To the Herm haters.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Any Chiefs' fans should know that just because a first round pick is slotted in the right place, it doesn't make him a no-brainer. But let me address this question based on how these young players got their start. Recall that Albert's start at LT was largely due to a ballsy move by Herm to declare Albert the starter and move McIntosh to RT, even if many wondered if Albert should start at Guard. He cut Brackenridge to give opportunity to Leggett, benched Wesley and Knight for Pollard and Page, cut Law to start Flowers, benched Surtain to start Carr, cut two veteran fullbacks to start an undrafted rookie. These seem like small potatoes, but this kind of commitment to youth is unheard of KC, especially after we saw what happened in the Vermeil era.

Furthermore, he brought together a good group of kids. They're great character guys and for a team that young, it was remarkable that they kept such a tight locker room. I am a big believer in the idea that to develop young players, you have to get them motivated and you have to give them chances on the field--there is no substitution for a real game. If Carl Peterson had his way, the team would have brought five veterans in to try to patch up a few holes and make the team settle for 8-8. And with the cap space we had, he could have easily done it in 2 years. I think we are undermining the fact that it was ballsy to push a complete rebuild to a GM who had a history of reloading instead of rebuilding.

Had there not have been a coach to push for a complete rebuild, this team's salary cap would be strapped with a lot of average free agents that weighed down Pioli's ability to start building from the ground up. Even if some of you think this team is at Ground Zero, that's still a better situation than Peterson's usual approach of mediocre patchwork.

Once again, I am not debating any of this with you.

Yes, Herman ****ing Edwards went with youth, and the players benefitted from that experience, but the fact remains, that game experience will only so much to develop the skillls of thes player and help them reach thier potential.

In most cases, those young players were not put in position to succeed, and they weren't learning the necessary fundamentals to succeed.

Had we continued to allow Herman ****ing Edwards and his staff to "coach" these players, they would never have realized their potential, and the foundation that you claim he put into to place would have been nothing more than an illusion.

And because he failed these players, that foundation will still most likely prove to be an illusion.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

Once again, I am not debating any of this with you.

Yes, Herman ****ing Edwards went with youth, and the players benefitted from that experience, but the fact remains, that game experience will only so much to develop the skillls of thes player and help them reach thier potential.

In most cases, those young players were not put in position to succeed, and they weren't learning the necessary fundamentals to succeed.

Had we continued to allow Herman ****ing Edwards and his staff to "coach" these players, they would never have realized their potential, and the foundation that you claim he put into to place would have been nothing more than an illusion.

And because he failed these players, that foundation will still most likely prove to be an illusion.

Well, to answer your first point, getting the right players in is a big part of the battle. Making good decisions about which players should play is another, and I think that was handled effectively. And most of all, motivating these players to care is a huge part of the battle. How many young careers have been trainwrecked because they just don't give a shit about football or because they care too much about themselves?

I never disagreed with your second point. Herm was never a guy to take this team to the next level. They needed a solid tactical coach like Haley to coach them up. And I'm sure (and hoping) his coaching staff is re-teaching these guys better habits and I am definitely sure that better gameday decisions will put them in better positions to win. But I think Herm did a lot more to get the right pieces in place than he gets credit for.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Well, to answer your first point, getting the right players in is a big part of the battle. Making good decisions about which players should play is another, and I think that was handled effectively. And most of all, motivating these players to care is a huge part of the battle. How many young careers have been trainwrecked because they just don't give a shit about football or because they care too much about themselves?

I never disagreed with your second point. Herm was never a guy to take this team to the next level. They needed a solid tactical coach like Haley to coach them up. And I'm sure (and hoping) his coaching staff is re-teaching these guys better habits and I am definitely sure that better gameday decisions will put them in better positions to win. But I think Herm did a lot more to get the right pieces in place than he gets credit for.

Are you telling me that you think that Dorsey, Hali, Tyler, McBride, Page and Pollard are all going to transition to the the 34 defense?

Is that what you're telling me?

Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released.

No matter how you try to spin it, Herman ****ing Edwards stint is a failure of more than epic proportions.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by milkman

Are you telling me that you think that Dorsey, Hali, Tyler, McBride, Page and Pollard are all going to transition to the the 34 defense?

Is that what you're telling me?

Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released.

