Explain to me why we need to give Herm more time

[Dave Lane]

After seeing my worst fears come true in Herm with the Jetsification of the Chiefs (a top 5 draft pick) and the destruction of a team. I wonder in this microwave world of instant gratification how is it we cling to the notion 2 years doesn't set a trend especially giving his previous body of work. So I thought well surely 2 years must be handed out like candy in the past to any head coach and then it occurred to me to check the Chiefs history to confirm this.

Chiefs Head Coaches with shortest tenures:

Tom Bettis - 1977
Frank Gansz - 1987-1988
Gunther Cunningham - 1999-2000
Paul Wiggin - 1975-1977
John Mackovic - 1983-1986

Thats half of the Chiefs Head Coaches in the history of this team. 3 of them are 2 years or less. So in the present world why not cut ties with Herm. Actually excluding Herm 33% of Chiefs coaches have had a tenure of 2 years or less. And yes I know Bettis is a bad choice. Still 2 years of Herm like performance has cost coaches their jobs in the past.

Dave

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by GOATSE

Todd Collins was awesome in his last start. What'd he complete, 8 passes?

Watch the games. Like I said, the Chiefs kept the wrong guy.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Coach

And I would too. But to write off Larry Johnson as if he's like Johnny Johnson, no.

Look, it's obvious. This coaching staff does not have a clue on how to make the proper adjustments, especially after halftime.

That's one of the reasons why the Chiefs do well in the first half, but then suck major ass in the 2nd half. There is no adjustment. You have to adjust, even if things are working for you in the first half, becuase the other team will adjust their stuff to counter your best stuff that was working in the first half.

We suck in the second half because Herm Edwards believes in short practices. So we practice for an hour and half. Then we play the game and look OK for an hour and a half. When we come back out, we're tired... The other guys... Not so much.

We have many other problems as well, but this is the reason for the first/second half descrepancy, IMO...

[Eleazar]

The more time goes by, the more it sounds like Herm wanted to really rebuild and Carl was impeding him.

I'm not a Herm pimp, but seriously, nobody could have thought this team was going to be competitive. And Carl said on his radio show that they thought the oline would be good enough because they were veteran.

I don't think Herm is a good coach, but he had to know better than that.

This is 75% on Carl IMO

[ptlyon]

We fire that ****er yet?

[dallaschiefsfan]

Originally Posted by Cochise

The more time goes by, the more it sounds like Herm wanted to really rebuild and Carl was impeding him.

I'm not a Herm pimp, but seriously, nobody could have thought this team was going to be competitive. And Carl said on his radio show that they thought the oline would be good enough because they were veteran.

I don't think Herm is a good coach, but he had to know better than that.

This is 75% on Carl IMO

I can only partially agree with this. I really believe Vermeil/Saunders would have made this line competitive because they would have had them pulling more...which is what this group does well (Macintosh might be the exception). Instead, Herm stubbornly had them blocking in a way that did not accentuate this group's skills...and for that, I will not let Herm off the hook. Carl should be fired because he hired Herm...but he is partially right when he says that this group could have been decent.

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

After seeing my worst fears come true in Herm with the Jetsification of the Chiefs (a top 5 draft pick) and the destruction of a team. I wonder in this microwave world of instant gratification how is it we cling to the notion 2 years doesn't set a trend especially giving his previous body of work. So I thought well surely 2 years must be handed out like candy in the past to any head coach and then it occurred to me to check the Chiefs history to confirm this.

Chiefs Head Coaches with shortest tenures:

Tom Bettis - 1977
Frank Gansz - 1987-1988
Gunther Cunningham - 1999-2000
Paul Wiggin - 1975-1977
John Mackovic - 1983-1986

Thats half of the Chiefs Head Coaches in the history of this team. 3 of them are 2 years or less. So in the present world why not cut ties with Herm. Actually excluding Herm 33% of Chiefs coaches have had a tenure of 2 years or less. And yes I know Bettis is a bad choice. Still 2 years of Herm like performance has cost coaches their jobs in the past.

