ChiefsPlanet

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)

Okie_Apparition 12-19-2011 06:31 PM

I don't understand connecting McDaniels as the OC
to me he is Todd Haley

'Hamas' Jenkins 12-19-2011 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 8218954)
degrees of credence =! dispositive.

You know, for a guy who seems to constantly decry 'binary thinking' you offer very little regarding building a successful franchise beyond 'suck as hard as you can for a year and grab the best college QB in the draft, rinse and repeat until it sticks.'

It may be contrary to Chiefs history, giving you a patina of indie cred, but it's as simplistic as any other autodidact on here.

It just so happens that it is more complex than that, but you're being reductive for the sake of rhetoric.

You can't win in the NFL without a top shelf quarterback anymore. That's the foundation of the house. What you want to do with the framing, interior walls, plumbing, wiring, etc, leaves a world of possible different directions (3-4, 4-3, Cover 2, Coryell, WCO, Earhardt, etc.), but without a QB in this league, you're building on a sinkhole.

With regard to your initial statement, I still don't see why it is of any concern. Players have long proven to be terrible evaluators of coaches, this team specifically. If we are to adopt one of your statements from some days past, much like a player who would quit because of a losing environment, a player that would quit or not give their full effort because of a coaching hire isn't a player worth having at all.

Brock 12-19-2011 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 8220726)
It just so happens that it is more complex than that, but you're being reductive for the sake of rhetoric.

You can't win in the NFL without a top shelf quarterback anymore. That's the foundation of the house. What you want to do with the framing, interior walls, plumbing, wiring, etc, leaves a world of possible different directions (3-4, 4-3, Cover 2, Coryell, WCO, Earhardt, etc.), but without a QB in this league, you're building on a sinkhole.

I think pretty much everybody wants a top shelf QB.

'Hamas' Jenkins 12-19-2011 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 8220741)
I think pretty much everybody wants a top shelf QB.

Which makes me wonder where the false binary is kicking in. You get a FA QB like Drew Brees, what, maybe once every 5-10 years? So if you can't procure him through that method, it's going to have to be the draft. Then, it's all about negotiating the supply vs. the demand.

Low supply of QBs this year, high demand=need for a high pick.

There was a higher demand last year, lower in 2009.

It's not just "you either hope the team gets the highest pick possible" or not, it's realizing when certain battles, like this season, are lost, and doing the best with what you have, hoping the team develops while also putting themselves in the best long-term position.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 07:52 PM

IMO after thinking about it for some time, I believe Romeo needs to stay as HC in 2012.

The players obviously like him, A LOT. They believe in him. He knows how to motivate them, and he has them believing in themselves.

If Romeo doesn't keep the HC job, the players will be distraught. Romeo will be frustrated (as he has stated, he wants to be a HC again).

The new HC might not want to keep Romeo around. And the LAST thing we need to happen, is to have Romeo leave the Chiefs. We finally have a pretty damn good defense (without a pro bowl safety btw).

If Romeo leaves, the key players of our foundation will not be happy. The defensive players are in love with him.

But at the end, my main point is that we can't afford to lose Crennel.

We can get away with keeping Crennel as HC, as long as we hire a real OC, and let him pick his own staff. He would likely either promote a guy currently on staff to be the new DC, or he could find his own guy who believes in the same philosophy. But I would actually be ok with Crennel continuing to run the defense on gameday as long as we fix the OC...And of course we need a QB.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8220823)
If Romeo doesn't keep the HC job, the players will be distraught.

:rolleyes:

They'll get over it.

The last thing we need at this point is a short-term HC.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 8218571)
The defensive players openly campaigned for Gunther. We saw how that worked out.

The only thing I would say to this is that Gun and Gantz had never been head coaches before where Crennel would be on his second run. He is a smart man maybe he learned a lot and would be better the second go around or not.

DeezNutz 12-19-2011 08:13 PM

The funny thing is, at the beginning of the game I must have sarcastically remarked about how "well coached" we were about 4 different times: 12 men on the field x 3?, terrible challenge, ultra-conservative plays, etc.

Wins make for good deodorant.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220871)
:rolleyes:

They'll get over it.

The last thing we need at this point is a short-term HC.

If he works out well, then he wont be a short term HC.

I know you like Fisher because he is the picture of continuity and consistency, but why would he want to continue to run a 3-4? The 3-4 is just now starting to work well for us, so it would not be a good thing to switch it up now.

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic (Post 8220883)
If he works out well, then he wont be a short term HC.

Yes, he could coach well into his 70s. LMAO

Dude will retire within 3, 4, maybe 5 years. He will be 65 in June.

I'm sure he would be a hot head-coaching commodity if he wasn't under contract with the Chiefs, though.

dirk digler 12-19-2011 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 8220882)
The funny thing is, at the beginning of the game I must have sarcastically remarked about how "well coached" we were about 4 different times: 12 men on the field x 3?, terrible challenge, ultra-conservative plays, etc.

Wins make for good deodorant.

McCarthy was out coached

Hammock Parties 12-19-2011 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 8220894)
McCarthy was out coached

How?

The biggest factor in the game was most likely all the drops by Green Bay's receivers.

KCrockaholic 12-19-2011 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega (Post 8220889)
Yes, he could coach well into his 70s. LMAO

Dude will retire within 3, 4, maybe 5 years. He will be 65 in June.

I'm sure he would be a hot head-coaching commodity if he wasn't under contract with the Chiefs, though.

I guess I've never understood the whole age thing with coaches.

If a guy still has a real passion for coaching, and for reaching the ultimate goal, then it shouldn't matter what his age is.

Coaching isn't a physical job, it's a mental job. I don't see why it matters whether he's 50 or 70.

Marcellus 12-19-2011 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 8220882)
The funny thing is, at the beginning of the game I must have sarcastically remarked about how "well coached" we were about 4 different times: 12 men on the field x 3?, terrible challenge, ultra-conservative plays, etc.

Wins make for good deodorant.

I am not in the keep Orton long term bandwagon, period. Keep him and draft a QB maybe but if we draft a guy may as well play him.

But he was the deodorant, he was the only difference that I saw from a team standpoint.

It just shows how bad Pioli is at QB evaluation which does not bode well for the future.

DeezNutz 12-19-2011 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8220900)
I am not in the keep Orton long term bandwagon, period. Keep him and draft a QB maybe but if we draft a guy may as well play him.

But he was the deodorant, he was the only difference that I saw from a team standpoint.

It just shows how bad Pioli is at QB evaluation which does not bode well for the future.

No question that there was a stark difference with Orton. He was composed, didn't look at the rush, and went through progressions.

Essentially, he was everything Cassel isn't, but that doesn't mean that he's the answer either. Just accentuates the Cassel suck.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:00 AM.

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