ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs In big win, Chiefs find a leader in Romeo Crennel (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=253947)

Phobia 12-19-2011 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220917)
The vast majority of Super Bowls are won by coaches under the age of 60.
You don't say? Strange how that works. The vast majority of retired people are over 60.

'Hamas' Jenkins 12-19-2011 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220898)
How?

The biggest factor in the game was most likely all the drops by Green Bay's receivers.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Barnwell

For this week's most confounding coaching decisions, we turned to our followers on Twitter, who alerted us to a variety of different blunders. While there are a few common threads we'll ignore (John Fox being ultra-conservative, Tom Coughlin challenging out of sheer desperation), there are still plenty of situations to break down, thanks to the usual hodgepodge of curious game-calling choices. And we'll start with the Packers-Chiefs tilt, where @JoeConte pointed out that Romeo Crennel repeatedly bungled his short-yardage decisions.
On the opening drive, the Chiefs had two chances from the one-yard line and decided to throw passes with Kyle Orton both times. With a 0-0 game against the best offense in the league, they chose to kick a field goal. Sure, we know that the Packers ended up scoring just 14 points, but you can't dance with the champ! A 3-0 margin with 54 minutes to go is essentially never going to hold up.
Before we go any further, let's note that the math here is very simple. The average team will score on these carries 56 percent of the time, so your expected outcome by scoring is (7 points * .56) = 3.92 points. You can't score 3.92 points by kicking, so you're essentially giving up a full point by kicking. The Packers have also allowed teams to convert in 75 percent of power runs, the third-worst rate in the league. So our 56 percent estimate is conservative. You also get the benefit of backing the Green Bay offense up inside their 1-yard line as opposed to giving them the result of a kickoff, which is an average of about 22 yards. Based on the average number of points a team scores with a drive that starts from the 1-yard line as opposed to the 22-yard line, you're adding about another full point of value. By kicking instead of going for it, in even an average situation, you're basically throwing two points in the garbage. When you're playing an offensive juggernaut and it's early in the first quarter, well, you simply can't throw points away.
It would be one thing if Crennel just had no faith in his team's short-yardage capabilities, but he changed his mind on Kansas City's first drive of the second quarter. Again, the Chiefs failed on second-and-1 and ended up facing a fourth-and-inches with 3:28 left. They were up 6-0; again, you can't assume that a nine-point lead is going to hold up against a dominant offense. This time, for some reason, Crennel chose to go for it. It was the correct decision, but what was different about this situation as opposed to the first one? The Chiefs were promptly stuffed when they ran a simple handoff up the middle.
That would all have been weird enough, but Crennel got to face a third decision in this same vein! With a 9-7 lead early in the fourth quarter, the Chiefs were faced with a fourth-and-goal from the Green Bay 2-yard line. It's harder to convert from the 2-yard line, but not by much — the conversion rate falls from 55.2 percent to 48.6 percent. That's still an expected total of 3.4 points, so it's better than a field goal, and you still get the superior follow-up situation of pinning a team extremely deep in their own territory (something that a dominant Chiefs pass rush might have appreciated). You're giving up 1.4 points by kicking. This decision was more defensible because it pushed the lead outside of one field goal, but there was 11:28 left in the game when Crennel chose to kick as opposed to going for it. Color commentator Daryl Johnston chimed in to say that it was a good decision because the Chiefs had been stuffed on the previous drive, which is one of the dumbest things you'll hear a commentator say all year. Stories will be written today about how the Chiefs won under the leadership of Romeo Crennel, but don't buy it. They won in spite of him.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220921)
I disagree. I think our players out executed Green Bay's.

If their receivers hold on to 6 or 7 dropped passes it's a different game.
There weren't 6 or 7 drops. Many of the passes yea they had a shot at but you don't catch all of those unless you are red hot which GB typically has been.

I would say more like 3 real drops.

Had the officials not been reeruned we get a safety as well. It works both ways.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220917)
The vast majority of Super Bowls are won by coaches under the age of 60.

If Romeo shocked the world here and won a SB he would literally be the oldest SB winning coach EVER.

Quite frankly, Romeo has a ton of rings and is fat as hell. How do we even know he's not just looking for another fat paycheck before he retires?
We don't know. Just like we wouldn't know if ANY coach was just looking for a paycheck. Cause whether or not you have won a SB, in the NFL, as a coach, you still get paid great money.

