Chiefs I like Herm's method better... - Page 5

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???

kcbubb · 05-27-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So you were all for dumping Gonzalez then, right?

under the right circumstances, I would have been for trading Tony. But I don't think a 2nd next year was enough.

tooge · 05-27-2009, 01:35 PM

They say Herms methods are unsound

Pasta Little Brioni · 05-27-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

under the right circumstances, I would have been for trading Tony. But I don't think a 2nd next year was enough.

That is the most you are going to get for a tight end that age. Even one as good as Tony.

Anyway, I agree with signing the stop gap vets and letting them play a year and replace them with superior younger talent next year. You can't fix all the holes in one offseason. Vrabel, Thomas, Goff, and Engram aren't going to be keeping young super studs off the field.

38yrsfan · 05-27-2009, 01:52 PM

Edwards was one of the worst coaches the Chiefs ever had. His first season was a carry over from better times. IMO

FAX · 05-27-2009, 02:08 PM

Herm didn't really have what you call a "method". The Chiefs were absolutely forced to go young when Herm arrived. Heck, he didn't even start the "rebuild" soon enough. Not only that, but when faced with the decision to put an old vs. young quarterback on the field, we got Humpty DumpedOnHisAss and the Amazing Nerf Ball Of Mystery.

If anything, Herm's "method" was to endlessly BS everybody until their eyes glazed over, their drool turned blue, and they started mumbling nursery rhymes. And when that stopped working, he turned to outright lies.

If he weren't such a fantastic game day coach, I'd say the guy was kind of a failure.

FAX

Pioli Zombie · 05-27-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Yes, Herms way was the best. He just needed more time.

I just spit my drink up m$y nose I was laughing so hard
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By · 05-27-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

under the right circumstances, I would have been for trading Tony. But I don't think a 2nd next year was enough.

Then you're a hypocrite. Gonzalez was old and was not going to be helping the team win in 3 years. Since the Chiefs aren't going to win this year, he needed to be gotten rid of so that the team could bring in a young player.

Your logic, not mine.

wild1 · 05-27-2009, 02:45 PM

Herm's method: from 10-6 to 2-14 in three years flat.

**DeezNutz** · 05-27-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I would really rather see Brian Johnston play rather than Vrabel.

Pioli says, "Fail."

LaChapelle · 05-27-2009, 02:54 PM

Confidence is too big of a factor in a pro athlete's sucess to waste on surrounding them with lottery picks. Two to three seasons of celler dwelling could be the difference between pro bowl and average to bust.

kcbubb · 05-27-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Then you're a hypocrite. Gonzalez was old and was not going to be helping the team win in 3 years. Since the Chiefs aren't going to win this year, he needed to be gotten rid of so that the team could bring in a young player.

Your logic, not mine.

the logic behind it would be that Tony would be different than other players mentioned bc he could have such a huge effect on the QB.

Tony is in a different class than these other players and he could help the team by helping develop the QB. Developing the QB is something that could help down the road.

milkman · 05-27-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

the logic behind it would be that Tony would be different than other players mentioned bc he could have such a huge effect on the QB.

Tony is in a different class than these other players and he could help the team by helping develop the QB. Developing the QB is something that could help down the road.

JPB is right.

You are a hypocrite.

kcbubb · 05-27-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

JPB is right.

You are a hypocrite.

ummm... on somethings yes. on this topic. no.

If Tony could help bring Cassel along, it would help this team three years from now.

Who is Zach Thomas going to help three years from now??? give me a break.

milkman · 05-27-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

ummm... on somethings yes. on this topic. no.

If Tony could help bring Cassel along, it would help this team three years from now.

Who is Zach Thomas going to help three years from now??? give me a break.

He's going to help the young guys on defense transition to a new scheme and help them learn how to prepare to play in the NFL, as is Mike Vrabel.

The fact is, those guys will do more to help the young guys grow on defense than Tony would have helped Matt Cassel.

Tony is a selfish player who would have been unhappy with the fact that Cassel will be spreading the ball around.

Just Passin' By · 05-27-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

ummm... on somethings yes. on this topic. no.

If Tony could help bring Cassel along, it would help this team three years from now.

Who is Zach Thomas going to help three years from now??? give me a break.

Are you really going to claim that there are no young defenders on the Chiefs for guys like Thomas and Vrabel to bring along?

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: $5016719	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

05-27-2009, 01:35 PM	#62
tooge MVP Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Liberty, MO Casino cash: $654112	They say Herms methods are unsound
Posts: 17,187

05-27-2009, 01:52 PM	#64
38yrsfan Veteran Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: In many minds, rent free. Casino cash: $9935667	Edwards was one of the worst coaches the Chiefs ever had. His first season was a carry over from better times. IMO __________________ During the 75 season the Chiefs mascot Warpaint would circle the field after a touchdown. This prompted a great quote from long ago Raiders coach John Madden after the 42-10 loss at Arrowhead. "We couldn't beat the Chiefs, but we damn near killed their horse."
Posts: 1,351

05-27-2009, 02:08 PM	#65
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	Herm didn't really have what you call a "method". The Chiefs were absolutely forced to go young when Herm arrived. Heck, he didn't even start the "rebuild" soon enough. Not only that, but when faced with the decision to put an old vs. young quarterback on the field, we got Humpty DumpedOnHisAss and the Amazing Nerf Ball Of Mystery. If anything, Herm's "method" was to endlessly BS everybody until their eyes glazed over, their drool turned blue, and they started mumbling nursery rhymes. And when that stopped working, he turned to outright lies. If he weren't such a fantastic game day coach, I'd say the guy was kind of a failure. FAX
Posts: 44,492

05-27-2009, 02:45 PM	#68
wild1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 31040 Casino cash: $10004900	Herm's method: from 10-6 to 2-14 in three years flat.
Posts: 6,935

05-27-2009, 02:54 PM	#70
LaChapelle Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	Confidence is too big of a factor in a pro athlete's sucess to waste on surrounding them with lottery picks. Two to three seasons of celler dwelling could be the difference between pro bowl and average to bust.
Posts: 8,588