Keitzman is hammering CP on 810

[The Bad Guy]

This is great radio.

He just stated a fact. Carl has drafted 3 pro bowl players on defense since he took over.

Jerome Woods, Derrick Thomas and Dale Carter are the only 3 players he has drafted on defense.

That is unbelievable. Woods got it on a sympathy vote too.

If you have time, tune in. He makes a lot of great points whether you hate him or not.

He just played clips that Carl stated he never received one ounce of negative criticism from fans. He also said that the 72,000 season ticket holders are the "real" fans.

The more I hear CP talk, the more I wish he would just vanish off the face of the earth.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Messier

I feel rotten knowing that people like Taco John really don't have to argue with people here anymore. No one makes arguments for the team anymore.

I would disagree with this statement.

[Dr. Van Halen]

Originally Posted by Messier

Number of Pro Bowlers drafted '89-'04 in afc west

Oakland-8

Chargers-7

Denver-11

Chiefs-10

Ding! Ding!

Rep.

Thus ends the Carl can't draft mantra. See, if Carl can't draft at all, like many of you contend, then why do we have an average/above average number of pro-bowlers produced by the draft? This research would be even more complete if done for the entire league, which would admittedly be a huge pain in the arse.

The Chiefs are AVERAGE at drafting. Not great. Not awful. AVERAGE. Do some fucking research, like this guy did! Jeebus H. Christo!

Seriously, if any of you fuckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Well, the Chiefs didnt 'draft' Green, so I dont think it counts for this exercise.

Should it count for San Diego?

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by
Seriously, if any of you fuckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

[size=2

ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says. [/size]

Packfan??

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen

Seriously, if any of you fuckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

Some of us fuckheads have done research. A lot of research, in fact. And the team has been where we are since 1998 - that's barely above .500 total with two winning seasons and one playoff appearance - specifically because we have been not average, not even slightly below average, but...horrible...drafting in that time.

Name for me the last successful draft the Chiefs had, where several players contributed to the team in a meaningful way for a number of years.

The answer: 1996.

As for the 'Pro Bowl argument', perhaps you should provide some more information there. For instance, is Donnie Edwards on that list? Because while we did draft him and he was once a pro bowl alternate, it wasn't as a Chief. And our last two drafted pro bowlers? Gary Stills in '99 and Dante Hall in '00. Both special teamers. We haven't drafted a pro bowl position player since Tony Gonzalez in '97. The last pro bowl defender drafted? Jerome Woods in '96.

So, in short, it's been 8 and 9 years since we drafted pro bowlers on offense and defense, respectively, and 5 years since we drafted our last pro bowl player of any kind.

Is that acceptable?

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Some of us fuckheads have done research. A lot of research, in fact. And the team has been where we are since 1998 - that's barely above .500 total with two winning seasons and one playoff appearance - specifically because we have been not average, not even slightly below average, but...horrible...drafting in that time.

Name for me the last successful draft the Chiefs had, where several players contributed to the team in a meaningful way for a number of years.

The answer: 1996.

As for the 'Pro Bowl argument', perhaps you should provide some more information there. For instance, is Donnie Edwards on that list? Because while we did draft him and he was once a pro bowl alternate, it wasn't as a Chief. And our last two drafted pro bowlers? Gary Stills in '99 and Dante Hall in '00. Both special teamers. We haven't drafted a pro bowl position player since Tony Gonzalez in '97. The last pro bowl defender drafted? Jerome Woods in '96.

So, in short, it's been 8 and 9 years since we drafted pro bowlers on offense and defense, respectively, and 5 years since we drafted our last pro bowl player of any kind.

Is that acceptable?

Well put.

You fuckhead.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen

Ding! Ding!

Rep.

Thus ends the Carl can't draft mantra. See, if Carl can't draft at all, like many of you contend, then why do we have an average/above average number of pro-bowlers produced by the draft? This research would be even more complete if done for the entire league, which would admittedly be a huge pain in the arse.

The Chiefs are AVERAGE at drafting. Not great. Not awful. AVERAGE. Do some fucking research, like this guy did! Jeebus H. Christo!

Seriously, if any of you fuckheads would actually bother doing two minutes worth of research before typing in your daily "I hate Carl" diary entry, it would be a miracle.

ps -- Just to let you know, I'm not Carl Peterson, I don't have sexual relations with Carl Peterson, I'm not overly fond of Carl Peterson, I'm often disappointed in the moves Carl Peterson makes and/or the things Carl Peterson says.

Hey, I'm the first to jump in and argue with the bashers when it's warranted and they're wrong.

But they're NOT wrong this time.

And you didn't do your case any favors by stooping to that kind of idiocy.

[Dr. Van Halen]

Originally Posted by rufusmaqe

Hey, I'm the first to jump in and argue with the bashers when it's warranted and they're wrong.

But they're NOT wrong this time.

And you didn't do your case any favors by stooping to that kind of idiocy.

I call BS!

I am tired of people on here doing ZERO research before posting.

Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.

Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.

The result? The Chiefs are AVERAGE at the draft. Carl isn't the worst drafter in NFL history (as I heard someone say on the radio the other day). Carl is AVERAGE.

