The big concern I have Chuzinski is he has only coached in the playoffs twice and both times as a tight ends coach. His teams haven't been very successful.

Did you read the part about "super staff." Ferentz is a CEO type coach and dicates to his coordinators. If you build a super staff, it would probably work for him in the NFL.

My god, you act like 65 year olds need to be put to sleep... 65 is NOTHING in terms of age these days. If Romeo's health really is an issue now then I can see a valid point there. I'm not privy to that information so I won't speculate.

I'd love to see us go with a youngish college coach but I am not going to pretend I KNOW that Romeo is a bad choice when NO ONE knows that...

GoChiefs is welcome to his opinion... but that's all it is...and offering it up as FACT is just ****ing annoying... and generally a sign of insecurity and immaturity. Par for the course I guess.

True. This explains the great myriads of senior citizens heading NFL teams these days.

We had a super staff last year it didn't work. I just don't see how Ferentz would come to the NFL and answer to someone else when the guy is a celeb in Iowa.

He did a good job at Miami as the OC and coached Franks, Shockey, and Winslow made them pretty good players. Antonio Gates as well. He did a good job in Cleveland as the OC, I believe he helped coordinate San Diegos passing game, and has helped turn around the Panthers offense with a rookie QB. I can't think of a more deserving candidate to be honest.

It didn't work because Haley and Weis were ego maniacs. Ferentz is more along the lines of Vermeil type. He would dictate to the staff. I think he would have worked great with last year's staff for sure.

A whole lot of truth in this post.

If we were going the inexperienced coordinator route, he'd be my guy.

I don't think we are though.

I agree that 64 is old for a head coach in the NFL, but that's really only if you look at the number by itself and not the man. Romeo seems like a pretty sharp guy and he's probably in a lot better health than somebody like Charlie Weis.

Also, the long hours that these guys work aren't really work in the conventional sense. This job isn't exactly rocket science, it's just thinking about ways to improve the team and its performance. I'm not necessarily sold on Crennel, but his age isn't a real compelling argument against.

I don't think so either. If I had to guess I'd say we're keeping Crennel though his comments the other day about how he'd have to be able to make some of the decisions were interesting.

OMG!! YOU ARE RIGHT! And there is no team with a coach who has a first name starting with the letter D! You know why? Cuz Dans and Dons and Dirks make BAD COACHES! It most be so.. cuz that is what my pee-brained failed logic tells me!

Jesus, you can't possible be this stupid?

And you do realize there ARE some coaches like Tom Coughlin who is older? Oh and that being a head coach in COLLEGE can be just as challenging and yet who was the best coach in the game this year??? Yup a 72 year old.

Coughlin and "interim" Romeo.

That's it.

Clearly we should follow this developing trend.

Cut Romeo off of the fried chicken and grape soda. Then get his ass on a treadmill! Problem solved.

Missed that. What did he say?

Is this how you travel through time? A treadmill sans fried chicken and grape soda?

Subjective. :) But the rest of your post was nice. You could've gotten away with "best coach in the big 12"

I bet if we got the black bear to run backwards, it could be possible.

So your entire argument is that due to the fact that he has lived 64 years he isn't qualified to coach the Chiefs? You base this on "trends" in the NFL...

then answer my question.. why are there no coaches with names that start with a D? THAT TREND MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT????

I'm gonna try to force you to USE your brain for once... please explain why one "trend" is more meaningful then the other?

Have you heard an NFL exec voice an opinion that 64 years old is the cutoff for an effective coach? Or is this just another thing you pulled out of your ass?

(just to be clear, I'm not sold on Romeo yet but Clayton is an idiot, so I going to bury his idiotic ramblings in this thread)

It was his first press conference I think. He was asked if he would comeback as a DC he said maybe it would depend on what the HC wants. He then was asked if he wanted to be head coach and he said yes but wanted to be able to pick his guys.

It still illustrates my point... the idea that 64 is too old is ludicrous.

I agree. And maybe I am wrong but I always thought the coordinators put in longer hours than the head coach.

Makes sense. I think he ends up being the guy with McDaniels as the OC.

I honestly have no opinion about the HC until Cassel is gone. If he's here, I don't care who we get at HC. It's an epic failure.

I'm surprised you just kept saying "he's old, he's old, he's old" without throwing out a logical argument. That's a logical argument. I don't think its a legal argument but I understand THAT concern.

I agree. He's just pulling shit out of his ass. I would LOVE for somebody to do some research and break down overall records of coaches based on ages, categorizing them by 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, and so on. How interesting would that be?

And MAYBE if it came out that guys in the 60-70 range have bad records he could use that as an argument. But at this point he's baseless.

No. My argument also takes into consideration that:

1. Interim head coaches don't go on to win SBs.

2. I don't believe Romeo is going to go get a QB.

3. His age guarantees he will be gone in a few years.

24 of 27 Super Bowl winners were under the age of 60.

Baseless?

Hardly.

1. Jeff Fisher sure didn't.

2. Romeo isn't going to decide whether the Chiefs go get a QB. Neither would Jeff Fisher.

3. Poor performance will get a younger guy fired just as quickly.

So basically, he's too old, and you've never seen an interim HC win a SB.