But I believe it's obvious that he still cares, and that he would like to take this team to it's potential.

And I see how you're using history as a factor for your argument, but new records and marks are set every single season. One day, a coach as old as 70 years old WILL win a SB.

And it still doesn't explain how age should effect coaching. If there is a true reasoning, then I want to know what it is.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8220919)
I agree, because McCarty couldn't adjust his offensive gameplan. GB could have ran it on us, but they chose to come out passing heavy. If they had just mixed the run with the pass, it would have kept our defense off balance.

But really we knew what they were going to be doing every play, therefore it was easy to just tee off, and get pressure on Rodgers. That's just 1 factor of how McCarthy was out coached.
Yep

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220921)
I disagree. I think our players out executed Green Bay's.

If their receivers hold on to 6 or 7 dropped passes it's a different game.
And if Hali hadn't been held on every play they would have won by 2-3 TD's. ;)

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8220927)
The GB drops are being given too much credence.

The Chiefs flat out outplayed GB.

KC still had coaching issues especially on ST and goal line situations.

Yea we won but we should have been up way more than we were and it shouldn't have been as close in the 4th quarter.Not complaining just pointing out what I was thinking during the game.

I am curious to see how the next 2 weeks go because Orton basically played one of his best games setting a career completion % high.

What are the odds he keep it up? I guess we shall see.
I agree totally. Our team wanted it and GB thought they could just show up and win by 4 TD's. Crennel had this team ready to play and his defense just dominated the Packers scheme wise and energy wise.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 8220954)
I agree totally. Our team wanted it and GB thought they could just show up and win by 4 TD's. Crennel had this team ready to play and his defense just dominated the Packers scheme wise and energy wise.
The scheme defensively, and offensively were both terrific. They looked like they put in some serious work in the film room, and it paid off. Maybe Muir didn't fall asleep this time.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8220939)
And it still doesn't explain how age should effect coaching. If there is a true reasoning, then I want to know what it is.
It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8220935)
There weren't 6 or 7 drops.
Yes there were. I've already seen two and I'm not even finished with the 1st quarter.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220966)
It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.
Just out of curiosity, who do you want?

I don't think Crennel will take us to the promised land but I also think we could do worse looking at whats out there.

Who is a totally hot HC candidate we could/should go with? I honestly don;t know at this point.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220966)
It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.
I see that as narrow minded reason to oust Romeo from the head coaching job. If those are your main reasons for wanting him to be replaced, that's pretty lame. And I know you're not a narrow minded person, so I'm surprised.

splatbass 12-19-2011 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220889)
Yes, he could coach well into his 70s. LMAO
Why not?

Jack McKeon, manager of Florida Marlins - 80

John Gagliardi, head coach St. John's university - 84

Joe Paterno was coaching at 85 when he was fired.

Bobby Bowden was 80 when he retired.

Casey Stengal managed the NY Yankees at 76.

Hubie Brown was named NBA coach of the year at 72.

64 isn't that old. It may seem like it to a 30ish guy that is going on 15 like you, but it isn't.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8220980)
Just out of curiosity, who do you want?

I don't think Crennel will take us to the promised land but I also think we could do worse looking at whats out there.

Who is a totally hot HC candidate we could/should go with? I honestly don;t know at this point.
He wants Fisher who is Marty Part 10. Been there done that

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 8220983)
Why not?

Jack McKeon, manager of Florida Marlins - 80

John Gagliardi, head coach St. John's university - 84

Joe Paterno was coaching at 85 when he was fired.

Bobby Bowden was 80 when he retired.

Casey Stengal managed the NY Yankees at 76.

Hubie Brown was named NBA coach of the year at 72.

64 isn't that old. It may seem like it to a 30ish guy that is going on 15 like you, but it isn't.
Dick LeBeau.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 8220994)
He wants Fisher who is Marty Part 10. Been there done that
I am not sold on Fisher.

I am just so scared of McDaniel getting the job any other name sounds like a decent option though I know that's not the case.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 8220983)
Why not?

Jack McKeon, manager of Florida Marlins - 80

John Gagliardi, head coach St. John's university - 84

Joe Paterno was coaching at 85 when he was fired.