No matter how you try to spin it, Herman ****ing Edwards stint is a failure of more than epic proportions.

Sing it brother, sing it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

Are you telling me that you think that Dorsey, Hali, Tyler, McBride, Page and Pollard are all going to transition to the the 34 defense?

Is that what you're telling me?

Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released.

No matter how you try to spin it, Herman ****ing Edwards stint is a failure of more than epic proportions.

Yeah, but listen to the ridiculousness of your accusation.
"Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released."
You're saying that Herm Edwards did a poor job of building a foundation... because he wasn't able to develop players for a 3-4? Listen to yourself. You don't think that claim is slightly ridiculous? I agree that the shift to the 3-4 makes it less likely that some of these bright young players will develop into quality player... as Chiefs. But most of your argument suggests that Herm left this team an absolute mess without regard to the idea that if a new GM chose to stick with a 4-3, this team wouldn't be in nearly as big of a mess.

Again, I'm in full support of a 3-4. But the decision to switch to an entirely different defense shouldn't reflect on Herm's ability to evaluate talent.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Again, I'm in full support of a 3-4. But the decision to switch to an entirely different defense shouldn't reflect on Herm's ability to evaluate talent.

His ability to evaluate talent sucks shit. This defense regressed every year he was here.

Keep making up stuff to suit your arguments, genius.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

His ability to evaluate talent sucks shit. This defense regressed every year he was here.

Keep making up stuff to suit your arguments, genius.

The defense did not regress every year. 2006 was better than 2005. 2007 was better than 2006. We regressed in 2008 because our arrogant piece of shit General Manager traded away our best pass rusher. And again, we're not talking about overall performance. We're talking about the talent level of the players within that defense.

I hated Gunther more than anybody and I think he did a terrific job of getting the least out of the talent he was given. If the Chiefs kept Allen and replaced Gunther, this defense would have been a lot better in 2008.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The defense did not regress every year. 2006 was better than 2005. 2007 was better than 2006. We regressed in 2008 because our arrogant piece of shit General Manager traded away our best pass rusher. And again, we're not talking about overall performance. We're talking about the talent level of the players within that defense.

I hated Gunther more than anybody and I think he did a terrific job of getting the least out of the talent he was given. If the Chiefs kept Allen and replaced Gunther, this defense would have been a lot better in 2008.

THE DEFENSE REGRESSED EVERY YEAR HE WAS HERE. HE WAS NOT HERE IN 2005.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Yeah, but listen to the ridiculousness of your accusation.
"Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released."
You're saying that Herm Edwards did a poor job of building a foundation... because he wasn't able to develop players for a 3-4? Listen to yourself. You don't think that claim is slightly ridiculous? I agree that the shift to the 3-4 makes it less likely that some of these bright young players will develop into quality player... as Chiefs. But most of your argument suggests that Herm left this team an absolute mess without regard to the idea that if a new GM chose to stick with a 4-3, this team wouldn't be in nearly as big of a mess.

Again, I'm in full support of a 3-4. But the decision to switch to an entirely different defense shouldn't reflect on Herm's ability to evaluate talent.

The argument you are making is that Herman ****ing Edwards built a foundation for this team, that this team is in better shape because of Herman ****ing Edwards draft.

You didn't qualify that argument by saying that this team theoretically would have been in better shape because off Herman ****ing Edwards drafts if Clark Hunt had hired a different GM, who in turn would have hired a different HC who was commited to the 43 defense.

My argument is based on the assertion without the qaulification, because I can only argue the points you make, not the thoughts you failed to write.

But your argument is still nonsequitur, because at the end of the day, this team is still worse when Herman ****ing Edwards left than what it was when he took over, and there are only ab out 3-4 players from his drafts that will be a part of the foundation of the team that Pioli-Haley are going to build.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

The argument you are making is that Herman ****ing Edwards built a foundation for this team, that this team is in better shape because of Herman ****ing Edwards draft.

You didn't qualify that argument by saying that this team theoretically would have been in better shape because off Herman ****ing Edwards drafts if Clark Hunt had hired a different GM, who in turn would have hired a different HC who was commited to the 43 defense.

My argument is based on the assertion without the qaulification, because I can only argue the points you make, not the thoughts you failed to write.