Dave

There is absolutely no reason to keep him as the HC. I don't think as poorly of Carl as most do but if we are going to do the deed we need to make a clean sweep. All Coaches as well as the GM.

[Chief Faithful]

Why do we need to give Herm more time? Because we have absolutely no say in the matter. Since I am a faithful fan I'm giving him more time.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan

I can only partially agree with this. I really believe Vermeil/Saunders would have made this line competitive because they would have had them pulling more...which is what this group does well (Macintosh might be the exception). Instead, Herm stubbornly had them blocking in a way that did not accentuate this group's skills...and for that, I will not let Herm off the hook. Carl should be fired because he hired Herm...but he is partially right when he says that this group could have been decent.

A-****ing-men. Among Herm's many problems is his absolute refusal to construct gameplans and coach to his talent. Instead of playcalling to what they do well, Herm's philosophy is to continue trying to jam square pegs into round holes.

[FringeNC]

Carl needs to go, obviously. Having said that, I don't envy having the decision to make about Herm. It's obvious that the Chiefs were just a terribly-coached team this year. Carl has to know that. But he just gave a draft pick for the guy, and if rumors are to be believed, shoved Vermeil, his friend, out the door for this guy, and Carl never admits to a mistake. My guess is Carl sides with his ego, and convinces himself that Herm isn't the disaster he appears to be.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

Since I am a faithful fan I'm giving him more time.

Wise up Slappy. Blind faith to the men running this team is idiotic. They have not proven themselves worthy of it.

[dallaschiefsfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

Why do we need to give Herm more time? Because we have absolutely no say in the matter. Since I am a faithful fan I'm giving him more time.

"'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

An over-the-top quote to be sure...but Carl/Herm are officially cancers to this organization...blind loyalty cannot be the response at this point.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan

I can only partially agree with this. I really believe Vermeil/Saunders would have made this line competitive because they would have had them pulling more...

Those guys suck ass. It's not like they are Vermeil holdovers who would be awesome if they were pulling. They could be driving tanks and they'd still have guys whipping around them like the Indy 500.

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

A-****ing-men. Among Herm's many problems is his absolute refusal to construct gameplans and coach to his talent. Instead of playcalling to what they do well, Herm's philosophy is to continue trying to jam square pegs into round holes.

It is very good to see that others realize that it's not that we don't have the talent on the team but that the HC is old school and cannot properly utilize what he has.

Why didn't Hermit throw the 65 yd pass to someone that could catch it? Why did we throw so few times to Bowe? Could it be due to the fact that Hermit wanted to lose this game? ( I don't really think so, but why would you shut out your best WR? )

[dallaschiefsfan]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Those guys suck ass. It's not like they are Vermeil holdovers who would be awesome if they were pulling. They could be driving tanks and they'd still have guys whipping around them like the Indy 500.

Sorry dude...you've said nothing convincing. We'll simply never know whether these guys really degraded as fast as people think because they instantly got thrown into a blocking system that was not their thing. Even Brian Waters wasn't up to snuff this year. Why? Because he was more suited for the previous style of pulling more often. Others can see this...you can not. We disagree. Move on.

Oh...and the middle three ARE Vermeil holdovers...

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan

Sorry dude...you've said nothing convincing. We'll simply never know whether these guys really degraded as fast as people think because they instantly got thrown into a blocking system that was not their thing. Even Brian Waters wasn't up to snuff this year. Why? Because he was more suited for the previous style of pulling more often. Others can see this...you can not. We disagree. Move on.

Oh...and the middle three ARE Vermeil holdovers...

When was McIntosh good? He's just a body. Waters is fine, but he can't block two people at once. Weigman was an undersized players specialized to that system, which left three years ago. Welborne has always sucked. Terry sucks. Svitek sucks. No one else has shown anything at all. We have 1.5 legitimate NFL offensive line starters on our roster. Our entire roster is depleted.

It just doesn't wash. There isn't anyone outside of Waters who definitely deserves to start on a good offensive line.