Bobby Bowden was 80 when he retired.

Casey Stengal managed the NY Yankees at 76.

Hubie Brown was named NBA coach of the year at 72.

64 isn't that old. It may seem like it to a 30ish guy that is going on 15 like you, but it isn't.
Oh hey, look, lots of NFL Super Bowl winners on that list! LMAO

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phobia (Post 8220930)
You don't say? Strange how that works. The vast majority of retired people are over 60.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221004)
Oh hey, look, lots of NFL Super Bowl winners on that list! LMAO
I'd say Phobia brings up a pretty obvious point on this topic.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8220981)
I see that as narrow minded reason to oust Romeo from the head coaching job.
So we've had a starting QB that no one else wants, we should certainly get a HC to match.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8220999)
I am not sold on Fisher.

I am just so scared of McDaniel getting the job any other name sounds like a decent option though I know that's not the case.
Don't want McD's in any capacity on this team except maybe jock collector.

splatbass 12-19-2011 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221004)
Oh hey, look, lots of NFL Super Bowl winners on that list! LMAO
Lots of winning coaches. Doesn't matter if it is the NFL or not. Coaching is coaching. And you are an agist. Not surprising for someone with the emotional age of a middle school student.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221013)
So we've had a starting QB that no one else wants, we should certainly get a HC to match.
Say Romeo doesn't like Cassel as our guy in 2012. Say Romeo believes we need to draft a QB early. Would you be opposed to keeping him if that was his thought process? All the offense needs is a real QB. The defense is great. Fix the QB and we have a legit championship contender regardless of who the coach is.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8221010)
I'd say Phobia brings up a pretty obvious point on this topic.
Not really. We're talking the vast, vast majority of super bowl winning head coaches are under 60. Like, 24 of 27 if my math is right.

The odds are so low, the idea that we would just hand Romeo the job is shockingly stupid.

And those ancient head coaches also had superior quarterbacks. Where's Romeo's?

petegz28 12-19-2011 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220966)
It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.
A) You don't know that after what he has done with our defense

B) The guy has experience and knows our system therefore not putting us back into a "rebuilding..just wait 5 years" mode for the 3rd time in a row

C) He has more SB rings than any other option out there. That is experience you just can't pass up

D) He was the last coach to take a shitty Cleveland team with a shitty front office to a winning season. Yes, that is saying something


If this team looks good the rest of the season you MUST give Romeo a serious look. Unlike Cleveland he has talented players to coach this time around. He has arguably 4-5 of some of the best defensive players in the league. He has one of the best RB's in the league and possibly one of the better TE's in the league with one of the better WR corps in the league.

Get this guy a QB worth a squirt of piss and an OC that knows WTF the deal is and I think Romeo's experience will pay off.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8221026)
Say Romeo doesn't like Cassel as our guy in 2012. Say Romeo believes we need to draft a QB early. Would you be opposed to keeping him if that was his thought process? All the offense needs is a real QB. The defense is great. Fix the QB and we have a legit championship contender regardless of who the coach is.
\


Thing is I need to know these things to make an informed decision.

Maybe CP should get to interview all candidates.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221028)
Not really. We're talking the vast, vast majority of super bowl winning head coaches are under 60. Like, 24 of 27 if my math is right.

The odds are so low, the idea that we would just hand Romeo the job is shockingly stupid.

And those ancient head coaches also had superior quarterbacks. Where's Romeo's?
The historic odds are low, I see. But did you also take into account how many coaches were actually 60 or older during those seasons also? The point Phobia was making is that "Of course there aren't many SB winners over 60 years old, because the majority of coaches are 60 or younger."

Just paraphrasing.

lcarus 12-19-2011 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8218592)
IM very weary of Romeo. I like the guy, but hes old and dude basically did nothing in Cleveland. Even Bellichek had 1 decent season with a playoff win in Cleveland. IM fearful that all this is is a Post Haley hangover bump.......
He had a decent season in Cleveland. They went 10-6 but missed the playoffs.

