A thread with a lot of people bitching.... am I in the right place? I swear I clicked on chiefsplanet
Posted via Mobile Device

From what I remember, according to pretty much everybody who watched him in during workouts in KC or at camp (I did not...) he was supposedly a "changed man" who'd bought into the new philosophy and was busting his ass off to earn his job. 'course, in the end, he was just a psycho as always, but it was never presented as some kind of situation where he was just handed a job.

And actually Dane brings up Bowe, albeit for another reason, and he's the perfect example of non-entitlement. Same for Albert and his weight loss. This sort of tougher work ethic and everybody competing is something that started in 2009. We saw all sorts of examples of it last year during camp, when they were running those guys ragged. Wasn't there a vet o-linemen who didn't even make the team because he didn't want to do all the running?

Big change from Vermeil's veteran camp/wine-tasting and Herm was purportedly even easier on them.

Whoa, Vermeil was not someone who ran "easy" practices, but he was someone who was petrified of rookies.

So there's a bit of balance there.

I've slept a lot since then, but if memory serves, he ran long practices, but I'm not sure how "hard" they were, from a conditioning standpoint. I also seem to remember that he regularly let veterans sit out, to keep from taxing them. This is even more subjective, but I don't remember thinking at any time that that team had any special degree of toughness, either. I remember a kind of softness that I was hoping Herm might offset (being a defensive-mind coach; I'm sure I talked about this in 2006), but he only seemed to make it worse.

I know a lot of people mock the "right 53" thing, but I actually really like that approach, at least in theory, finding (talented) players who'll buy into the system and fight their asses off. I think that's something that's been missing here for a long, long time. A team that will knock you on your ass. Or rather, a talented team that will knock you on your ass. I still believe that's the ultimate failure of Vermeil's tenure here; the cerebral, "I'm going to out-finesse (and out-stat...) you" approach rather than an "I'm going to line up and beat you" attitude.

But that's a tangent.

Vermeils practices were as hard as I have seen in the NFL. Im sure those that went know what Im talking about. Especially his first couple years here.

Whew. Tough.

I thought everybody used Marty as the benchmark for ridiculous practices?

(I wasn't here for him. Fortunately.)

Arguably one of the biggest misconceptions about the Vermeil era is that the team was "soft."

Evidence A: o-line.

These mother****er were as tough and nasty as they come. Entire group of ass-beaters.

Vermeil, relatively speaking, was a worthless sack of ****ing shit (in KC), but don't let all the hugs and tears fool you.

Marty gained fame for "toughness" because of his implementation of the Oklahoma drill and his relentless attention to detail. If you need to win a single regular season game, I can't think of a better coach than Marty. Mother****er can coach his ass off.

It wasn't a misconception at all. The individual players may have been nasty - and I don't think anybody in the entire NFL is "soft," in that sense - but that team was not tough, as a whole. Sure, they had the occasional game where they came out and made a statement (hi, Ray Lewis), but that team was a lot of flash and sizzle. And there's nothing wrong with that, except that there was never any nasty in the way they played as a team. It was more obvious with the defense, of course. Late game collapse after late game collapse. But it was that way with the offense, too. They could spread the field and confuse the defense from dusk til dawn, but the one thing they could never do consistently is line up and just straight-up knock the other team off the ball when all they needed was that one yard.

And Marty's a clown.

The defense was "soft" because of a lot of LOFT--lack of ****ing talent. The majority of the money went to the offensive side.

And the offense couldn't consistently knock people off the ball? I honestly could not disagree more.

There isn't anyone on this board who disliked Grandpa more, but saying his teams were soft is just plain inaccurate.

Not when it counted, they couldn't. That was not an offense built for a close game in the 4th quarter, trying to hold the ball to win. Come from behind, keep a shootout close, sure. But they were kind of the anti-marty, exact opposite problem he had. If we could find a way to blend Marty and Dick, we'd have the perfect coach.Sorry, bud, but that's my opinion, and it ain't changing...

I've felt that way for years. That team was all about mind-games, rather than going out and just beating the other team. That's what I mean when I talk about toughness. Chess matches over football. Big stats over winning.

I think you're seeing the difference between a tough as hell offense and a tough as hell defense. Nothing more.

That offensive line could pretty much do what it wanted to, when it wanted to. It was a True Fan's wet dream.

The more I read quotes from the media, the more I think we're drafting Clausen with the #5 overall. The Chiefs brass doesn't have the nads to take a safety that high, despite the game changing potential Berry brings. I honestly don't think Cassell's salary will be an issue in our first pick given the room we have under the cap. And if Clark wants national attention on game day, he HAS to get somebody in here that makes people WANT to watch the Chiefs on Monday night. That's why I think Clausen will be #5...

Let me get this right (Pioli) Bring in a vet who has had a good career but just has a little bit left in the tank. He beats out the rooky or younger player who has upside leaves him on the bench so he doesn't get better or playing time. Then the vet shows his age and doesn't perform as well. Then throw in the rooky late in the season and make him prove himself with only a few games left.


My philosophy, let the kids who have potential to be better than the vets play. So that they learn and get better, so that they get experiance & chohesiveness (sp) something like that. IMO the players Herm got in the draft were better than the vets Pioli and Haley got. They just needed coached up and playing time.
The young players can grow with the team and get better, the vets get old and rust out. Compitition is good but sometimes if you got a guy that has potential to be better you play him. JMHO

In case you missed it...there is no salary cap.

I think there's a disconnect here that's probably my fault for not being clear enough. When I talk about "toughness", I'm not talking about a physical attribute. I'm talking about a psychological one. Toughness as in willpower, as in an ability to overcome adversity. And I think that's something the Chiefs have been missing for the decade plus that I've watched them. I see it in the way they carry themselves on the field and on the sideline. I think it's reflected to a degree in the way the fans have this "what's next?" attitude. What bad draft pick are they going to make? How are they going to blow this game? That "here we go again" look they get late in games when, inevitably, everything falls apart. How we're always waiting for the other shoe to drop. Because since the late 90s, the other shoe does always drop. Because the team lacks....something. Not just talent. Some of it's knowing how to win. Some of it's swagger. Maybe "toughness" is a bad word, but it's the one I've always used.