Chiefs I like Herm's method better... - Page 11

kcbubb · 05-27-2009, 09:24 AM

I would rather play with a bunch of young players and develop them than sign a bunch of old guys if we know that we are going to be bad. Most people seem to believe that the Chiefs are going to be lucky to win six games.

If that is the case, why not look for the next Brandon Carr, Mark Bradley or Mike Cox??? It's hard to find those guys if they don't get a chance to play.

Why are we wasting this valuable playing time on players like Zach Thomas, Mike Vrabel, Mike Goff, and Bobby Engram??? I am sure that they will contribute and play well for the Chiefs at times.

If we were a team that were close to making a playoff run, I would welcome the addition of the older players, but the Chiefs are still developing their roster especially with the change to the 3-4.

If we are going to be bad, I would really rather see Brian Johnston play rather than Vrabel. And I would rather see Quinten Lawrence play rather than Engram.

Or are you one that believes that these older players provide valuable leadership???

JD10367 · 06-01-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

So it is ok to slam Carl and Herm even though they are supposed to be professionals. But not Pioli??? I don't think so.

Pioli has a track record which includes three Lombardi trophies. Carl and Herm have a track record of.... ummm....

As Belichick said to the media when he signed Randy Moss, "let's give him a chance". If the Chiefs go 2-14 this season and show no improvement, then bring out the rope and hang the bastard...

JD10367 · 06-01-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

He lead the Rams in tackles for 4 seasons and I know there defense sucked, but the guy is 27 and has some experience. They didn't sign him for a ton of money and they signed him on a one year contract. Tinoisamoa > Zach

Tino turned down the Patriots to sign with Chicago instead. What makes you think he would've considered KC? Pioli probably knew better, hence the reason there was no public interest.

Just Passin' By · 06-01-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I knew you had a crush on Pioli, but I really didn't think it was this bad.

So it is ok to slam Carl and Herm even though they are supposed to be professionals. But not Pioli??? I don't think so. I'll criticize all of them on a message board if I feel like it.

That's the point of a message board... To express your opinion. If everyone never questioned management, there would be no Chiefs Planet. If you want that, go to kcchiefs.com.

What the hell are you talking about? Carl and Herm have a track record of failure. Questioning the moves of failures makes sense, incessantly complaining about the moves of someone without a track record of failure while defending the 'way' of the known failures is completely idiotic. You won't catch me calling out Lions fans who belittle Millen's tenure as G.M., because he proved that he was incompetent. There's a clear difference here, which I'd expect any human being of even somewhat substandard intelligence to understand.

**Buehler445** · 06-01-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I knew you had a crush on Pioli, but I really didn't think it was this bad.

So it is ok to slam Carl and Herm even though they are supposed to be professionals. But not Pioli??? I don't think so. I'll criticize all of them on a message board if I feel like it.

That's the point of a message board... To express your opinion. If everyone never questioned management, there would be no Chiefs Planet. If you want that, go to kcchiefs.com.

I think everybody would have done things differently than Pioli. But bashing him because of Vrable, Thomas, and Engram is stupid.

If anything, they maybe should have brought in some more younger guys in addition, but the level of leadership these guys are supposed to provide will be a lot more than some ****ing POS scrub that will just perpetuate the suck.

Sure, they might not work out as well as planned, but that certainly doesn't mean that Herm's method would have done better.
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By · 06-01-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

Tino turned down the Patriots to sign with Chicago instead. What makes you think he would've considered KC? Pioli probably knew better, hence the reason there was no public interest.

The only reports I've read say (or imply) that the Patriots didn't make him an offer, and that he had the two basically identical offers from Chicago and Buffalo to choose from. Have you got a link to back up your claim about the Patriots getting turned down? I'd love to read about any new info you can offer on this.

**Buehler445** · 06-01-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

He lead the Rams in tackles for 4 seasons and I know there defense sucked, but the guy is 27 and has some experience. They didn't sign him for a ton of money and they signed him on a one year contract. Tinoisamoa > Zach

He started on a shitty ass team. So ****ing what? Harris led the team in tackles the year before OUR horrible ****ing worthless waste of space defense ****ing fired his pussy ass. Just because he played doesn't mean he is good. At this point, I'd take some leadership over a worthless piece of ass that is a little younger. And if you are looking for I'mnotgoingtospellouthislongass****ingname to provide leadership, then, well, I guess you want to be like St. Louis.
Posted via Mobile Device

kcbubb · 06-01-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

What the hell are you talking about? Carl and Herm have a track record of failure. Questioning the moves of failures makes sense, incessantly complaining about the moves of someone without a track record of failure while defending the 'way' of the known failures is completely idiotic. You won't catch me calling out Lions fans who belittle Millen's tenure as G.M., because he proved that he was incompetent. There's a clear difference here, which I'd expect any human being of even somewhat substandard intelligence to understand.