DTLB58 12-19-2011 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phobia (Post 8218460)
They absolutely did not. Lamar Hunt met in secret with 8 players at Nick Lowery's house. Gansz was given the job just in time for the strike of 1987 and was saddled with most of Mackovic's assistants who were disloyal and downright underhanded. He also had an awful front office led by GM Jim Schaaf, a baseball man who somehow managed to work his way up through the ranks of the Chiefs organization in the 70's. Injuries, bad personnel decisions, the strike, and being thrown under the bus by a former assistant ruined Gansz's 2-year campaign as a Skipper. After a 4-win 1988, Carl Peterson sent him packing as his first power move after being handed the reins by Lamar.

Even if you construe that to be "openly lobbying", it doesn't have a single thing to do with Crennel. Gansz was an amazing coach and there really aren't many people who would say otherwise. You can't look at his W/L record under Schaaf and the many other circumstances which permeated his time in KC and say "look how that turned out" as though he were a Herm Edwards, Paul Wiggin, or Todd Haley.
Gansz was an amazing ST's coach. There is nothing else to proof otherwise nor more.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221034)
B) The guy has experience and knows our system therefore not putting us back into a "rebuilding..just wait 5 years" mode for the 3rd time in a row
This is a decent argument for keeping Romeo, especially because we're nearing the point of no return on some of our better players.

But if Romeo doesn't find a QB we're going to waste his golden years, anyway.

I can probably grudgingly accept Romeo as head coach if he makes an attempt to go get a QB.

If not, he's an old fart wasting our time.

lcarus 12-19-2011 09:02 PM
We could always sign Romeo as HC and just shit can him if we suck? There will always be another coach to go out and get if things don't work out.

DTLB58 12-19-2011 09:03 PM
McClain said of the past week. “More meeting time. More football time. Learning your opponent better, understanding your opponent. I know I watched more film this week than I watched all year.

Wasn't that by his own choosing?

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8218592)
IM very weary of Romeo. I like the guy, but hes old and dude basically did nothing in Cleveland. Even Bellichek had 1 decent season with a playoff win in Cleveland. IM fearful that all this is is a Post Haley hangover bump.......
Did nothing? Did you see the talent he was given in Cleveland? Tell me, who has done anything in Cleveland since Marty? BB was fired from there. Romeo took them to their last winning season with dick for talent.

I am not saying we sign Romeo tomorrow but to be weary is rather obserd.

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221048)
This is a decent argument for keeping Romeo, especially because we're nearing the point of no return on some of our better players.

But if Romeo doesn't find a QB we're going to waste his golden years, anyway.

I can probably grudgingly accept Romeo as head coach if he makes an attempt to go get a QB.

If not, he's an old fart wasting our time.
The attempt at a QB is not necessarily up to the HC. You do have the GM who unfortunately carries a lot of weight in that decision. Having said that Romeo made the best and though obvious decision, he made it by starting Orton and using Stanzi as the backup and not even activating Palko. That's a step in the right direction regardless.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 8221053)
McClain said of the past week. “More meeting time. More football time. Learning your opponent better, understanding your opponent. I know I watched more film this week than I watched all year.

Wasn't that by his own choosing?
He was probably forced to watch extra film because he had more snaps in this game than any other all season long.

WhiteWhale 12-19-2011 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221054)
Did nothing? Did you see the talent he was given in Cleveland? Tell me, who has done anything in Cleveland since Marty? BB was fired from there. Romeo took them to their last winning season with dick for talent.

I am not saying we sign Romeo tomorrow but to be weary is rather obserd.
I'm not sure you can compare the 'pre-expansion' Browns to the current expansion team.

Remember the team Marty coached plays in Baltimore now.

This Browns franchise has sucked since their inception.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221064)
The attempt at a QB is not necessarily up to the HC. You do have the GM who unfortunately carries a lot of weight in that decision. Having said that Romeo made the best and though obvious decision, he made it by starting Orton and using Stanzi as the backup and not even activating Palko. That's a step in the right direction regardless.
I agree with that. The way Romeo is making statements right now is refreshing. He didn't wait until last second to name a starter. He named his starter Wednesday. He doesn't **** around. He gets to the point.

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 8221066)
I'm not sure you can compare the 'pre-expansion' Browns to the current expansion team.

Remember the team Marty coached plays in Baltimore now.

This Browns franchise has sucked since their inception.
That sort of makes my point. Romeo was dealt shitty players and somehow squeeked out a winning season. And if I remember right didn't he damn near beat the high flying Chiefs until his player took his helmet off and Green somehow avoided a sack and got the ball handed to Tait who ran us into FG range?

