Will Grbac succeed or fail in Baltimore?...

[Chiefs Pantalones]

Just curious as to what everyone thinks...

Why will he or won't he succeed, will he win over the fans, will he give Bmore back to back Championships, etc?

CG

and if no one wants to discuss this, thats fine. If you guys feel this has been beaten into the ground, I'll delete this topic, if ya'll want me too.:D

I'm a nice guy:p

[Baby Lee]

[quote] It takes the same EXACT qualities to win regular season games and postseason games. [/quote]

As much as I love Marty, and as much as I hate the 'Boys, that is not an accurate statement. Teams like the Cowboys and 49ers clearly had an 'extra gear' come playoff time. How many times would we punk a Dallas, SanFran, Pittsburgh, GreenBay, etc. in the regular season, then watch from the couch as they punked their playoff and/or SB opponents?

[Cannibal]

I guess now that Marty is gone were going straight to the Superbowl:rolleyes:

Oh wait a second, he's been gone three years but for some reason we're basically the exact same team we were when he left three years ago... gee, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

It's like talking to brick wall around here...

[KCTitus]

Cmon Cannibal, Marty may have been gone but his influence was still here because his staff was still here. They type of players that KC went after and they style of offense remained the same.

I will say this about Marty, had he been HC the last two years, in 99, KC would have won the Jan 2 game and lost in the first round of the playoffs, and Marty would have coached the team to a 10-6 record last year and lost again in the first round of the playoffs--Marty would have won those 3 games that the coaching staff lost last year.

[Cannibal]

To think that Marty is the reason we have this lack of skill position players, or the reason we have the cap problems we have, or the reason we still don't have a complete team is denial IMO, or else naive.

[Packfan]

Cannibal,

Its easy for MANY chief fans to blame players/coaches who are no longer with the organization. You try pointing out to them that he had Steve Bono, Elvis Grbac, Dave Krieg, Lake Dawson, Brett Periman, Sean LaChappel, Jonathan Hayes, Derrick Walker, Chris Penn, Harvey Williams, and Greg Hill as his main group of offensive players during his tenure. Not exactly a who's who list of hall of famers here. IMO, this is a bunch of dog shit crap when it comes to moving the ball and scoring some points. Marty was a miracle worker. HE is the one who turned around the KC Chiefs. Sure, Carl hired him and drafted DT, that certainly helps. But there arent many coaches out there that could get the Chiefs to the playoffs year in and year out with that sorry group of castoffs.

Fans that think differently simply dont understand the game.

If it was Marty's fault for Elliott missing all those field goals, then whos fault is it for the piss poor kicking game the Chiefs have had since his departure??? Kickers are point makers/field position makers. Its one of the most important positions on the team. Carl has given it as much thought as who the waterboy is.

If the Packers cant win the Super Bowl this year, I am hoping the Redskins do and finally put to rest this assisnine argument about Marty's coaching ability.

It takes talent, first and foremost, to win super bowls. Holmgren is a great coach, but you think the Packers win the super bowl with Bono instead of Favre and with Brenston Buckner instead of Reggie White?

[Cannibal]

[QUOTE]It takes talent, first and foremost, to win super bowls. Holmgren is a great coach, but you think the Packers win the super bowl with Bono instead of Favre and with Brenston Buckner instead of Reggie White?[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more.

If Holmgren did have to use Steve Bono and Brenston Buckner you can damn sure bet these same people would be blaming Mike Holmgren, rather than the person who brought in Bono and Buckner for Holmgren to use.

To take it a step further.

Would Bill Walsh have won the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc? NO

Would Shannahan have won the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc.? NO

Would [b]anyone[/b] win the Superbowl with Elliot, Bono, Birden etc.? NO

[milkman]

You guys aren't reading a damn thing we're saying.
I said it over and over again, and I'm going to say it one more time.

[B]I didn't expect Marty to win the SB with the talent he had, but I did expect him to win a playoff game or two, against the likes of Indy in '95 and SD in "93(?).
I did expect him to try and score TDs, rather than always be so willing to settle for FGs.
I expected him to attack the defense aggressively when in scoring position.
I wanted a play to win philosophy.
I didn't want a ****in' coward that was afraid of losing. [/B]

You want to blame a lack of talent on CP, fine, I agree.
But [B]Marty gets the blame for the cowardly game plans.[/B]

[Chiefs Pantalones]

I think you're all wrong.

It was not Marty's fault.

It was not Carl's fault.

It was that danged 'El Ninyo.


:D

[Cannibal]

I have already responded to the "play to win" philosophy.

It's hard to "play to win" when you lack talent.

Our conservative gameplans were divised because of our lack of talent.

The Browns scored A LOT in the playoffs under Schottenheimer.

Although, I do think Marty's choices at OC left a lot to be desired. Hackett was horrible.

[KCTitus]

[i]To think that Marty is the reason we have this lack of skill position players, or the reason we have the cap problems we have, or the reason we still don't have a complete team is denial IMO, or else naive[/i]

Marty did have personnel control starting in the 1996 season. If I recall that's when KC started signing some of their biggest malcontents and cap problem children.

Please dont absolve Marty. He was as much a part of the problem.

As far as this silly win the SB talk. There's not a single person on this BB who is saying that KC should have won the SB in 1995. NO one is saying that. Should they have beaten the Colts or Steelers? I tend to think so had KC played the SAME style of football they played in the regular season.

Geez, talk about talking to a brick wall.

[Cannibal]

Not according to Carl Peterson.

He has stated that he has always been in control of personell.

And even if Marty was in control from 96 to 98, that still gives Peterson the vast majority of the crappy players we've had while he's been here.

[KCTitus]

For someone who dislikes/distrusts Peterson, you sure put a lot of 'faith' in those words. If Peterson were truly an egomaniac wouldnt you expect him to say that?

Prior to the 96 season, both Peterson and Marty signed new deals. As part of Marty's deal, he had more control over new personnel. Yes, Peterson did ultimately sign the players, but Marty did have an influence on who KC picked up.

Im not willing to absolve Marty of his share of the blame as some here. It's obvious from his coaching and FA signings in Washington.

[Cannibal]

I fully admit that Marty has made bad decisions in the playoffs.

But overall, the reason we are in the position we are in now, and the overall talent level of the team over last 12 years, and the horrible cap problems we have endured, is strictly the fault of Carl Peterson.

Peterson should have left with Schottenheimer 3 years ago.

[Cannibal]

Until Carl puts a complete team on the field, we'll always go 8-8 to 10-6 and either not make the playoffs, or lose in the first round.

[Cannibal]

Is something wrong with the BB?

I posted replies but they did not go to the top and did not say that I responded last.