Chiefs on several occasions.

He has been critical of the use of the clock, of the failure of the coaches to perform on simple matters such as getting a play called in time.

He has criticized the play of members of the Chiefs such as everyone’s bag boy burnt T.

For what ever reason some members of this board have gotten their panties in a bind about Gretz.

I’ll take Gretz’s commentary over anything uttered on Monday Night football any day of the week.

I agree somewhat. I like Gretz' candid commentary about Vermiel. He's not afraid to criticize DV, especially if it's LJ-related. However, he does not criticize Peterson.

[BigRedChief]

I will be soon. Baseball season is just around the corner. BRC is the Cards fan, right?

I already promised to never start another Cardinals thread here. But if one should pop up here or the subject would ever come up I would remind the bb populace that we did get to the World Series last year...okay we did lay an egg in the series so we are going to both have smack to talk. :thumb:

[htismaqe]

I agree somewhat. I like Gretz' candid commentary about Vermiel. He's not afraid to criticize DV, especially if it's LJ-related. However, he does not criticize Peterson.

Peterson signs the checks, Vermeil doesn't.

:thumb:

[htismaqe]

I already promised to never start another Cardinals thread here. But if one should pop up here or the subject would ever come up I would remind the bb populace that we did get to the World Series last year...okay we did lay an egg in the series so we are going to both have smack to talk. :thumb:

Don't sweat it man. I got your back. :D

[Phobia]

I can't figure out why this bothers you so much. What do you think would happen if one of the midwest boys took a cheap shot at one of those east coast reporters? Not only would they be writing articles, they'd be talking about it on Sports Reporters, and using national radio to put in their two cents.

It was a cheap shot and a ridiculous premise. I find nothing suprising or offensive about some of Gretz's colleagues coming to bat for him.

I just think it's kinda transparent. These guys are buddies, so they devoted their articles to Gretz today. Why? Can't Gretz speak for himself? Does he not have his own column somewhere?

Yeah, my disdain for Gretz may be clouding my vision. Heh.

[Phobia]

If you ever really took the time to listen to Gretz report from the side line, you would have heard him talk negative about the Chiefs on several occasions.

He has been critical of the use of the clock, of the failure of the coaches to perform on simple matters such as getting a play called in time.

He has criticized the play of members of the Chiefs such as everyone’s bag boy burnt T.

For what ever reason some members of this board have gotten their panties in a bind about Gretz.

I’ll take Gretz’s commentary over anything uttered on Monday Night football any day of the week.

I've heard Gretz offer some criticism but it's so infrequent, it does nothing to restore credibility in my mind. MNF commentary is directed to the lowest common denominator - I hate Madden, too.

[jspchief]

I just think it's kinda transparent. These guys are buddies, so they devoted their articles to Gretz today. Why? Can't Gretz speak for himself? Does he not have his own column somewhere?

Yeah, my disdain for Gretz may be clouding my vision. Heh.

See, I don't get a full dose of any of these guys so maybe I don't see the full picture. I know Gretz as the guy that does the pre-game show, and therefore assume he is a mouthpiece for the team. I read the ocaasional article from these other guys here or on other websites, but am not exposed to everything they write.

It just makes sense to me that a reporter would have buddies in the business that are willing to back him up.

Beyond that, the rest of this is a non-story to me. I think it's an absurd premise that Gretz had any real effect on #58 getting in the HoF.

I think most of us feel he should be in, but few of us had any real convictions that he was first ballot material. It's my understanding that very few players do get in on the first vote. I consider DT one of the great players of his era, but probably not at the top of that list.

[whoman69]

On the contrary, I don't think they use statistics enough. The Hall is full of guys with less than stellar stats. That's due in large part to cronyism by the Veterans Committee, who ignore numbers and vote in their old buddies, and buddies of buddies. That practice was rampant in the 70s and 80s.

And I don't know if the NFL has done "a much better job" by ignoring the likes of Art Monk, Ray Guy, etc.
Certainly the Vets committee in baseball is guilty of croneyism, but they've also selected some players who should have never been passed up by the writers like Chuck Klein, Johnny Mize or Orlando Cepeda. There are still more that need to be in like Gil Hodges and Ron Santo. But the writers dismiss someone oftimes based upon the numbers of the current era. They were going to ignore Ryne Sandberg based on today's numbers. Part of the problem with the baseball hall is once they lower the standards for one player, it makes it confusing for another.
A good example in football would be John Stallworth and Lynn Swann. They certainly don't have the numbers, but in the later years of the Steeler dynasty, they were a huge part of the success. Numbers don't tell all the story either. Ray Guy led the league in punting only 3 times. There has never been a straight punter elected to the hall. Is that such an overwhelming number to put him in? Jerrell Wilson led the league 4 times and his career average is higher.
Art Monk led the league in receptions once and never in yardage. It could be argued his record was more from longevity than excellence. His last four years in the league he never got over 50 catches but in that span broke the record. For the time he played in, his yards per catch are very low. Steve Largent, whose record he broke, is 2.5 yards per catch higher and had 100 TDs compared to Monk's 68. Monk played on consistently better offenses as well.

[htismaqe]

Certainly the Vets committee in baseball is guilty of croneyism, but they've also selected some players who should have never been passed up by the writers like Chuck Klein, Johnny Mize or Orlando Cepeda. There are still more that need to be in like Gil Hodges and Ron Santo. But the writers dismiss someone oftimes based upon the numbers of the current era. They were going to ignore Ryne Sandberg based on today's numbers. Part of the problem with the baseball hall is once they lower the standards for one player, it makes it confusing for another.
A good example in football would be John Stallworth and Lynn Swann. They certainly don't have the numbers, but in the later years of the Steeler dynasty, they were a huge part of the success. Numbers don't tell all the story either. Ray Guy led the league in punting only 3 times. There has never been a straight punter elected to the hall. Is that such an overwhelming number to put him in? Jerrell Wilson led the league 4 times and his career average is higher.
Art Monk led the league in receptions once and never in yardage. It could be argued his record was more from longevity than excellence. His last four years in the league he never got over 50 catches but in that span broke the record. For the time he played in, his yards per catch are very low. Steve Largent, whose record he broke, is 2.5 yards per catch higher and had 100 TDs compared to Monk's 68. Monk played on consistently better offenses as well.

Exactly.

You just made the same argument I've been making about Art Monk. He's a compiler.

Stats are stats. What should determine eligibility for the HoF is IMPACT.