WhiteWhale 12-19-2011 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221077)
That sort of makes my point. Romeo was dealt shitty players and somehow squeeked out a winning season. And if I remember right didn't he damn near beat the high flying Chiefs until his player took his helmet off and Green somehow avoided a sack and got the ball handed to Tait who ran us into FG range?
No. Romeo was in New England in 2002 during the helmet game. He didn't become coach of Cleveland until 2005.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 09:12 PM
lol Pete has his years all jacked up.

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8221074)
I agree with that. The way Romeo is making statements right now is refreshing. He didn't wait until last second to name a starter. He named his starter Wednesday. He doesn't **** around. He gets to the point.
That is what an effective coach does. This guy has been around to know what it takes to when. Yes, he has made mistakes, we all do. He is smart enough to have learned from them and adjusted to see where he went wrong. I'd take him over Fisher in a heartbeat. Fisher has never won anything and never been on a team (that I am aware of) that has won anything. Fisher is a Marty wanna-be and Marty kicked his ass all over the field. Haley wiped the Titans all over the field last year with Matt ****ing Cassel.

Romeo has been on winning teams. SB winning teams. He has learned under some very successful people and programs. Maybe his 1st run at HC wasn't much to write home about but how many of us ever do good our 1st time at things? I think he has shown enough and has enough experience that giving him another shot at HC with some talented players is not a bad decision and could very well be a good decision.

And another intangible...he gets along with Pioli and Pioli repsects Romeo. Romeo didn't have to come here. He came here more or less as a favor to Pioli. He wants to coach, he wants to coach this team and a HC and GM that get along is something you MUST have.

I think Romeo is the kind of person he could tell Pioli "no" and Pioli says OK, you're the coach.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8221093)
lol Pete has his years all jacked up.
When has CP ever let fact trump opinion?

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 8221090)
No. Romeo was in New England in 2002 during the helmet game. He didn't become coach of Cleveland until 2005.
Meh, I am high then. I thought he was in Cleveland then.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221064)
The attempt at a QB is not necessarily up to the HC. You do have the GM who unfortunately carries a lot of weight in that decision. Having said that Romeo made the best and though obvious decision, he made it by starting Orton and using Stanzi as the backup and not even activating Palko. That's a step in the right direction regardless.
Yep. This team still needs to draft a QB regardless of who the HC is.

petegz28 12-19-2011 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8221104)
When has CP ever let fact trump opinion?
Well the fact is none of these great coaches ever win dick without a great QB. So to blame Romeo when he was handed the crap he had for QB's in Cleveland is not really fair then, is it? What did BB ever win without Brady? What did Shanny ever win without Elway? The list goes on, of course.


Get us a QB and Romeo will be fine. We have the rest of the pieces in place already.

Phobia 12-19-2011 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221028)
And those ancient head coaches also had superior quarterbacks. Where's Romeo's?
Now that really is an astute point. Don't hire Crennel because he doesn't have a superior QB. Wouldn't we not be able to hire *ANY* coach for the Chiefs since he doesn't have a superior QB or is it just the combination of old guy along with no QB. Do you even think before you spew? I'm shocked you don't get hit by a car on a daily basis.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:00 PM
The point was that I don't think Romeo is going to go find himself a superior QB.

Considering how old he is, he may not even have the patience for a rookie.

Oh Snap 12-19-2011 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8218484)
Find me a 64-year old interim head coach who went on to win a SB.

If Crennel is our HC and actually wins a SB here it will shock everyone in the NFL. It would be unprecedented.

Sorry for being concerned when 50 years of NFL history says this won't work out.

And FYI, Dick was younger than Romeo when he won it.
Theres a first time for everything.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh Snap (Post 8221372)
Theres a first time for everything.
This is no different than saying we can win a SB with Cassel.

okcchief 12-19-2011 10:23 PM
If Goat Chiefs doesn't like it then it's probably a great hire.

petegz28 12-19-2011 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221028)
Not really. We're talking the vast, vast majority of super bowl winning head coaches are under 60. Like, 24 of 27 if my math is right.

The odds are so low, the idea that we would just hand Romeo the job is shockingly stupid.