You said professionals. You didn't say anything about performance. And Pioli is a rookie. I'll give him a chance but don't fault me for questioning his moves.

And will you question Pioli if the Chiefs suck next season??? He's Pioli. You can't question Pioli.

I doubt it. You have his picture next to your speedometer in your car. Just Passin' By + Pioli = man crush

JD10367 · 06-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The only reports I've read say (or imply) that the Patriots didn't make him an offer, and that he had the two basically identical offers from Chicago and Buffalo to choose from. Have you got a link to back up your claim about the Patriots getting turned down? I'd love to read about any new info you can offer on this.

Just my take on it. IIRC the order of events was: PinoTino flew to N.E. for a visit; he left; the Pats signed Paris Lenon. Some say the Pats decided he didn't fit the 3-4 but I find it weird that the Pats showed that much interest in a guy, had him in the building, and then he walks out and signs with Chicago. I'd like to know what the contract he got from the Bears looks like, and compare it to what Lenon got from the Pats, to see if there were enough differences there for him to warrant choosing Chicago over New England or if the Pats just thought Lenon was a cheaper alternative.

In slight defense of the Pioli-questioners, I do find it interesting that Pioli hasn't signed more players this offseason and/or brought a bunch in for tryouts. If the roster's as bad as some of you claim, you would think a huge turnover is in order... unless Pioli thinks the players weren't as much of the problem? Maybe he actually likes the youth on the team better than players that he could go get, which would actually go against the very point being argued...

kcbubb · 06-01-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

In slight defense of the Pioli-questioners, I do find it interesting that Pioli hasn't signed more players this offseason and/or brought a bunch in for tryouts. If the roster's as bad as some of you claim, you would think a huge turnover is in order... unless Pioli thinks the players weren't as much of the problem? Maybe he actually likes the youth on the team better than players that he could go get, which would actually go against the very point being argued...

I think their might be more to this than some people believe, especially with the resigning of Jarrad Page.

And I agree with you about the depth. I think there is a pretty good chance Zach gets hurt this year. Who's backing him up??? Please don't say Dacus.

**Buehler445** · 06-01-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I think their might be more to this than some people believe, especially with the resigning of Jarrad Page.

And I agree with you about the depth. I think there is a pretty good chance Zach gets hurt this year. Who's backing him up??? Please don't say Dacus.

But Dacus is just the tyope of scrub that you are advocating. He could be the one that gets away!!!

Coincidentally, this is my problem with Pioli. He didn't bring more guys in.
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By · 06-01-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

You said professionals. You didn't say anything about performance. And Pioli is a rookie. I'll give him a chance but don't fault me for questioning his moves.

And will you question Pioli if the Chiefs suck next season??? He's Pioli. You can't question Pioli.

I doubt it. You have his picture next to your speedometer in your car. Just Passin' By + Pioli = man crush

1.) Pioli is not a rookie

2.) Questioning professionals and thinking you can do their job better than they do are not necessarily the same thing. In your case, however, you clearly seem to think you could do a better job than a man who's won "executive of the year" on multiple occasions even when he's still in his first months of his first offseason with the new team.

3.) I don't care if the Chiefs suck next season, and I wouldn't care even if I was a Chiefs fan. Evaluating this team based upon wins and losses, or your perception of 'suck' is exactly what you don't do with a team this bad. This team will need to be evaluated based upon progress towards EVENTUAL consistently competitive teams, or the lack thereof. Let me repeat something I mentioned earlier, in the hopes that it will penetrate that veil of willful ignorance you're currently walking around with:

Pioli walked into a situation with a team that had only one core talent under the age of 30, and that player has only had one season. This team had a 30+ tight end and a 30- left tackle, and that's it. No other player on this team had cemented himself as the kind of high end talent that you want on Super Bowl contenders, especially at the core positions (middle of the field on defense, QB, LT, RB, #1 WR on offense). Even if you were to stretch and toss Bowe in that group (and I could easily be convinced to add him to the mix if he would just show improvement on his drop issue), that's still only two on the entire team.

4.) I don't have a man crush on Pioli. I have an interest in following his progress or lack thereof, nothing more. Frankly, it's in the best interest of my team that Pioli, Mangini, McDaniels, Crennel, Dimitroff, et al. go down in flames.

5.) You claiming that you'll give Pioli a chance would have more weight to it if you hadn't already proven that you won't actually do that.

**DaKCMan AP** · 06-01-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Tinoisamoa > Zach

Corky > kcbubb

kcbubb · 06-01-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

1.) Pioli is not a rookie

2.) Questioning professionals and thinking you can do their job better than they do are not necessarily the same thing. In your case, however, you clearly seem to think you could do a better job than a man who's won "executive of the year" on multiple occasions even when he's still in his first months of his first offseason with the new team.

5.) You claiming that you'll give Pioli a chance would have more weight to it if you hadn't already proven that you won't actually do that.

