Do you prefer the "old"/Vermeil style or the "new"/Herm style of play? - Page 2

htismaqe · 09-19-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

"We were a double-digit underdog last weekend BECAUSE OF VERMEIL."

So you're saying that the line on the game was IN NO WAY influenced by that last 5 years results in the same game?

PastorMikH · 09-19-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

We haven't seen enough to know what Herm's style is.

Ditto.

Now, if the question is whether I'd rather lose with our O scoring 40+ or lose with our O scoring 3, the answer is neither.

If you ask me which coach I think gives us a better chance of winning, I have to go with Herm at this point. Herm is at least concerned with the O. He may not have the answers, but he's concerned. DV wouldn't even recognize the problem with the D while his buddy GR was there. Which leads me to my second point, Herm doesn't appear loyal to a player. He will put a multi-million dollar player on the bench and put a younger player in (Hicks and Knight at this point, Bell may not be far behind). DV's loyalty was commendable at times and condemable at others.

Stinger · 09-19-2006, 08:58 AM

Always have and always will like smash mouth football. Give me a good D to watch and I am happy. Herm was delt a blow will Roaf and Trent. So any offensive now activity is a not really conclusive on how it will be for the tenure of Herm.

That said give me a defense that goes out and hits people hard and my personal opinion it is just as exciting as watching a high powered offense.

**KC Dan** · 09-19-2006, 09:06 AM

I prefer victories, call me silly. DV didn't get us to the playoffs = F. Herm is 0-2 = D- but too soon for final grade here

**Bearcat** · 09-19-2006, 09:22 AM

I dunno... how about comparing Herm's first 2 games vs. DV's first 2 games

Hammock Parties · 09-19-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I dunno... how about comparing Herm's first 2 games vs. DV's first 2 games

It's not really a valid comparison because this team is much more talented than our 2001 squad.

Herm has done a wonderful job with the defense. It's too early to tell if he's really ****ed up the offense, but the retirement of Roaf and Welbourn and Green's injury didn't help.

**Bearcat** · 09-19-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

It's not really a valid comparison because this team is much more talented than our 2001 squad.

Herm has done a wonderful job with the defense. It's too early to tell if he's really ****ed up the offense, but the retirement of Roaf and Welbourn and Green's injury didn't help.

That was sort of my point... Vermeil had his players.. Holmes, Green, Gonzo... but it wasn't magic on day 1 (he went 0-2, btw). PPG, our defense wasn't all that bad that year, either. It was way too early to tell if he ****ed up the defense.

And who knows about our defense this year... there's definitely a difference in attitude, but it's 2 games... and Denver wore them down. On Offense, it's 2 games with a new HC and OC, and almost a game and a half of it has been without Trent Green.

Two games into Herm's tenure, and I'm undecided... just like two games into DV's tenure.

Cormac · 09-19-2006, 09:43 AM

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.

Wile_E_Coyote · 09-19-2006, 09:38 AM

winning is what matters, it's the transition that sucks

ck_IN · 09-19-2006, 09:55 AM

I'd vote for Herm's because Herm seems to be developing a TEAM.

DV couldn't have cared less about the team becausue it only suited his goals to develop an OFFENSE.

Hydrae · 09-19-2006, 10:00 AM

Having fallen in love with this team during the 1990 season, I really enjoyed the game on Sunday. Defense is my preference and it is looking like we will have one of those under Herm.

It would be nice to expect the offense to be able to move the ball and score though. With Trent in there though I think we would have gone downfield occassionally. Once that happens, I think we will see that this team is pretty well balanced right now. We may be 0-2 but I am not writing off our post season chances yet, no matter what the talking heads have to say on the matter.

**cdcox** · 09-19-2006, 10:28 AM

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.

**2112** · 09-19-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

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!!!

NJ Chief Fan · 09-19-2006, 10:32 AM

IDK due to inconclusive evidence

Hound333 · 09-19-2006, 11:33 AM

I would prefer that we had a good offense and a good defense. I would prefer that we go to the superbowl and dominate 55-0. I would prefer that every team in the league would bow down and kiss the feet of the greatest team ever assembled.

*lays down crack pipe*

I just want to win a game this year.

View Poll Results: Do you prefer the Vermeil-style of play or the Herm-style of play?
Vermeil style	31	43.66%
Herm style	22	30.99%
Neither	18	25.35%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

09-19-2006, 08:58 AM	#3
Stinger Bazinga Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Springfield, MO Casino cash: $1934507	Always have and always will like smash mouth football. Give me a good D to watch and I am happy. Herm was delt a blow will Roaf and Trent. So any offensive now activity is a not really conclusive on how it will be for the tenure of Herm. That said give me a defense that goes out and hits people hard and my personal opinion it is just as exciting as watching a high powered offense. __________________
Posts: 10,320

09-19-2006, 09:06 AM	#4
KC Dan Red, White & Blue for the U.S. Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Great Northwest now.. Casino cash: $-2345765	I prefer victories, call me silly. DV didn't get us to the playoffs = F. Herm is 0-2 = D- but too soon for final grade here __________________ "And if you don't know where you're going Any road will take you there" - George Harrison
Posts: 7,088

09-19-2006, 09:22 AM	#5
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $-1165069	I dunno... how about comparing Herm's first 2 games vs. DV's first 2 games __________________
Posts: 59,668

09-19-2006, 09:43 AM	#8
Cormac Haley sceptic.... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: waiting it out....... Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 2,406

09-19-2006, 09:38 AM	#9
Wile_E_Coyote avatar down for remodel Join Date: Jul 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	winning is what matters, it's the transition that sucks
Posts: 6,009

09-19-2006, 09:55 AM	#10
ck_IN Feels so good. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	I'd vote for Herm's because Herm seems to be developing a TEAM. DV couldn't have cared less about the team becausue it only suited his goals to develop an OFFENSE. __________________ As sweet as Tupelo Honey
Posts: 2,718

09-19-2006, 10:00 AM	#11
Hydrae MVP Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Newport, Or Casino cash: $-1223000	Having fallen in love with this team during the 1990 season, I really enjoyed the game on Sunday. Defense is my preference and it is looking like we will have one of those under Herm. It would be nice to expect the offense to be able to move the ball and score though. With Trent in there though I think we would have gone downfield occassionally. Once that happens, I think we will see that this team is pretty well balanced right now. We may be 0-2 but I am not writing off our post season chances yet, no matter what the talking heads have to say on the matter.
Posts: 14,861

09-19-2006, 10:28 AM	#12
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $-648231	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.
Posts: 46,037

09-19-2006, 10:32 AM	#14
NJ Chief Fan DAMMIT CARL! Join Date: Mar 2005 Casino cash: $10004900	IDK due to inconclusive evidence
Posts: 2,510

09-19-2006, 11:33 AM	#15
Hound333 Starter Join Date: Jul 2006 Casino cash: $7265392	I would prefer that we had a good offense and a good defense. I would prefer that we go to the superbowl and dominate 55-0. I would prefer that every team in the league would bow down and kiss the feet of the greatest team ever assembled. lays down crack pipe I just want to win a game this year.
Posts: 654