Haley, Pioli Smelling Like Herm, Carl

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

I agree that Haley/Pioli inherited more young talent.

A better TEAM from top to bottom? Not chance. The team never improved under Edwards. Not season to season,and not game to game. They never, at any point, showed even a slight sign of progress.

Why did we replace kennison with bradley? Was he better?

Why did we replace Hall with Eddie Drummond? Was he better?

Why did we replace Casey with Rudy Assmonger? Was he better?

Why in the blue **** did Tony Richardson NOT retire a Chief?

Allen didn't leave KC because he was a bad pick,and we made no effort at all to replace his production which resulted in the worst pass rush in NFL history.

The holdovers obviously would not have been as young, but if you replace 7 minor positions with inferior players (younger or not) and the whole team gets worse.

Herm inherited a roster with few quality young players ( Allen and DJ) but lots of solid veteran talent. Much of which he chose to run off before he found a suitable replacement.

Haley inherited a team with a half dozen guys with good potential, but most of them were underachievers. The bottom 30 though was FAR worse than what herm inherited.

That's my opinion anyway.

Herm didn't run off Jared Allen. Let's make that perfectly clear. That was 190% Carl Peterson. We all know this.

Hall didn't do anything after he left. Richardson and Casey looked like they were close to done but hung on longer than expected. Kennison was finished.

Why did these decisions happen? You could ask the same questions about why we started Bobby Wade. Or Vrabel. Or O'Callaghan.

Herm/Kuharich had zero cap space and a limited number of draft picks. You can't expect anybody to turn a team in that much disarray with ONLY the draft.