Chiefs Players: Don't Blame Herm

[KCJohnny]

Chiefs Players: Don't Blame Herm

• Among the players lobbying for Herm Edwards’ retention as Chiefs coach was QB Tyler Thigpen, whom Edwards has identified as his anticipated starter in 2009 should he be around to make that decision.

“I hope we’re not playing for his job,” said Thigpen, who saw the Chiefs build the “Pistol” offense around his spread-quarterback abilities at midseason.

“We’ve had some tough ones this year, but I don’t think his job should be in jeopardy,” Thigpen added. “He’s done what he should have done this year. Don’t blame him at all. If anyone wants to say that, come take it up with me.”

• Added Pro Bowl G Brian Waters, who was selected to his fourth Pro Bowl last week:

“Herm, without a shadow of a doubt, is the most resilient person in this organization. He understands the cards he was dealt when he got here (in 2006), and he understands what he has to deal with this season.

“If anybody leads by example, it’s him. He comes to work every day with the same energy, and he has not let this situation affect him one way or another. I don’t know of many coaches that could hold it together through the things we’ve had to go through for the past three years. I think a lot of coaches in that situation would be looking for the door.”

Reading the tea leaves, if Edwards is retained, Thiggy could be his guy. With Quinn Gray as a similarly styled athletic shotgun QB, the mold could be set for Pistol II. Chan Gailey is somehow omitted from the article, the true architect of the KC Pistol. I am wondering if Gailey's style of offense is ultimately welcome in Herm's scheme of maneuver. The low TOP figures (a mere 25 minutes last Sunday) and low rushing attempts (just 15 carries for RBs) are not BucBall.

I think that if Herm is retained (as some players seem to support) that Gailey should be given a blank check and maybe even some more weapons. Clearly, the emerging strength of the team is it's offense. Makes you wonder what a new GM/HC tandem might do with the Chiefs' roster...

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

The coach is certainly responsible for wins and losses. But that has to come with some understanding of what the team makeup is, and the level of talent currently on the team. You have to factor in the team youth and inexperience. You could pick your favorite head coach and put him in charge of the youngest team in the league, and his record would be less than his coaching average. Lots of people point to the overall record as proof positive of failure, but you have to keep in mind what the expectations were before the season started. Most everyone saw what the team was going to be made of before the season started and picked us to win 0-5 games. Now our 2 wins are being held as justification for failure, even though it was seen as expected growing pains beforehand.

Second half point are a concern. But I see us doing the same things in the second half that we're doing in the first, and not executing them the same way. LJ is no longer running up the center's ass, so that has changed since last year. Cover 2 is a failure with this personnel, and a big negative on Herm's philosophy.

overall record is not what i'm basing my argument off of. over the past two seasons, there has been no improvement from the players. break the last two seasons down into 4 game sections, and there should be improvement, one 4 game stretch to the next. say we were to start off 0-4. the following four games should be better, but if you break it down like this, there are an awful lot of 0-4's with a couple of 1-3's, showing little to no improvement. a good coach could coach even a young team to a better record than what herm has done with these chiefs, as i think there is some talent on this team.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

No he doesn't. I understand they came from the same "tree". But I think it ended when they fell from the tree.

Ask me again in 10 years......

do they not have the same coaching philosophy??? a lot their players are the same type of players too. Tony of course inherited Manning.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

overall record is not what i'm basing my argument off of. over the past two seasons, there has been no improvement from the players. break the last two seasons down into 4 game sections, and there should be improvement, one 4 game stretch to the next. say we were to start off 0-4. the following four games should be better, but if you break it down like this, there are an awful lot of 0-4's with a couple of 1-3's, showing little to no improvement. a good coach could coach even a young team to a better record than what herm has done with these chiefs, as i think there is some talent on this team.

If you haven't seen any improvement from the players then you're a damn fool.

And if overall record is not what you're basing your argument off of, then why do you go right into breaking the overall record down into increments for your support? It's still the overall record. You're still looking at the overall record, Ws and Ls, you're just breaking it up into smaller pieces. You're still looking for chronological improvement in wins and losses. You're equating improvement directly with the W-L record.

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

If you haven't seen any improvement from the players then you're a damn fool.

And if overall record is not what you're basing your argument off of, then why do you go right into breaking the overall record down into increments for your support? It's still the overall record. You're still looking at the overall record, Ws and Ls, you're just breaking it up into smaller pieces. You're equating improvement directly with the W-L record.

really though, whats the point of improvement, if your not looking at w -l? if the cheifs were 6-25 over the last two seasons, with the majority of those wins coming late this season, that would mark improvement so the record wouldn't matter. breaking it down like i did would show improvment over time, if there were any. yes, i've seen some indidviual improvemnet, especially on offense, but we're back to where we were when herm took over, just younger. the makings of a great offense, with the #32 defense.

[WilliamTheIrish]

For the record, I won't blame Herm. He was put in a no-win situation. Carl gave him the job, and the players. Herm chose to accept the job as it was presented.

My problem with Herm is I just don't think he's a good NFL head coach. Also, I want the new GM to name his own guy. We don't need to keep anything from this good ol' boy network that Carl built around him,to suit the players good feelings.

If Herm is lost as collateral damage, so be it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

His win loss record tells the story....Period.

No, it doesn't.

Was Dick Vermeil a shitty coach in Philadelphia for the first four years of his tenure? Was Vermeil a shitty coach in St. Louis his first two years?