Yep, that settles it.

Most NFL coaches have been under the age of 60. AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE? OR IS IT MORE?

Your argument makes just as much sense as somebody demanding we run out and hire a 35 year old head coach simply because the Steelers won a ring when they did it.

Like I've said. That doesn't take into account how many coaches during those seasons were in the 60+ range. There were more coaches in the 40-59 range than 60+ range, therefore, that number is skewed. NARROW MINDED ****.

You're bad, just very bad at analysis. Ask rainman to tell you why your 24 of 27 is bad data.

Terrible comparison. I'm examining 50 years of NFL history and the current state of head coaching in the NFL.

Someone making your argument is examining one team and one head coach.

Jack McKeon coached the Marlins in his 70s, Connie Mack coached up to 87...Dick Lebeau is 72 and is still coaching...Romeo can do it... There is hope.

Will Romeo have us playing small ball or swinging for the fences?

Most Super Bowl winners were white. I'll let you make that correlation for yourself, Clay.

But, nobody in 50 years had won a SuperBowl with a 35 year old head coach before, moron. It's an IDENTICAL argument except that there's a whole lot more reason to not hire a 35 year old head coach than there is not to hire a 64 year old.

He's not going to be able to process that, Brock.

Come to think of it, I don't remember ever seeing a bald head coach win a Super Bowl. We MUST hire a hairy mother ****er. Oh, nevermind, Tony Dungy was bald. But he was black. Most head coaches who've won are white. We need a white, hairy mother ****er.

No it's not. Because a 35-year old head coach is going to last a lot longer than four or five years and will have more of a chance to win a SB.

I can also find several head coaches who were hired in their 30s (Don Shula or John Madden for instance) and won SBs.

If I get some extra time this week I'm seriously gonna break down this data like I talked about in my other post. And I will go back over the course of 30 years.

If you guys like stats so much you should check out baseball. A statistical game at its finest.

and more stupidity....

1.OMG! THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COACH WHO HAS A FIRST NAME STARTING WITH THE LETTER R! That means that Romeos and Rons can't win superbowls RIGHT? You ****ing moron.

2. that's really more of a Pioli thing but whatever. he has already shown that he is willing to play different guys when he took an anyone but Palko stance. I don't see ANY basis for you to think this. You do know he was head coach when Cleveland drafted Brady Quinn in the first round....

3. Why? yes he will definitely be gone in 6-8 years... just like ANY coach probably would.

In six to eight years? You really think Romeo Crennel is going to coach into his 70s?

Let's make a deal: We'll get Romeo to travel back in time so he's healthier if you'll travel ahead in time till you have even a little ****ing intelligence.

Assuming your Mom won't rent the basement out while you're flying past the chronons.

I think that is the upper limit... yes, if he is successful and having fun, I see ZERO reason he wouldn't.

Let's get back to "interim" head coaches for a sec... what about Ray Malavasi, Raymond Berry, Jeff Fisher and Marv Levy... all where Interim Head Coaches that at one point took that team to the superbowl... but they don't count because SOMEHOW the interim title cursed them to never be able to win the superbowl right?

Sure you can, but you can't find somebody who was hired at 35 on the nose who went on to win a Superbowl because that never happened prior to Tomlin, you donkey. If I can't introduce a 62 year old Vermeil as a counter to your argument about old coaches then you can't introduce a 37 year old Don Shula. Can you phathom how stupid this age argument is? Honestly? Are you capable of that level of cognitive reasoning?

That's not a counter to my argument, though.

I'm only arguing that coaches in their 60s infrequently win Super Bowls (just 3 of 27). I never specifically mentioned the age of 64.

Vermeil is actually part of MY argument.

Are you going to address my concern that coaches whose names start with R have NEVER won a superbowl????

So we can't hire a coach named Romeo or Ray or Ron, right?

Please explain how my argument significantly differs from yours.

I'd love to see this.

And FYI, Dick was younger than Romeo when he won it.

You specifically mentioned the age of 64 in your opening post. Now you're drowning in your own crap.

You haven't addressed points 1 and 2 yet...

You're pretty much getting bitch slapped by logic in this thread.. you know that right?

Thanks for ventriloquizing me. There are exceptions to every rule, but there is a reason why most NFL coaches are done by their early 60s. It's an incredibly stressful job, and, sorry to disappoint, but as people age longer hours, little sleep, and high stress environments are more difficult to cope with. It's a natural part of the aging process. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but acting like aging doesn't take a toll on coaches is no different than thinking it doesn't take a toll on athletes, it just manifests itself through a different mechanism.

This thread makes me want to spend a couple hours in D.C. arguing with Denize.

I agree with your stance on people of age. But let's not act like NFL head coaches are out there digging ditches for 20 hours a day. They're sitting in a $10,000 chair watching film and meeting with assistants. They have an entire staff at their disposal and delegate. I agree, it is a moderate factor in the hiring process that should be discussed and a contingency plan drawn up in advance should they opt to hire RC. But it's NOT the overwhelming reason to outright dismiss his candidacy as Clay would have us believe.

