Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 5323336)

The coach is certainly responsible for wins and losses. But that has to come with some understanding of what the team makeup is, and the level of talent currently on the team. You have to factor in the team youth and inexperience. You could pick your favorite head coach and put him in charge of the youngest team in the league, and his record would be less than his coaching average. Lots of people point to the overall record as proof positive of failure, but you have to keep in mind what the expectations were before the season started. Most everyone saw what the team was going to be made of before the season started and picked us to win 0-5 games. Now our 2 wins are being held as justification for failure, even though it was seen as expected growing pains beforehand.

Second half point are a concern. But I see us doing the same things in the second half that we're doing in the first, and not executing them the same way. LJ is no longer running up the center's ass, so that has changed since last year. Cover 2 is a failure with this personnel, and a big negative on Herm's philosophy.

Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 5323354)

No he doesn't. I understand they came from the same "tree". But I think it ended when they fell from the tree.

Ask me again in 10 years......

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII (Post 5323364)

overall record is not what i'm basing my argument off of. over the past two seasons, there has been no improvement from the players. break the last two seasons down into 4 game sections, and there should be improvement, one 4 game stretch to the next. say we were to start off 0-4. the following four games should be better, but if you break it down like this, there are an awful lot of 0-4's with a couple of 1-3's, showing little to no improvement. a good coach could coach even a young team to a better record than what herm has done with these chiefs, as i think there is some talent on this team.

Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 5323372)

If you haven't seen any improvement from the players then you're a damn fool.

And if overall record is not what you're basing your argument off of, then why do you go right into breaking the overall record down into increments for your support? It's still the overall record. You're still looking at the overall record, Ws and Ls, you're just breaking it up into smaller pieces. You're equating improvement directly with the W-L record.

Originally Posted by beach tribe (Post 5322963)

His win loss record tells the story....Period.

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 5323344)

Dungy has only had one losing season in his career. So no, not so much.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5323383)

No, it doesn't.

Was Dick Vermeil a shitty coach in Philadelphia for the first four years of his tenure? Was Vermeil a shitty coach in St. Louis his first two years?

I could go on and on and on around the league. Every situation is different. I don't think you'd find anyone working in the NFL that would compare Herm Edwards to coaches like Frank Gansz, Frank Kush, Richie Kotite, etc. Edwards may not be a great coach at this point but when given adequate players, he's certainly average or slightly above.

The Chiefs were in dire need of rebuilding in 2006, yet the front office decided to continue their same ways until 2008. You can't get blood from a turnip.

And anyone that expected more than 3 wins from a team that just traded its best player and is playing 17 rookies was fooling themselves.

Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5323387)

To be fair, this team could easily be 7-8 or 8-7 if they had a decent coaching staff, IMHO.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5323399)

I don't see it that way.

Maybe if the right side of the offensive line wasn't pure and utter shit. And maybe if the Chiefs actually had a linebacking corp AND one true pass rushing defensive end.

To be quite honest, I don't even know how they've managed to be so close in so many games while lacking so much talent.

Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5323387)

To be fair, this team could easily be 7-8 or 8-7 if they had a decent coaching staff, IMHO.

Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 5323407)

And would that be better or worse for the franchise in the long run?

Honestly, you could argue that in a "do-over" with the exact same coaches this team could easily be 5-10 to 7-8....

8 games by less than 7 points is pretty unpredictable. It lends more criticism than support for the current coaching staff for sure, but the fact that we were "in" so many games is a positive no matter what.

Originally Posted by Coach (Post 5323404)

I understand your opinion, and I respect that. The right side of the O-line is "questionable" at best to midly put it. However, if we had a defense, like you mentioned, it is possible. No argument here on the defense.

Yet, at the same time, everybody knows that Herm doesn't play to win the game. The Chiefs never had trouble being the aggressers in the first half of the game. Yet after halftime, they couldn't score. How much of this is attributed to coaching philosophy changing/adjustment? If the Chiefs had a decent coach who could manage the game clock a bit better, and doesn't go to a shell in the 2nd half, who knows where the Chiefs would be as of this point.