Do you prefer the "old"/Vermeil style or the "new"/Herm style of play?

[FloridaMan88]

Vermeil-era vs Herm-era (all 2 games of it) by the numbers from today's KC Star:


New vs. Old: Comparing two coaches' styles
The Kansas City Star
It’s been only two games, but here’s how the Chiefs have fared in Herm Edwards’ brief tenure as coach (top) compared with five seasons under Dick Vermeil.


Edwards Category Vermeil
8.0 Points for 27.0
16.0 Points against 22.9
129.0 Rush offense 137.3
130.5 Rush defense 124.4
153.5 Pass offense 243.6
146.5 Pass defense 232.4

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Cormac

I never thought we were overmatched to the point of pessimism.

You didn't?

Not even the day before travelling to Pile High?

BE HONEST.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You didn't?

Not even the day before travelling to Pile High?

BE HONEST.

How much of that was about not having Green rather than not having Vermeil?

I don't feel real confident going in with Damon Huard, regardless of the coach.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by jspchief

How much of that was about not having Green rather than not having Vermeil?

I don't feel real confident going in with Damon Huard, regardless of the coach.

I wasn't talking about last weekend.

Cormac was talking about how, with VERMEIL, he always felt like we could beat anybody. He said he NEVER felt we were overmatched to the point that he was pessimistic.

I'm saying he's really not thinking his answer through.

Because anybody that thought we had even a CHANCE at Denver or Minnesota in 2003, or at Denver ANYTIME during Vermeil's tenure here was watching the game with rose-colored glasses...

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by Cormac

Herm is behind the 8-ball because of player age and the loss of Roaf, Green, Welbourn and T-Rich. He can never have the same offensive success as we had under DV for those reasons. I fully recognise and acknowledge this fact.

However......

Whenever our team took the field under DV I felt like we should win. On any given day we could beat anybody. I never thought we were overmatched to the point of pessimism. The offense was so potent, our STs were strong (in the first few years), and all it would take was ONE stop by our defense. As it turned out, often enough they couldn't even do that. But they were exciting years, he brought in many quality players like Holmes, Roaf and Green that will go down in Chiefs lore as great players, and he rebuilt a team lacking in character and confidence.

For those reasons, I far prefer the DV era so far. Herm doesn't give me any of the same feeling that he knows what he's doing. He's fighting an uphill battle right now, especially given the loss of personnel.

JMO.

I agree with this assessment. I much prefer to see offense. (I think it's time for some NFL rule changes. Virtually no team can pass protect against today's defenses. College football has become more entertaining to watch.)

Having said that, and having been a Herm basher in the past, I recognize that with no pass protection and/or a backup QB in there, Herm's hands are a little tied. That excuse only takes you so far though. Didn't we put up about 500 yards and 40 points against Houston last year with Jordan Black at left tackle? So when Trent gets back...

I'm keeping an open mind with Herm. When Trent gets back, we better not be playing for field goals, but I do tip my hat a little to Herm for almost pulling a game out at Denver with Huard as the QB.

I think it's too early to judge Herm one way or another.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Didn't we put up about 500 yards and 40 points against Houston last year with Jordan Black at left tackle? S

Exactly.

I'll kill Herm if he tries to reign us in.

[Cormac]

htismaqe,

Actually, I always thought we had a shot. I am sure there were individual games here and there during DV's tenure when I wasn't so confident, but on the whole we were competitive going into any game, IMO. I know we got our asses handed to us a few times in Denver. The memory of that game in 2003 is enough to make me puke, but before kickoff I was ready to see them kick some ass. This year's trip to Denver was dead in the water before we even got there as far as I was concerned. A lot had to do with the loss of personnel, as I said, but Herm just doesn't inspire me. I wish he did. I wasn't happy when he was hired. I tried to see the positive, but it's just not happening. I do hope he succeeds, but I have major doubts.