But your argument is still nonsequitur, because at the end of the day, this team is still worse when Herman ****ing Edwards left than what it was when he took over, and there are only ab out 3-4 players from his drafts that will be a part of the foundation of the team that Pioli-Haley are going to build.

I think most coaches hired under those 3 years would have bowed to pressure from Carl Peterson, and accepted a reload. Why do I think that? Because Peterson has a long history of doing it. Instead, he'll throw a lot of money at some good not great veterans, and expect us to rejoice at a 9-7 season. We would have won more games but we would never become a Super Bowl contender. So when you say this team is worse off than in 2006...
is it really better to have won 7 games for a team that is built to win 9 games in the short-term, but not built to win a Super Bowl anytime in the future? And again... does that consider the fact that AGAIN the team was going to implode in 2007 regardless of who was coaching? (Again, it's like blaming Obama for the poor economy he inherited).

I think you are continuing to neglect that the choice to completely wipe the slate clean was a conscious decision. Maybe only 3-4 players (I think it will be more) will make it through the cut to start in a 3-4. But only one of them, Dorsey, is tied up in an unmanageable contract. The great thing about a Tank Tyler is it's a win-win proposition. If he's great, that's terrific. If he sucks, you cut him and you don't lose any money for it. This team has a clean slate, some young cheap talent to tinker with, and an enormous amount of flexibility and cap space to play with. I would rather have 2 wins with that situation than 7 wins with a team tied up in debt and a bunch of mopey, average veterans. So yes, I think that the situation we're in right now beats the hell out of the situation we would have faced if Peterson got his way in 2008.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think most coaches hired under those 3 years would have bowed to pressure from Carl Peterson, and accepted a reload. Why do I think that? Because Peterson has a long history of doing it. Instead, he'll throw a lot of money at some good not great veterans, and expect us to rejoice at a 9-7 season. We would have won more games but we would never become a Super Bowl contender. So when you say this team is worse off than in 2006...
is it really better to have won 7 games for a team that is built to win 9 games in the short-term, but not built to win a Super Bowl anytime in the future? And again... does that consider the fact that AGAIN the team was going to implode in 2007 regardless of who was coaching? (Again, it's like blaming Obama for the poor economy he inherited).

I think you are continuing to neglect that the choice to completely wipe the slate clean was a conscious decision. Maybe only 3-4 players (I think it will be more) will make it through the cut to start in a 3-4. But only one of them, Dorsey, is tied up in an unmanageable contract. The great thing about a Tank Tyler is it's a win-win proposition. If he's great, that's terrific. If he sucks, you cut him and you don't lose any money for it. This team has a clean slate, some young cheap talent to tinker with, and an enormous amount of flexibility and cap space to play with. I would rather have 2 wins with that situation than 7 wins with a team tied up in debt and a bunch of mopey, average veterans. So yes, I think that the situation we're in right now beats the hell out of the situation we would have faced if Peterson got his way in 2008.

So we were in better shape because of his drafts.

Now it's we're in better shape because of the cap space.

In all the years that Carl was in charge, how many times were we actually limited by the cap?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

Are you telling me that you think that Dorsey, Hali, Tyler, McBride, Page and Pollard are all going to transition to the the 34 defense?

Is that what you're telling me?

Most of these guys, because of Herman ****ing Edwards failure as the coach of the Kansas City Chiefs will now be put in a better position to succeed when they are either traded or released.

No matter how you try to spin it, Herman ****ing Edwards stint is a failure of more than epic proportions.

And for the record.... the personnel decisions only affect our defensive line. I think DJ and Demorrio Williams will transition nicely into the interior. The safeties will be MUCH better, now that they don't have to cover an insane amount of real estate. And we've got a really solid core of young corners like Flowers, Carr, and Leggett... and now Donald Washington too. On the D-line side, you're absolutely right that there is going to be some waste there. I personally doubt that Hali and Turk are going to be phased out.

But again... you say that if we keep a small group of core players, then the entire Herm stint is wasted. I don't agree with that at all. Again, the decision to gut the team entirely was a really bold one. And it was a move that puts us in a far more favorable cap position and doesn't force us to give preference to a bunch of older veterans who have a sense of entitlement. If anything, the moves made in 2008 give Pioli a lot of flexibility to quickly make this team his own.