At the Quarter Mark: Better or Worse?

[OnTheWarpath15]

After the Haley hire, you couldn't throw a stick through this place without hitting someone that made the following comment:

"We'll be a better team based on coaching alone," or, "we'll win X amount of games due to coaching alone."

Yes, it's only been 4 games, and this is NOT a call for Haley's head - but is deserved criticism of the way he's prepared this team over the first 4 games of the regular season.

Also, IN NO WAY is the following an endorsement of Herman Edwards. What it is, however, is a giant red flag - this team - of which 60% has been handpicked by Pioli and Haley - is actually worse in almost all statistical categories when compared to the 2008 team after 4 games - which many here claimed were the darkest days of last season. We'll call it, B.S. - or, Before Spread.

Offensively (bolded number is 2009 totals):

1st downs: (63) (62)

3rd down conversions: (25/62 - 40%) (9/51 - 18%)

Total yards: (1145) (986)

Rushing yards: (554) (406)

Passing yards: (591) (580)

Sacks Allowed: (12) (13)

Penalties/Yardage: (10/109) 29/230

Scoring: (16.25 PPG) (16 PPG)


Not a single category in which we've improved over 2008, which happened to include going through 3 QB's - playing the 3rd stringer in 2 of the 4.


Defensively:

1st downs allowed: (74) (85)

3rd down conversions against: (25/54 - 46%) (25/58 - 43%)

Total yards allowed: (1517) (1516)

Rushing yards allowed: (706) (514)

Passing yards allowed: (811) (1002)

Sacks: (3) (5)

Points allowed: (24.25 PPG) (28 PPG)

Turnover margin: (+2) (Even)

Yea! 2 more sacks! And nice to see the 192 yard improvement from the rush defense, only to see 191 of it be given back up by the pass defense.


The 2008 team was apparently so bad that management felt the need to purge 30 players, yet is playing worse with a roster that is 60% their handpicked players?

What message are you trying to send, Todd? It seems like it changes on a weekly ****ing basis.

As someone who predicted a 3 win season, the losses aren't surprising me.

The way we are losing, after hearing the phrase, "we're going to be a big, strong, fast, smart, tough, disciplined football team" IS surprising me.

There is no improvement over the "Dark Ages" of last season in ANY of those areas. And there's no excuse for it, especially the lack of discipline. Make 'em run some more, Todd - it seems to be working...

Enough excuses - enough with the "messages" - enough petty bullshit sitting players - time to see some ****ing improvement. Not necessarily wins.

IMPROVEMENT.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

maybe those guys arent any better than what we are putting out there. remember that herm didnt play them much and they were his guys

Maybe its bc they were rookies. And Cottam played quite abit actually.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Maybe its bc they were rookies. And Cottam played quite abit actually.

hey flowers charles carr leggett dorsey, they all played as rooks no? herm wasnt scared to play rookies why didnt those play? morgan cant see the field through two coaches. why?

[whoman69]

The stats are way skewed for those games. If you recall we doubled our point output in the 4th game against Denver where we put up an Arena League 33 points on the board. After the bye we came down to Earth again and got shut out 34-0 by Carolina. They switched to the spread two weeks later after only scoring 10 against Tennessee in which Huard and Croyle were both hurt. Pre-spread we scored 12.5 points per game.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Mecca

It's hard to say some of those guys haven't played enough..

That's something I really have a gripe with, this team ****ing sucks, put DaJuan Morgan on the field, put Cottam on the field, Sean Ryan and Mike Brown mean shit to us.

Dorsey was a building block, he's not now.

So answer this? Does the new GM and HC have to follow the previous GM and HC's direction because of the draft picks?

Or do they build it the way they want and take the losses up front?

Just curious?

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Maybe its bc they were rookies. And Cottam played quite abit actually.

oh yeah cottam of the great 7 catches in 16 games? and the guy who doesnt know what blocking is?

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

oh yeah cottam of the great 7 catches in 16 games? and the guy who doesnt know what blocking is?

Playing behind freaking Tony Gonzalez. He showed some flashes last year of being a pretty good starter in the NFL.

[Raptor]

[QUOTE=chiefzilla1501;6146196]Much as people hate Herm, he fell on his sword for the good of the franchise.

/QUOTE]

I'm not a Herm Lover or hater, but I agree with this statement. It did take some guts to do what he did and he ended up paying a heavy price for it.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

FINALLY.

I have taken so much shit with this same exact position. A LOT of shit.

No, you took shit because of your position that he should have been retained beyond last season because he had just started the rebuild.