I could go on and on and on around the league. Every situation is different. I don't think you'd find anyone working in the NFL that would compare Herm Edwards to coaches like Frank Gansz, Frank Kush, Richie Kotite, etc. Edwards may not be a great coach at this point but when given adequate players, he's certainly average or slightly above.

The Chiefs were in dire need of rebuilding in 2006, yet the front office decided to continue their same ways until 2008. You can't get blood from a turnip.

And anyone that expected more than 3 wins from a team that just traded its best player and is playing 17 rookies was fooling themselves.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Brock

Dungy has only had one losing season in his career. So no, not so much.

Dungy has had the privilege of working with Bill Polian and Rich McKay.

Herm got Carl Peterson and Terry Bradway (Peterson clone).

That's not quite the same.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No, it doesn't.

Was Dick Vermeil a shitty coach in Philadelphia for the first four years of his tenure? Was Vermeil a shitty coach in St. Louis his first two years?

I could go on and on and on around the league. Every situation is different. I don't think you'd find anyone working in the NFL that would compare Herm Edwards to coaches like Frank Gansz, Frank Kush, Richie Kotite, etc. Edwards may not be a great coach at this point but when given adequate players, he's certainly average or slightly above.

The Chiefs were in dire need of rebuilding in 2006, yet the front office decided to continue their same ways until 2008. You can't get blood from a turnip.

And anyone that expected more than 3 wins from a team that just traded its best player and is playing 17 rookies was fooling themselves.

To be fair, this team could easily be 7-8 or 8-7 if they had a decent coaching staff, IMHO.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Coach

To be fair, this team could easily be 7-8 or 8-7 if they had a decent coaching staff, IMHO.

I don't see it that way.

Maybe if the right side of the offensive line wasn't pure and utter shit. And maybe if the Chiefs actually had a linebacking corp AND one true pass rushing defensive end.

To be quite honest, I don't even know how they've managed to be so close in so many games while lacking so much talent.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't see it that way.

Maybe if the right side of the offensive line wasn't pure and utter shit. And maybe if the Chiefs actually had a linebacking corp AND one true pass rushing defensive end.

To be quite honest, I don't even know how they've managed to be so close in so many games while lacking so much talent.

I understand your opinion, and I respect that. The right side of the O-line is "questionable" at best to midly put it. However, if we had a defense, like you mentioned, it is possible. No argument here on the defense.

Yet, at the same time, everybody knows that Herm doesn't play to win the game. The Chiefs never had trouble being the aggressers in the first half of the game. Yet after halftime, they couldn't score. How much of this is attributed to coaching philosophy changing/adjustment? If the Chiefs had a decent coach who could manage the game clock a bit better, and doesn't go to a shell in the 2nd half, who knows where the Chiefs would be as of this point.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Coach

To be fair, this team could easily be 7-8 or 8-7 if they had a decent coaching staff, IMHO.

And would that be better or worse for the franchise in the long run?

Honestly, you could argue that in a "do-over" with the exact same coaches this team could easily be 5-10 to 7-8....

8 games by less than 7 points is pretty unpredictable. It lends more criticism than support for the current coaching staff for sure, but the fact that we were "in" so many games is a positive no matter what.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

And would that be better or worse for the franchise in the long run?

Honestly, you could argue that in a "do-over" with the exact same coaches this team could easily be 5-10 to 7-8....

8 games by less than 7 points is pretty unpredictable. It lends more criticism than support for the current coaching staff for sure, but the fact that we were "in" so many games is a positive no matter what.

Well, it could be better or worse one way or another. Better that they are contending the AFC West with 17 or so new players on the roster, with the roster average age of 24. (Keep in mind, I'm just thinking off of my memory, so it may be off.)

Yet, the flip side, the current record that the Chiefs have ended Carl's reign, and possibly Herm's as well.

So I guess, in a way, it could be two positives, except some people could argue that the possible 8-7 record would have extended Carl and Herm.

And I agree on the "do-over" with the same coaches. I mean, Cleveland is a good example of this. Jacksonville is another (Although they did lose their DC, but the talent was there.) The NFL works in funny ways I guess.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Coach

I understand your opinion, and I respect that. The right side of the O-line is "questionable" at best to midly put it. However, if we had a defense, like you mentioned, it is possible. No argument here on the defense.

Yet, at the same time, everybody knows that Herm doesn't play to win the game. The Chiefs never had trouble being the aggressers in the first half of the game. Yet after halftime, they couldn't score. How much of this is attributed to coaching philosophy changing/adjustment? If the Chiefs had a decent coach who could manage the game clock a bit better, and doesn't go to a shell in the 2nd half, who knows where the Chiefs would be as of this point.

Again, I think it comes down to talent. It's true that the Chiefs scored 28 points in the first half and only 3 in the second. Put let's put aside the offense for a second. The defense has been pitiful. Giving up 38 points twice this season and not being able to hold leads. The Chiefs have tried since 2001 to rectify this defense with no success. The common denominator? Carl Peterson.

The Dick Vermeil/Al Saunders offense and the Chan Gailey offense has put the Chiefs in position to win more times than not. Yet, the defense never fails to hold. The offense has had just as much roster turnover (or more) during this decade yet the defense just won't improve.

If Herm's fate is to be fired, he's fired. But the bottom line is that the Chiefs need to acquire a playmaker on the defensive side of the ball AND hire coaches who create a scheme to make the current players more effective.

Otherwise, it won't matter who's the head coach. We'll still have the same results.

[alanm]

When Herm gave the OK for his Asst's to seek employment elsewhere the writing was on the wall.
Herm is toast under a new GM.

[Hammock Parties]

Brainwashing at it's highest level.