I didn't watch the last game because it wasn't on locally and I had too much other stuff going on to go to a bar. I wish I'd seen it just to see what improvements the D really made. But the few highlights shown on ESPN were of Plummer making typically pathetic throws and the intended receivers were wide open on occasion.

In DV's defense, I thought we had a really solid team last year. We could have made a run like Pittsburgh, IMO, had we not lost Roaf to injury. Those games kept us out of the playoffs. The way we played late in the season, nobody would have wanted to face us in the playoffs.

JMO.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I wasn't talking about last weekend.

Cormac was talking about how, with VERMEIL, he always felt like we could beat anybody. He said he NEVER felt we were overmatched to the point that he was pessimistic.

I'm saying he's really not thinking his answer through.

Because anybody that thought we had even a CHANCE at Denver or Minnesota in 2003, or at Denver ANYTIME during Vermeil's tenure here was watching the game with rose-colored glasses...

I understand what he is saying which is basically our offense was so good it could score at will on anyone at anytime. Did it happen all the time no but going into games you knew the O would be there and all the D needed to do was get 1-2 stops per game.

[cdcox]

A tale of two coaches...

It was the best of units. It was the worst of units.

The situations are quite parallel.

Vermeil took over a team that was percieved to be stronger on defense upon his arrival and devoted most of his attention to developing the offense. Several key additions (Green, Holmes, and Wiegmann) were made immediately to improve the offensive unit. In truth the defensive unit was already in strong decline and had several large holes that only got larger with time. Failure to address the issue resulted in the tragic wasting of one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history.

Herm took over a team that was percieved to be stronger on offense upon his arrival and devoted most of his attention to developing defense. Several key additions (Law, Hali, Edwards, Reed, Pollard, Page) were made immediately to improve the defensive unit. In truth the offensive unit was already in strong decline and had several large holes that will only get larger with time. Failure to address the issue wiil result in an ineffective team.

Herm can be more sucessful than Vermeil only by being more successful in revamping the "other" side of the ball. Edwards has the advantage that the warning bell is ringing earlier and louder, but he probably won't get as long to fix the problem.

I have no preference for building one side of the ball over the other. Both a good offense and good defense are needed to consistently win. I prefer Vermeil's aggressive attitude toward taking advantage of scoring opportunities and beating a team while you are beating them, compared to Herm's conservative approach to minimizing mistakes. I prefer to tolerate a little more risk in order to gain access to much better benefits. I prefer Herm's understanding that playing well against good teams on the road is a true measure of a team's toughness and his ability to have them ready for such situations. I don't see these two traits as mutually exclusive.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Exactly.

I'll kill Herm if he tries to reign us in.

.... Germ warfare revolution part deux.

[Cormac]

I'm not an offense homer, either. I scream as loud as anybody on 3rd down when I get to go to a game, but if you're completely hamstrung by one side of the ball, I prefer to have a strong offense.

To put it another way - however frustrating it is to give up big plays on 3rd down defense, I hate it when you run or throw a 4 yard route on 3rd and 8. Hate it.

[chiefsfan1963]

DV and AS did a fabulous job here in KC. The team that Herm inherited was not in shambles unlike what DV inherited. Comparing the two is an APPLES To Oranges comparison. People like htis are "black and white" in their analysis and critiques.

The real problem is not the HC staff, but the common denominator that each HC has, namely CP!

It's a collective effort within the whole organization that ultimately determines who succeeds each year or not.

Marty and DV could have and Herm can succeed here if CP was not part of the equation.

I think my point will be proven this year expecially if Marty can take SD to the AFC Championship and beyond. I look at that team and the balance of offensive and defensive playmakers and I credit the GM's abilities for making that happen whereas during the 90's KC was dominate on D for most of the decade and below average at best on O. Marty did the best he could with what he had. CP did not do his job in helping Marty complete the team. The result was HEARTACHE for CHief's fans followed by IMPLOSION!!!!!!!!!!!!

The same can be said with DV/AS but it was the Offense that was dominate and the D lacking!