And those ancient head coaches also had superior quarterbacks. Where's Romeo's?
Unfortunately just because Romeo took over as HC in week 15 they don't move the draft up.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by okcchief (Post 8221452)
If Goat Chiefs doesn't like it then it's probably a great hire.
I was against Herm from the beginning.

okcchief 12-19-2011 10:26 PM
If we play well the last 2 games then I say why not. I'm not excited about the other options either.

Romeo is an upgrade from Haley and Herm at least. JFC the bar is low around here.

Titty Meat 12-19-2011 10:28 PM
I don't want them to hire Crennel either. They love him now but what happens when the relationship goes stale?

splatbass 12-19-2011 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221323)
The point was that I don't think Romeo is going to go find himself a superior QB.

Considering how old he is, he may not even have the patience for a rookie.
64 is not old. Do you know anyone that is over 60? You don't appear to.

petegz28 12-19-2011 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8221483)
I don't want them to hire Crennel either. They love him now but what happens when the relationship goes stale?
Yeah because he hasn't been a part of this team the last 2 years or anything. WTF do these players know about him?

Oh Snap 12-19-2011 10:31 PM
crennel could coach for 5-10 years possibly. Yea hes old, and has some health issues. But you're speculating at best.

If he gives us the best chance to win, guess what? Ill take it! Especially if he builds this team into a winner! Sure I like Jeff Fisher, but we need to be realistic, crennel might be the best fit for us. (best available coaching option)

Phobia 12-19-2011 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221323)
The point was that I don't think Romeo is going to go find himself a superior QB.

Considering how old he is, he may not even have the patience for a rookie.
You don't think? What do you think is going to happen due to his age? Is he going to keel over on the sideline? What are your specific concerns because "he's too old" and "no old people have ever won the SuperBowl" before aren't really very solid footing for your argument.

okcchief 12-19-2011 10:32 PM
The main thing is getting rid of Cassel. I think Romeo could do a good job though I wouldn't jump up and down about the hire. Interim coaches never pan out but they usually don't have five rings as an assistant and previous head coaching experience. If he hires good people around him and let's them coach thats most of the battle.

The Frank Ganz comparison is stupid. He was a special teams coach. One of the worst hires in NFL history.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 8221495)
64 is not old. Do you know anyone that is over 60? You don't appear to.
Pretty old for an NFL head coach.

petegz28 12-19-2011 10:33 PM
If Romeo is HC and Cassel is QB and we don't draft a QB in the 1st then you can pin it squarley on Pioli and therefore it wouldn't matter who was HC

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phobia (Post 8221508)
You don't think? What do you think is going to happen due to his age? Is he going to keel over on the sideline? What are your specific concerns because "he's too old" and "no old people have ever won the SuperBowl" before aren't really very solid footing for your argument.
24 of 27 is very solid footing.

The odds are astronomically against Romeo.

okcchief 12-19-2011 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221517)
If Romeo is HC and Cassel is QB and we don't draft a QB in the 1st then you can pin it squarley on Pioli and therefore it wouldn't matter who was HC
If Cassel is QB it doesn't matter who the head coach is. We'll just have to wait for Pioli to get shit canned.

petegz28 12-19-2011 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by okcchief (Post 8221527)
If Cassel is QB it doesn't matter who the head coach is. We'll just have to wait for Pioli to get shit canned.
Not necessarily. It's not out of the realm to see them draft a qb and bring Cassel back another year.

Phobia 12-19-2011 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221514)
Pretty old for an NFL head coach.
You keep saying the same stupid crap over and over. Why? What are your specific concerns? Why can't he effectively head coach at his age? You never seemed to have a problem with him being defensive coordinator at his age. But now you have a random argument and your only data to back it up is "old interim coaches have never won a superbowl". Yeah, we get that part. It's an invalid argument. Post a fair argument or abandon the stupid "he's old" bit.

okcchief 12-19-2011 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221539)
Not necessarily. It's not out of the realm to see them draft a qb and bring Cassel back another year.
If Cassel is on the roster they are obviously not capable of making good decisions. He has NOTHING to offer this team.