Hell, I agree that he finally did what needed to be done, but he's a terrible ****ing coach, and there's no way in hell that I wanted him here from the start, much less another year or two.

Let's rebuild with a coach who actually has a chance to grow with the team.

[Chiefless]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

but are they average players that would form the nucleus of a good/great team?

I think the chiefs need to look at it this way: The nucleus of this team is everything but the O-Line. Nobody's job in that unit should be safe. If you get an upgrade at any of those positions I think you take it (even if it means moving players like Albert or Waters to another position or off the team). There is a severe lack of talent on that line. It's so bad in my opinion that there's really no way to properly evaluate the rest of the entire team. If they get the o-line in order I think we'll find that most of the other units are at least NFL-average.

[StcChief]

It all starts up front. DL has gotta alot of attention, time to turn that to OLine....Rome wasn't built in a day.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

Herm used rebuilding to buy himself another year excuse free...it blew up in his face, thankfully....


Herm only had a job because of Carl. Period. And if he wasn't under Carl's thumb and truly "bold" he would have rebuilt right away...and not stuck with Gunther.

Herm brought us Huard and Croyle and Thigpen. Whoppity ****ing doo.

fascinating to watch history being re-written in this thread....Herm the great talent evaluator! Herm the bold rebuilder! Herm the great motivator!

Bullshit revisionist history.

It's been well publicized that Herm wanted to rebuild a year earlier.

And it's been pretty much well publicized that Herm pushed for it and Carl Peterson refused, and that the relationship soured, and that Herm had to go all the way to Clark Hunt to finally get it done.

What the **** is the head coach supposed to do when your GM, the guy who signs off on all the decisions for the team, refuses to let you do what you think you need to do?

And yes, opening up a can of worms because I know milkman is going to react to this, but I still don't understand why people think Gunther and Solari was Herm's call. We know now that Gunther and Herm never saw eye-to-eye on the defense. We saw in year 2 that Herm hated Solari's offense so much that he forced Solari to scrap it in favor of a more conservative scheme. You can either choose to believe that Herm wanted to hire two coaches who ran schemes that he hated, or you can come to the logical conclusion that the only reason Solari and Gun were kept on Herm's coaching staff was because of Peterson's long history of being overly loyal to coaches within his network. After all, how do you think Herm was hired? It wasn't through an open interview process. Herm was hired because he was in Peterson's rolodex. Just like Gunther and Solari.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

No, you took shit because of your position that he should have been retained beyond last season because he had just started the rebuild.

Hell, I agree that he finally did what needed to be done, but he's a terrible ****ing coach, and there's no way in hell that I wanted him here from the start, much less another year or two.

Let's rebuild with a coach who actually has a chance to grow with the team.

I'm not afraid to still stand by that position. But you're oversimplifying it. I said that Herm should have been kept on board because I expected Carl Peterson to be on the last year of his contract, and that if Herm didn't put up results in 2009, he should have been fired alongside Peterson. The minute Peterson was fired, I said that Herm was probably going to be fired and it was a shitty, but correct decision to make.

As much as people hate Herm, he got a really shitty deal. He was basically promised that he could blow up the franchise, and the front office would be patient enough to let him go through a rough 2008 season because it was something that had to be done. It was the right business decision, but it's pretty shitty when a coach is the victim of a broken promise.

[Chiefless]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm not afraid to still stand by that position. But you're oversimplifying it. I said that Herm should have been kept on board because I expected Carl Peterson to be on the last year of his contract, and that if Herm didn't put up results in 2009, he should have been fired alongside Peterson. The minute Peterson was fired, I said that Herm was probably going to be fired and it was a shitty, but correct decision to make.

As much as people hate Herm, he got a really shitty deal. He was basically promised that he could blow up the franchise, and the front office would be patient enough to let him go through a rough 2008 season because it was something that had to be done. It was the right business decision, but it's pretty shitty when a coach is the victim of a broken promise.

That makes me hate herm less. But he did preside over the collapsing of the Chiefs. I'm not real sure Edwards feels real bad tho. Trying to fix the mess you made under the eye of a new management is hard enough but I bet Pioli is a MAJOR hard ass to work for. In a way I think Pioli did Edwards a favor by letting him go.

[easymobee]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

There's no comparison. Haley and Pioli didn't inherit an offensive line or receivers like Denver's.

The Chiefs might be 2-2 if they swapped offensive lines and receivers with the Broncos. (not to mention schedules)

McDaniels and Xanders didn't inherit a 100 million dollar DL like the new KC brass did either.

Or land a new franchise QB in the offseason.

just kidding Goatcheese ........ bump - this was an interesting thread to read through