I could care less if it were Bill Parcells or Bill B. I'll question whoever on a message board. That's what they are for. I enjoy arguing with guys like you that are as hard headed as me.

Although, I will say it is rare that I argue with someone that has such a personal crush and defends everything someone does when they are criticized.

But hey, if Pioli & Haley wins some games with these old farts and makes us even somewhat competitive, I'll be the first to say that I screwed that prediction up.

Just Passin' By · 06-01-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I could care less if it were Bill Parcells or Bill B. I'll question whoever on a message board. That's what they are for. I enjoy arguing with guys like you that are as hard headed as me.

Although, I will say it is rare that I argue with someone that has such a personal crush and defends everything someone does when they are criticized.

But hey, if Pioli & Haley wins some games with these old farts and makes us even somewhat competitive, I'll be the first to say that I screwed that prediction up.

Just for you, some questions:

1.) Why not more veteran running backs to compete?

2.) What's the backup plan if Thomas gets another concussion?

3.) Why is Cassel not signed to a long-term deal and, if the Chiefs plan to hold off, why not go public with an explanation?

4.) Does he think Dorsey is a bust? If he does, why didn't he trade him prior to the draft, when he could have used the 4-3/3-4 thing as cover? If he doesn't, but he's not using Dorsey on the nose, why did he draft 2 defensive ends?

5.) Why not look to bring in a #2 receiver if he was going to get rid of Gonzalez? Is that going to wait until cuts, is he confident in what's already there, did he not like what was available... why?

See, these are questions that I'd ask if I could sit down with him over a beer. They are not, however, complaints, because it's far too early to be going down that path.

I don't defend everything. I say wait and see. There's a big difference. Frankly, there's always plenty to question, no matter who the person is. I question Belichick,and he's the best in the game. However, and again, there's a difference between having questions, and making asinine comments preferring Herm's approach over Pioli's when you haven't even seen this team on the field for the first time under Pioli yet.

Chaunceythe3rd · 06-01-2009, 01:43 PM

We aren't gonna get diddly squat better this year unless there are some veterans on the sideline to keep Haley in check and bale him out when he screws up. He needed Warner and Boldin in Arizona to knock him around every game when he had his head up his ass. Heck, Whisenhunt only let him call plays for one year and Warner was free to ignore them, which he did very regularly. We don't have the offensive talent that the Cards have so I think Haley will be unmasked early on. Pioli is not the guy for this task because he didn't have to do the same with Belichick (who would have eaten him alive). What we have here are two supposed "wonder kids" whose reputation was made on the efforts of those around them. I hope I'm wrong but I think Haley was as poor a choice as Clancy Pendergast whose AZ defense gave up as many points as the team scored all year with three games where 50 points were given up. If this is an indication of Pioli's and Haley's prowess, then I'm not impressed at all.

View Poll Results: Would you rather play the older guys or look for younger players to contribute?
We need the older guys. They provide valuable leadership.	85	82.52%
We shouldn't have signed the older guys, we should find and develop younger players and let them play.	18	17.48%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

05-27-2009, 09:24 AM
kcbubb Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $5026719	I like Herm's method better... I would rather play with a bunch of young players and develop them than sign a bunch of old guys if we know that we are going to be bad. Most people seem to believe that the Chiefs are going to be lucky to win six games. If that is the case, why not look for the next Brandon Carr, Mark Bradley or Mike Cox??? It's hard to find those guys if they don't get a chance to play. Why are we wasting this valuable playing time on players like Zach Thomas, Mike Vrabel, Mike Goff, and Bobby Engram??? I am sure that they will contribute and play well for the Chiefs at times. If we were a team that were close to making a playoff run, I would welcome the addition of the older players, but the Chiefs are still developing their roster especially with the change to the 3-4. If we are going to be bad, I would really rather see Brian Johnston play rather than Vrabel. And I would rather see Quinten Lawrence play rather than Engram. Or are you one that believes that these older players provide valuable leadership???
Posts: 2,557

06-01-2009, 01:43 PM	#165
Chaunceythe3rd Superior Breeding Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston Casino cash: $9915419	We aren't gonna get diddly squat better this year unless there are some veterans on the sideline to keep Haley in check and bale him out when he screws up. He needed Warner and Boldin in Arizona to knock him around every game when he had his head up his ass. Heck, Whisenhunt only let him call plays for one year and Warner was free to ignore them, which he did very regularly. We don't have the offensive talent that the Cards have so I think Haley will be unmasked early on. Pioli is not the guy for this task because he didn't have to do the same with Belichick (who would have eaten him alive). What we have here are two supposed "wonder kids" whose reputation was made on the efforts of those around them. I hope I'm wrong but I think Haley was as poor a choice as Clancy Pendergast whose AZ defense gave up as many points as the team scored all year with three games where 50 points were given up. If this is an indication of Pioli's and Haley's prowess, then I'm not impressed at all.
Posts: 347