Okie_Apparition 12-19-2011 10:38 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post?id=36146

How did the Chiefs stifle the Packers' passing game? Mostly with extra coverage and a standard four-man pass rush. According to ESPN Stats & Information, the Chiefs used at least five defensive backs on 86 percent of the Packers' plays Sunday. On top of that, they sent four or less pass rushers on 78.6 of Rodgers' dropbacks. As a result, Rodgers completed only two of 12 passes downfield, defined as 15 or more yards past the line of scrimmage -- the worst completion percentage on such throws all year. The Packers had four dropped passes, but Rodgers also had a tough time getting the ball into the small windows afforded by Chiefs coverage. He either underthrew or overthrew 10 of his 35 passes. Say what you will about the drops and Greg Jennings' absence, but on a relative scale there is no doubt Rodgers played the worst game of his season

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatbass (Post 8221495)
64 is not old. Do you know anyone that is over 60? You don't appear to.
I actually love old people. They are infinitely more interesting than young people, and less douchey.

Just don't see the value in Romeo as HC.

ChiefsCountry 12-19-2011 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221561)
Just don't see the value in Romeo as HC.
Yet you pimp Jeff Fisher.

Titty Meat 12-19-2011 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221497)
Yeah because he hasn't been a part of this team the last 2 years or anything. WTF do these players know about him?
What a weak ass argument this team has experienced moderate success with him. Are you saying it won't get old if he performs like he did in Cleveland as the head coach? Bullshit.

Phobia 12-19-2011 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221525)
24 of 27 is very solid footing.

The odds are astronomically against Romeo.
When Vegas starts calculating their odds based on the age of the head coach then I'll recognize your argument.

petegz28 12-19-2011 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8221568)
What a weak ass argument this team has experienced moderate success with him. Are you saying it won't get old if he performs like he did in Cleveland as the head coach? Bullshit.
That owuld be with any coach...JFC

The Bad Guy 12-19-2011 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcarus (Post 8221042)
He had a decent season in Cleveland. They went 10-6 but missed the playoffs.
They made it. They roughed the kicker at the end and that screwed them beating Pitt I believe.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phobia (Post 8221548)
You keep saying the same stupid crap over and over. Why? What are your specific concerns? Why can't he effectively head coach at his age? You never seemed to have a problem with him being defensive coordinator at his age. But now you have a random argument and your only data to back it up is "old interim coaches have never won a superbowl". Yeah, we get that part. It's an invalid argument. Post a fair argument or abandon the stupid "he's old" bit.
I can't nail down specifics. But clearly old head coaches rarely succeed in the NFL, and are infrequently hired. There has to be valid reasons. I'm not going to attempt to argue against established NFL trends of success.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 8221566)
Yet you pimp Jeff Fisher.
Proven winner. Could coach here before AND after he starts qualifying for early-bird specials at Dennys.

'Hamas' Jenkins 12-19-2011 10:46 PM
Head coaches put in long hours, longer hours than anyone, coordinators included. A 65 year old guy who already is not in good health is absolutely going to be a concern given the stress and time requirements of the job.

Coordinator =/= Head Coach. Fans should know that, look at the guy who just got shitcanned.

ChiefsCountry 12-19-2011 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8221610)
Proven winner. Could coach here before AND after he starts qualifying for early-bird specials at Dennys.
Proven loser as well.

Titty Meat 12-19-2011 10:47 PM
Rob Chudzinski would be the best choice IMO and you would get to keep Romeo.

ChiefsCountry 12-19-2011 10:49 PM
Romeo would be the choice if you are bringing a young guy to groom under him ala Pepper Johnson. Jeff Fisher would just suck balls. If you want to build a super staff, then Kirk Ferentz would be the choice.

Titty Meat 12-19-2011 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 8221576)
That owuld be with any coach...JFC
There hasn't been any solid arguments made for Crennel other than the fact the players like playing for him.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 8221615)
Head coaches put in long hours, longer hours than anyone, coordinators included. A 65 year old guy who already is not in good health is absolutely going to be a concern given the stress and time requirements of the job.
I'm surprised this had to be explained to anyone.

Titty Meat 12-19-2011 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 8221636)
Romeo would be the choice if you are bringing a young guy to groom under him ala Pepper Johnson. Jeff Fisher would just suck balls. If you want to build a super staff, then Kirk Ferentz would be the choice.
Kirk Ferentz makes Gary Pinkel looks like he has an imagination when it comes to play calling. No thanks.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 PM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.