Once CP leaves, finding the right GM will be key!

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Cormac

htismaqe,

Actually, I always thought we had a shot. I am sure there were individual games here and there during DV's tenure when I wasn't so confident, but on the whole we were competitive going into any game, IMO. I know we got our asses handed to us a few times in Denver. The memory of that game in 2003 is enough to make me puke, but before kickoff I was ready to see them kick some ass. This year's trip to Denver was dead in the water before we even got there as far as I was concerned. A lot had to do with the loss of personnel, as I said, but Herm just doesn't inspire me. I wish he did. I wasn't happy when he was hired. I tried to see the positive, but it's just not happening. I do hope he succeeds, but I have major doubts.

I didn't watch the last game because it wasn't on locally and I had too much other stuff going on to go to a bar. I wish I'd seen it just to see what improvements the D really made. But the few highlights shown on ESPN were of Plummer making typically pathetic throws and the intended receivers were wide open on occasion.

In DV's defense, I thought we had a really solid team last year. We could have made a run like Pittsburgh, IMO, had we not lost Roaf to injury. Those games kept us out of the playoffs. The way we played late in the season, nobody would have wanted to face us in the playoffs.

JMO.

I was firmly convinced prior to Sunday that we were gonna get trounced too. But it wasn't because of Herm, it was because of VERMEIL.

5 straight years of getting embarrassed doesn't give on much hope, and it's VERMEIL that sucked the hope out of me, not Herm.

[2112]

Originally Posted by cdcox

A tale of two coaches...

It was the best of units. It was the worst of units.

The situations are quite parallel.

Vermeil took over a team that was percieved to be stronger on defense upon his arrival and devoted most of his attention to developing the offense. Several key additions (Green, Holmes, and Wiegmann) were made immediately to improve the offensive unit. In truth the defensive unit was already in strong decline and had several large holes that only got larger with time. Failure to address the issue resulted in the tragic wasting of one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history.

Herm took over a team that was percieved to be stronger on offense upon his arrival and devoted most of his attention to developing defense. Several key additions (Law, Hali, Edwards, Reed, Pollard, Page) were made immediately to improve the defensive unit. In truth the offensive unit was already in strong decline and had several large holes that will only get larger with time. Failure to address the issue wiil result in an ineffective team.

Herm can be more sucessful than Vermeil only by being more successful in revamping the "other" side of the ball. Edwards has the advantage that the warning bell is ringing earlier and louder, but he probably won't get as long to fix the problem.

I have no preference for building one side of the ball over the other. Both a good offense and good defense are needed to consistently win. I prefer Vermeil's aggressive attitude toward taking advantage of scoring opportunities and beating a team while you are beating them, compared to Herm's conservative approach to minimizing mistakes. I prefer to tolerate a little more risk in order to gain access to much better benefits. I prefer Herm's understanding that playing well against good teams on the road is a true measure of a team's toughness and his ability to have them ready for such situations. I don't see these two traits as mutually exclusive.

well said!!!!
well done!!!
great post!!!

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I understand what he is saying which is basically our offense was so good it could score at will on anyone at anytime. Did it happen all the time no but going into games you knew the O would be there and all the D needed to do was get 1-2 stops per game.

Yet they never did.

[TinyEvel]

Originally Posted by Cormac

However......

Whenever our team took the field under DV I felt like we should win. On any given day we could beat anybody. I never thought we were overmatched to the point of pessimism.
JMO.

Agree with that. I can't remember us being a double-digit underdog at any time in recent years. If Green was still in, I bet the spread would have been 7 or 8.

I think it's way too soon to start comparing Herm & Vermiel's records.

Our O points went down when Roaf was on the DL last year and we had to keep Gonzo on the line for protection. I think they haven't worked out all the kinks we saw in the preseason. They'll get better with each game. We just don't have a lot of time for that to come around. This bye and our week 4 adn 5 schedule could not have suited us any better.