PDA

View Full Version : Rufus rips...Whitlock!


Hammock Parties
07-19-2007, 02:24 AM
LMAO

This is terrific stuff.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/07/19/dawes_call__response__young_at_heart__age_too/

Think Michael Moore and George Bush. One guy is obsessed with the other guy who, by all appearances, ignores him. That would probably best describe one local columnist’s feelings for Peterson, the man-he-can’t-get-fired. The fact is American newspapers are losing their readers so fast that in their search for diversity they somehow forget about diversity of opinion. “Same stuff different day,” correctly observed one reader after scanning one of our columnist’s latest screeds. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007), adding, “We are so tired of hearing the SOS from you.” Like this gentleman wisely figured out, if you read the columnist in question you know the outcome before you open the fold; for to be this writer is to breathe in a climate of unrelieved pessimism when writing about Carl Peterson.

Newspaper articles are inevitably drawn to melodrama, and Peterson has historically been cast in the role of cad in most of this fellow’s offerings. “I’m on Trent’s [Green] side,” our columnist writes, “mostly because there’s a bigger issue at stake. Peterson needs to go.” (Kansas City Star, May 24, 2007) We’re beyond subtle knifings now and no interpretation of events, trends or feelings is too silly or contradictory for this columnist if it helps to fan his resentment that Peterson still holds his post. In this latest episode in four parts [columns] our columnist’s thoughts undergo further hydrolysis, separating out the relatively legitimate arguments and criticisms you can make about Peterson and offering in their place what amounts to some personal attacks and a tin-ear understanding of the salary cap. (Kansas City Star, June 25, 2007) Explaining that Larry Johnson [despite an already existing contract] has no choice but to hold out for his money, he writes in the same column the disturbing downside for the team if Peterson should give it to him. “Stop fighting [Johnson’s] fight for him,” suggested one reader. (Kansas City Star, July 15, 2007)

Indeed, the columnist is so committed to make a case that Peterson is tight-fisted that he writes that Brian Waters was swindled by signing an “extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement….simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters,” conveniently neglecting to mention that Waters negotiated his own contract and in doing so saved himself from having to pay an agent over $1.05 million dollars. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007)

We can take it as serious that the team’s running back – accompanied by agent, of course – is contemplating holding out in hopes of getting more money from the team. Nothing new here. It happens everywhere. And we can follow that if that player [or more likely his agent] wanted to send signals that he was going to do that he would line up someone who would do a bang-up job of selling his case. And you wouldn’t need to pay a finder’s fee to locate that fellow, especially one who is permanently seeking a national recognizability quotient that exceeded Anna Nicole Smith’s when she was alive. So, take a little something of what the player said and magnify it by the weight of the writer’s angst every time he thinks of Peterson and these columns are what you get. The pen is mightier than the bored, or so he must think.

A player who is angry for reasons neither you nor I will ever understand is nothing new. But the personal bitterness that fuels a member of the media to write “nappy-headed, leather-coated GM” in one of his columns (Kansas City Star, May 22, 2007) certainly is. In the spring, summer, fall, and winter of his discontent, hatred for Peterson has become for him a mental paralysis.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-19-2007, 02:32 AM
LMAO Tell us how you really feel Rufus.

ChiefsfaninPA
07-19-2007, 05:16 AM
I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.

Mr. Kotter
07-19-2007, 06:52 AM
I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.

Yup. It's pretty pathetic, really. :shake:

BigRedChief
07-19-2007, 07:13 AM
This is not funny. Our team's front office should not be hiding under fake names and bashing the local media that critizes them. It's just pathetic and small minded.
Damnit Carl! :cuss:

Dr. Johnny Fever
07-19-2007, 07:27 AM
The only funny thing about this is that the Chiefs and Carl Peterson are claiming to be untouched by Whitlock... by pissing and moaning about Whitlock. Morons.

siberian khatru
07-19-2007, 07:30 AM
They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

Reerun_KC
07-19-2007, 07:36 AM
More proof that it is time for a change in the front office of the Chiefs...

Typical pathetic BS that we hear year in and year out from WildCarl and his cronies...

Chiefs front office is about as pathetic as one can get...

Brock
07-19-2007, 08:14 AM
Wow, embarrassing.

HemiEd
07-19-2007, 08:28 AM
They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

Yep, they are basically legitimizing him. But it is still entertainment.

Eleazar
07-19-2007, 08:43 AM
It's true what they say about Waters. Whitlock accuses the Chiefs of swindling him, but he wanted to negotiate on his own, with no agent, and just get the deal done quietly and without having to pay an agent. It's not like Carl convinced Waters to release Johnny Fontaine here. What evidence does Whitlock have that the negotiations did not play out on an even keel?

htismaqe
07-19-2007, 08:57 AM
Yep, they are basically legitimizing him. But it is still entertainment.

Yep.

But it goes both ways.

Every time Rufus or Gretz lights into the local media, they galvanize the supporters of those personalities against them.

But every time Whitlock, Harry, or Keitzman goes off on one of their idiotic rants, they galvanize the support for Peterson.

In essence, they're keeping each other employed.

Chief Faithful
07-19-2007, 09:03 AM
They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

I think Rufus is Whitlock.

htismaqe
07-19-2007, 09:04 AM
I think Rufus is Whitlock.

OOOHHHH...now that would be a juicy twist...

siberian khatru
07-19-2007, 09:28 AM
I think Rufus is Whitlock.