My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP. (You might recall CP's bizarre and unprofessional attempt to get KK fired from channel 4.)(only part of a string of CP's unprofessional and inexcusable dealings with the media).

Too often I see the same garbage here that I hear from KK. We should all be critical listeners and attempt to discern for ourselves the truth to anything that CP, KK, or their counterparts say. The Internet gives us the tools to do this. Few of us do.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen

I call BS!

I am tired of people on here doing ZERO research before posting.

Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.

Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.

The result? The Chiefs are AVERAGE at the draft. Carl isn't the worst drafter in NFL history (as I heard someone say on the radio the other day). Carl is AVERAGE.

My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP. (You might recall CP's bizarre and unprofessional attempt to get KK fired from channel 4.)(only part of a string of CP's unprofessional and inexcusable dealings with the media).

Too often I see the same garbage here that I hear from KK. We should all be critical listeners and attempt to discern for ourselves the truth to anything that CP, KK, or their counterparts say. The Internet gives us the tools to do this. Few of us do.

That's somewhat better...you at least avoided calling everyone ****heads.

And if you were to read, you'd know why keg went back to 1998. That's when Marty left.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen

Then you have guys like keg in kc who post research that is filled with strange partial facts. For example, we are discussing Carl's ability to draft. But to attack Carl's ability to draft, keg in kc only goes back to 1998? Why that year? Possibly out of laziness. Possibly out of an incomplete set of information available to him. But most likely because it skews the data to his advantage.

Contrary to Parker's supposition that it has something to do with Marty, I go back to 1998 because that's about the time that I moved here and began to follow the Chiefs closely. I have all the information from prior drafts available, as well, but I choose to refrain from discussing anything I didn't experience personally. I think that's the right way to go about things.

Beyond that, I happen to think it's a more than substantial slice of time to discuss. How much further do we need to go back? How long are the Chiefs, as an organization, and Carl Peterson, in specific, going to be granted a pass for their performance in the early nineties? How long are we supposed to accept mediocrity? Because that's exactly what we've had for 7 years. And then I would go on to argue that recent history is much more important than more distant results. Should we all be happy with losing indefinitely because we won a Superbowl 35 years ago? I say ‘no’; I fall into the "what have you done for me lately" school.

And the answer to that question – what have you done for me lately? - is this:

Between 1998 and 2002 (I will not discuss 2003 and 2004 because I won’t judge a class or individual player until it’s had three years to prove itself) we drafted 35 players. 28 of those players are no longer on the team. Of the 7 remaining draftees, 3 are starters (Fujita, Sims and Warfield) and 4 are backups and special teamers (Bartee, Hall, Harts and Stills).

That's a 20% success rate, which is precisely why we’ve had to attempt to construct this team through free agency (look at our starting offense if you question that fact): we have, to this point, failed to fill the roster with our own draft picks. When I say that, I am not, specifically, attacking Carl's ability to draft. I don't have to. I’m simply providing facts which speak for themselves.

Messier posted complete facts. We are discussing Carl's success as a drafter (seemingly defined in the first post by pro-bowl appearances), and Messier did research and posted Carl's success compared to other teams in the division.

messier did not post “complete facts”. He posted a few raw numbers without any names and didn’t list the criteria used to compile his list. So what he posted is, in essence, meaningless until he provides more information.

My frustration is furthered by KK's rant, which also grossly skewed the "facts" by only including partial information on the Chiefs' draft record (which, again, is AVERAGE), fueled by his personal dislike for CP.

And how are you doing anything differently? As I see it, you’ve decided that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Chiefs draft record, or recent draft record if you’d prefer, since I only go back to 1998, is somehow “average”. You’re not being objective, you’ve settled on your point and you’re choosing information to fit your agenda, faulty statements like messier’s vague Pro Bowl comment.

[Chiefnj]

I've got to say that I think Marty had a fair amount of input on those early draft successes. He's gone on to have good drafts with other teams as well. Rufus will disagree, but I think Marty has a pretty decent eye for defensive talent.

[Coogs]

I have not read this whole thread, and am not going to. But I think our team mirrors Tampa Bay to a degree. Tampa Bay gave up a boat load of picks to get Gruden, and is now paying the price due to not having top draft picks for a couple of years. But at least they did win the SB for their efforts.

We, on the other hand, gave up a 2nd and a 3rd for DV. And don't get me wrong, I like DV. But I think our overall talent is hurting a bit because of those draft picks.

[Mark M]

Personally, I don't give a rat's flea infested ass how many players go to the Pro Bowl.

The only fact that matters is this:

Carl Peterson has as many Super Bowl rings as I do.

MM
~~

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Mark M

Personally, I don't give a rat's flea infested ass how many players go to the Pro Bowl.

The only fact that matters is this:

Carl Peterson has as many Super Bowl rings as I do.

MM
~~

I bet you could find one on ebay.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

I've got to say that I think Marty had a fair amount of input on those early draft successes. He's gone on to have good drafts with other teams as well. Rufus will disagree, but I think Marty has a pretty decent eye for defensive talent.

Why would I disagree?