I agree that age could be a factor but I also know there is a WIDE degree of variance between how individuals age and handle stress, long hours etc... If he were 70 I would agree with you but at 64 I just don't put his age at or even NEAR the top of my list of concerns.

And GoChiefs argument that he can't WIN because of his age is just moronic.

ok, yeah what Phil said.. I like his post better, I'm going with this one...

:D

I agree with both of these. It's a complex factor that has to be judged on an individual basis, but given what we do know about aging in general, at the very least, it should be taken into consideration.

With regard to the strain of the work, no it's by no means manual labor, but there is a great deal of stress as a function of the job, and much of that is internal, fear of failure and overlooking the smallest detail. That's why we hear so many stories of coaches working 18+ hour days, and also why there are so many high profile stories of coaches with family problems, Belichick, Reid, Dungy, et. al.

What has happened in the past has no bearing on what will happen in this situation. This is not the same team, the same players or the same coach. As you said, apples and oranges.

Out of all of the coaches who have ever been in the NFL, I wonder how many of them have led their team to a Super Bowl championship.

Now, I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm guessing that the ratio's percentage would be quite similar to the 3/27 that's been showcased throughout the thread.

64 isn't old these days. I guess you are just too young to understand that.

Age is part of the factor but I'd also be interested in hearing why Crennel didn't work in Cleveland?

I think Anderson and Quinn got hurt if my memory is right and it all went down hill from then.

I've just read the whole and, uh, NO!

I'll take this troll over that one any day.

Do you really think I intended to mount an argument based solely on Romeo's age this season?

That's ridiculous. No one thinks Romeo is winning it this year.

The entire line of reasoning is coaches in their 60s...hence why I brought up 24 of 27.

It's ancient for an NFL head coach. You are too ignorant to understand that.

Player's coach, lack of discipline, inmates running the asylum.

We should stick with Cassel, then. I'm convinced. LMAO

Because a person's name has no bearing on how he functions at his job.

gotcha.. so then you can prove that his name has less bearing on his ability to be a winning coach then his age? what? no?

or, what about this .. no one from St. Joe has ever coached a winning SB team.. therefore someone born in St Joe must not be capable of doing it, that is EXACTLY what your "logic" is attempting to say...

What magically happens when a person turns 64 that makes them a bad coach? Do they get dumber? Do they all start to forget what it takes to win? Do they suddenly lose their work ethic?

Fact is, Romeo was doing a damn fine job as our DC and their is NO reason to believe that suddenly his age will be a factor.

You're just being an idiotic troll. I just don't understand how someone with your obvious lack of critical thinking skills can survive on a day to day basis in the world. You really are a ****ing moron.

I don't know. All I know is that no coach over the age of 63 has ever won a Super Bowl.

Getting old sucks.

It would seem, judging by the insults (which I have risen above and ignored), some of you are less than happy to learn that statistically speaking, Romeo is a waste of our time.

I apologize for taking the shine off our win, but just remember that Gunther Cunningham once knocked off the world champions, too.

And no coach with a name starting with an R and no coach from St Joe and no coach with a mohawk and no coach who was fluent in Mandarin and no coach who is a Japanese-American... and no coach with 7 toes ...

None of those factors have any bearing on the ability of a coach... just like age has no bearing when you are talking about a 64 year old.

I think you get the point... or maybe you don't. Seriously, your logic skills are abysmal.

Age definitely has a bearing. How can anyone say otherwise? There is a reason there are so few head coaches who last into their 60s, so few that are even hired at that age.

Maybe most lose their drive at a certain age. Romeo obviously hasn't.

Romeo is round.

Round guys can't lose their edge because they never had one to begin with.

Also, the main problem with round guys is that they are easy going. It's Raider Week, though and the last damn thing we need around here is an easy going round guy.

FAX

How old was DV in St. Louis? He had to be pretty close.

And Marv Levy lost 4 when he looked about 80. Again, don't know his exact age but I'd settle for 4 losing SB trips right about now...

Until just now.

You're thick. You find an agenda and stick with it. Half a dozen people have shown you why your contention is wrong but you have to stick with the agenda. That's donkey behavior. It really is. You're not thinking about this logically. I don't know why you're not. The only things that are know is that 3 coaches over the age of 60 have won a Super Bowl out of 30 total winners since 1967. Somehow you've concluded that means Romeo Crennel should be disqualified. I'm not even clamouring for Crennel to coach the Chiefs in 2012 based on one game. But I do reject your notion for disqualification.

He was 62. Marv Levy was hired by the Bills when he was 61 and that was in 86. He took the Bills to 4 straight SuperBowls starting in 90 so he would have been 69 in the last SB. He continued coaching the Bills until he was 73. He won the AFC East 6 out of his 12 years at Buffalo and finished 2nd and earned wildcard playoff berths 2 other years.

"The age factor means nothing to me. I'm old enough to know my limitations and I'm young enough to exceed them." - Marv Levy.

Well said. Not that I should get on people for not giving in during an arguement.

Terrible odds. Enough for me to pass on Romeo.