Voldemort is Harry's father.

kcxiv
07-19-2007, 09:32 AM
I always thought Rufus was CP.

morphius
07-19-2007, 09:39 AM
It's true what they say about Waters. Whitlock accuses the Chiefs of swindling him, but he wanted to negotiate on his own, with no agent, and just get the deal done quietly and without having to pay an agent. It's not like Carl convinced Waters to release Johnny Fontaine here. What evidence does Whitlock have that the negotiations did not play out on an even keel?
And it may actually be a smart contract where he is likely to see all of the money, versus one of the contracts where the player only get about 1/3 of the money and is looking for a job in a couple of years.

Eleazar
07-19-2007, 09:53 AM
And it may actually be a smart contract where he is likely to see all of the money, versus one of the contracts where the player only get about 1/3 of the money and is looking for a job in a couple of years.

Exactly, point is, I doubt that Whitlock knows beans about Waters' contract besides the general dimensions.

People always choose up sides here, typically, that Rufus is de debbil. But he's right on some things and wrong on others, just like JW is.

Peterson and Keitzman/Harry/Whitlock/et al need each other more than they can stand it. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship.

HemiEd
07-19-2007, 09:57 AM
Yep.

But it goes both ways.

Every time Rufus or Gretz lights into the local media, they galvanize the supporters of those personalities against them.

But every time Whitlock, Harry, or Keitzman goes off on one of their idiotic rants, they galvanize the support for Peterson.

In essence, they're keeping each other employed.

I wish I was closer to it, so I could hear KK and JH rant.

Oh wait, no I don't, I heard there stuff a few times driving through KC. I don't miss that.

TinyEvel
07-19-2007, 10:34 AM
Next week, Eileen Weir will publish a 40,000 word column recounting our founding fathers' disdain for the Brittish rule, tea tax, serfdom, gerrymandering, and its impact on art and commerce in the Jamestown settlement and other parts of the colony.
Buried in paragraph #58 of 63 there will be a sentence alluding to the fact that Whitlock is taking the wrong approach toward change.

Whe'll wrap it up with a quip about the price of tea in China and that nation's current economic growth.

FAX
07-19-2007, 10:35 AM
Intellect Wars!!!

FAX

Fish
07-19-2007, 11:05 AM
I wish I was closer to it, so I could hear KK and JH rant.

Oh wait, no I don't, I heard there stuff a few times driving through KC. I don't miss that.

Yeah... if you've heard it once, you haven't missed much since. It's a recurring theme with each of them jokers. Maybe one nugget of interesting info buried in a giant steaming pile of self-promoting opinion...

ChiefsFan4Life
07-19-2007, 11:13 AM
LOL! What an embarrassing front office. They're too worried about calling out someone who calls them out while claiming that it doesn't bother them that the fact we haven't won a playoff game in forever seems to get lost in the fray.

Idiots.

Eleazar
07-19-2007, 11:14 AM
Next week, Eileen Weir will publish a 40,000 word column recounting our founding fathers' disdain for the Brittish rule, tea tax, serfdom, gerrymandering, and its impact on art and commerce in the Jamestown settlement and other parts of the colony.
Buried in paragraph #58 of 63 there will be a sentence alluding to the fact that Whitlock is taking the wrong approach toward change.

Whe'll wrap it up with a quip about the price of tea in China and that nation's current economic growth.

Her columns remind me of reading something Henry Kissinger wrote.

LOCOChief
07-19-2007, 11:24 AM
I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.

If I worked for the organization I would be at the defense of its president as well. I don't think JW has a clue as to what he is talking about, IMO he writes these things knowing that there is no accountability for the press and he's got a ticket to ride. HE talks the talk but that's about it.

LOCOChief
07-19-2007, 11:27 AM
More proof that it is time for a change in the front office of the Chiefs...

Typical pathetic BS that we hear year in and year out from WildCarl and his cronies...

Chiefs front office is about as pathetic as one can get...

Detroit, Arizona, Miami? If you were Hunt, what names would your front office roster have on it? Starting at the top

gblowfish
07-19-2007, 11:30 AM
Carl is nappy headed? WTF?

Since when???

Hammock Parties
07-19-2007, 03:49 PM
Carl is nappy headed? WTF?

Since when???

Actually Rufus kind of stepped in it on that one. Whitlock NEVER called Carl nappy-headed, he only alluded that someone else might.

shaneo69
07-19-2007, 07:06 PM
Exactly, point is, I doubt that Whitlock knows beans about Waters' contract besides the general dimensions.

"Is it WildCarl’s fault that Waters chose to do his deal without the assistance of an agent? Waters is every bit as good as Minnesota’s Steve Hutchinson, who inked a $49 million deal that included $16 million in bonuses.

Waters received a $4 million roster bonus, relatively modest salaries over the first three years ($585,000, $720,000 and $2.08 million), and roster bonuses in 2007 and 2008 of $3 million and $2.5 million. When you toss in workout bonuses and per-game roster bonuses, Waters received $14.6 million over three years. Hutchinson got $23 million.

Waters signed an extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement. It’s simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters — at least not when they retain proper representation."

blueballs
07-21-2007, 08:05 AM
I command
this thread to be
unstickied

and the thread starter's nuts
surgicaly lowered

BigMeatballDave
07-21-2007, 08:52 AM
Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: