Once again, I'm not debating whether or not the Chiefs have had the talent to go to the SB, I have said that they didn't.
What I'm debating is whether or not they had the talent to win against Indy.
They did.
And those passes were only a half-hearted attempt to get first downs.
Their primary goal was to get the in a position favorable to the kicker.
And, given how poorly Bonehead was playing that day, why the hell didn't Marty replace him sooner?

The coach put them into position to win the game, bottom line.

From where I sit, the coach put them into position to lose.

His playoff record speaks for itself.

His playoff record with free agent rejects, bad draft choices and players that nobody else even wanted speaks for itself actually.

Many of those players from that team aren't even in the league anymore despite being young enough to still play for crying out loud.

He still found a way to get these teams to the playoffs, even earn Homefield advantage twice. Why couldn't he find a way to win a playoff game?

He played in fear of losing at playoff time.
That's my story anI'm sticking to it.

As someone else pointed out a couple of weeks ago, my hatred of Marty is well documented.
So I believe that we will have to agree to disagree on this.

That literally is testament to how a good a coach he is.

How anyone could get some of those "teams" to the playoffs is simply incredible.

Marty has made mistakes, everyone does. But he has gotten a very bad rap for things that aren't all his fault. Many coaches would've quit the Chiefs much sooner than he did if they were forced to try and win with what he was provided.

We still don't have a legit feature back, or second receiver [many would argue that Alexander is a true second receiver] and he's been gone for three years. Plus, we really don't know if we have a legit QB yet, Trent's gotta prove that. If he doens't, then we'll still have a hole at QB. For 12+ years this team has been lacking some of the most important players on the field.

Oh well, let's just continue to bury our heads in the sand blame the people that are no longer here. I guess it's easier that way.

We agree on CP.
He should've been out of a job in KC years ago.

My problem with Marty isn't that he lost playoff games.
My problem with Marty is that he lost playoff games that he should have won, and how he lost those games.

Playing not to lose is a sure formula for losing.

Anyone else coaches the losers that Marty had and they dont make the playoffs. Bono, Lake Dawson, Sean LaChappel, Derrick Walker, Greg Hill??? You expect a playoff win with that garbage?? If so, then the talent the Chiefs have today (Green, Gonzo, Holmes, Alexander, ect) should be enough to get to the AFC Championship.

Cannibal is right. You take points anyway you can get them in the playoffs. Especially with the defense the Chiefs had. Elliott (whom Carl Peterson signed) had three chances to tie that game. He missed all of them. I doubt the players in the locker room were pissed at Marty. From what I hear, Elliott didnt even go to the locker room. He went right from the field to his car.

How many more losing seasons do you want before you realize that Marty was a damn good coach and the real problem lies in the front office (Carl)?

Marty was a very good regular season coach.
He got teams to overachieve in the regular season, but his game plan became even more conservative in the playoffs.

To win in the playoffs, you have to score points.
You can't win when you average something like 13 points.

And I say, once again, I didn't expect him to get to the SB with the talent he had, but he could've won against some of the teams he lost to, like the Doplphins when Lowery missed a kick, or the Colts.

Why does it always come down to missed kicks, or alledged bad calls with Marty.

At some point you have to point he finger atthe coach when your team consistently blames these kind of things for losses.

As a coach at playoff time, Marty sucks.
He sucked in Cleveland. He sucked in KC.
He will suck in DC.

IMO there really is no such thing as a "good regular season coach" or "bad playoff coach", etc. It takes the same EXACT qualities to win regular season games and postseason games. You can't expect a coach to change what the team had been doing well at the last minute, just for the playoffs.

Scoring in the NFL, like every other major sport, tends go down during the postseason. Marty could've been more aggressive, but it probably would've bit him in the arse with guys like Bono and Grbac "leading" the offense.

Marty's postseason failures are a direct result of the pathetic offensive talent provided by Peterson & not his coaching style or ability. Had Byner not fumbled the ball on the one yard line, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

Schottenheimer made 2 critical errors during the '97 playoff game. One was starting Grbac, and the other was going for that fake FG that the announcers were discussing before the ball was even snapped. IMO the first mistake was probably caused by CP interfering with Marty's job, and the second was a result of a feeling of desperation...knowing that Grbac could not get the job done without the aid of trick plays and lady luck.

IMO it was Marty that gave the Chiefs their great run in the early/mid 90s, not Peterson.

I wanted CP to be fired and I wanted Tom Donahoe brought in. It will be interesting to see how Buffalo improves in relation to KC.

I can't remember who, but someone brought an instance of a former player complaining about Marty's propensity to add plays for the postseason and becoming more conservative.

If there is no such thing as a good regular season coach and a bad playoff coach, why have coaches like Marty, Denny Green and Chuck Knox enjoyed so mch regular season success, yet fail so miserbly in the postseason.

And once again, had Byner not fumbled, the Browns wold have only tied the score.

Elway vs. Marty in OT.
My money is on Elway in that matchup.

Marty's philosophy was quite simple. If the game was close, his offensive game plan sucked. Hence, the Chiefs were never going to jump on teams early UNLESS the opposing teams turned the ball over.

If the Chiefs got a 7-10 point lead then he folded the playbook and relied on his defense.

If the Chiefs got behind by 7-10 then (gasp!!) you'd actually see a downfield pass longer than 12 yards.

Where Marty screwed himself in the post-season was by banking on those turnovers for good field position. What he still fails to grasp is that the other play-off teams know this and hang onto the ball better.

No freebies = no quick/easy scores on a short field. So he plays the field position game with his punter and special teams.

If you think about it, the Chiefs were a blocked punt (by Cash) away from losing to Pittsburgh in the 1993 play-offs. A quick check of the Chiefs offensive numbers under Marty.

1990 - 16 = (L)
1991 - 10 = (W)
1991 - 14 = (L)
1992 - 0 = (L)
1993 - 27 = (W)
1993 - 28 = (W)
1993 - 13 = (L)
1994 - 17 = (L)
1995 - 7 = (L)
1997 - 10 = (L)

Hmm.... outside of that 10-6 win over the sorry-arsed Raiders in 1991, it seems the only victories by KC were when they scored 27 and 28 points

Average Marty-led teams points in those 7 losses?

11.1 a game!!!!

Yep! It was just plain bad luck that the Chiefs lost those games. (Oh, and we had horrible talent right?)

California,


Albert Lewis blocked the kick...:D





I do see your point. But also don't forget that the Titans advanced due to a questionable latteral, and the Lambs advanced due to a botched IR call against the Bucs. Denver advances against us after HORRIBLE officiating, and let's not forget "the fumble" in cleveland....

Brad,
Sure, other teams have had bad breaks in the playoffs. It happens at times.
But when a time fails to win playoff games as consistently as the Chiefs did on "bad breaks" or "poor officiating", then one has to, or should at least begin to wonder if the responsibility for the playoff losses doesn't actually lie elsewhere.
As far as I'm concerned, that resposibility falls to Marty, and his failure to recognize that the offense needed to make more than a minimal contribution to the cause.

will elvis succeed? you decide...