To the Herm haters.

[kcbubb]

I'm tired of all the blame going to Herm. Yes, Herm had his share of blunders but the amount of hate that he gets is ridiculous. The biggest mistake that Herm made was underestimating the impact of Jared Allen. And I did too at the time. In 2007, the Chiefs almost had a top 10 defense despite their terrible offense. We know what happened in 2008. But we are quick to forget the defense of 2007. I'm not saying the Herm was a great coach, but he is not as bad as some here believe.

Just to irritate you, lets take a look at what might have been if Herm had stuck around.

-First the acquisition of Cassell never happens. Herm sticks with Thigpen and Gailey runs the system that worked well in the latter half of the season.

-The switch to the 3-4 never happens and the Chiefs continue to run a 4-3 defense.

-Most likely, no notable free agents are picked up.

-Tony Gonzalez remains with the Chiefs.

-The draft rolls around and Herm takes the safe route as usual and picks the following players:

1. Aaron Curry
2. Everette Brown (Herm likes this pick bc of the desperate need for a pass rusher to replace Jared Allen who was lost in 07 and the success of another small DE Dwight Freeney with the Colts where his role model Tony Dungy coached.)
3. Antione Caldwell (Mal Moore leadership award winner is drafted here) Herm kinda player. And can play all line positions but primarily C or G.
4. Louis Murphy (Herm picks a wide out for the needed depth and Murphy provide some speed.)
5. Jasper Brinkley (Tough middle linebacker probably starts.)
6. Andrew Gardner (RT tackle pushes or replaces McIntosh)
7. Captain Munnerlyn (CB and returner)
7. Ricky Jean-Francois (depth at DT)
7. Ryan Succop K


And to top it off. After speaking with Tony Dungy about Michael Vick, who has been mentoring Vick, Herm trusts Dungy and decides to give Vick a shot at backing up Tyler Thigpen.


Would all of this happened... probably not, but it is interesting to think about what might have been if Herm and Carl would have stayed. Again, I don't think Herm is great and I definitely don't think Carl was good, but I do wonder what might have happened. I do like the draft above much better than our current one, and I do like that we still would have Tony G.

[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?

[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.

[The Bad Guy]

I'm putting this clown on ignore. His football takes are about the worst you can come up with.

I said it before, if you want to defend Herm, please burn your Chiefs gear. I want every single dark cloud away from this team now that Peterson and Herm are gone.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

You should have just stoppped right there. Or ended the post with "And left a loser, foot shuffling porter adn go-zillionaire...."

Herm knew CP. He knew exactly what he was getting into with CP and the state of the franchise. He took the money. Herm failed. Totally and completely.

You can run all the speculation up the flagpole you feel that's warranted, but the bottom line is Herm FAILed. Although he was spectacular in his FAILing.

Anyway, you can waste precious O2 on this scintillating subject for eternity, but camp has started and I'd prefer to look ahead to future FAILing rather than rehash past EPIC FAILing.

Good luck.

Actually, I think I'm being very forward thinking. Most GMs walk into a new team and are forced to weave through a tangled mess. And sometimes it will take a GM 2-3 years or more just to get the team out of a salary cap mess. I'm suggesting that moves made in 2008 made it a lot easier for Pioli to immediately do his thing and he's going to be able to make his mark very quickly.

I'm not living in the past. I happen to think we have some pretty good young talent and I'm ecstatic about better coaches coaching them up. I've already moved on. On the flip side, people have to start moving on from the idea that everything Herm touched turned to crud. Because I'm noticing that it's almost if people are rooting against any player brought up in the Herm era. It's almost as if they WANT to see players like Turk and Tank, etc... fail. Because people are so convinced Herm is a failure, they're convinced that guys he developed are failures too.

As long as people continue to have that mindset, it's going to take a lot longer for fans to move forward.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

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?

In all the years that Carl was in charge, when did "rebuild" ever come into the equation? Look at his history as soon as Vermeil got there. They spent big when he got in. A few years later, spent a shitload on guys like Barber, Holliday, McCleon. The next year, they were right at the cap and restructured a bunch of contracts. The next year, they had almost no money to spend and instead chose to sign nobody. The next year, they spent a shitload of money on guys like Bell, Surtain, and Knight. And then the next year, rather than wreck the ship, he tacked on some veteran stopgaps like McIntosh and Law. His history has been spend big, don't spend to save some cap. Spend big. Don't spend to save some cap.

I stand by my claim that we made good personnel decisions, particularly in 2007 and especially in 2008. I won't win you over on that because we have differences of opinion, but I don't see why I wouldn't win you on the cap situation. Credit whomever you want. The decision to strip down the roster was a planned decision and it is one that puts us in a very good position in 2009 and beyond.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

I'm putting this clown on ignore. His football takes are about the worst you can come up with.

I said it before, if you want to defend Herm, please burn your Chiefs gear. I want every single dark cloud away from this team now that Peterson and Herm are gone.

Good. Put me on ignore. Nothing more obnoxious than a douche bag fan who tells people not to root for his team. I'm a Chiefs fan like you. **** you if you can't accept that.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Actually, I think I'm being very forward thinking. Most GMs walk into a new team and are forced to weave through a tangled mess. And sometimes it will take a GM 2-3 years or more just to get the team out of a salary cap mess. I'm suggesting that moves made in 2008 made it a lot easier for Pioli to immediately do his thing and he's going to be able to make his mark very quickly.

I'm not living in the past. I happen to think we have some pretty good young talent and I'm ecstatic about better coaches coaching them up. I've already moved on. On the flip side, people have to start moving on from the idea that everything Herm touched turned to crud. Because I'm noticing that it's almost if people are rooting against any player brought up in the Herm era. It's almost as if they WANT to see players like Turk and Tank, etc... fail. Because people are so convinced Herm is a failure, they're convinced that guys he developed are failures too.

As long as people continue to have that mindset, it's going to take a lot longer for fans to move forward.

There are a number f players that Herman ****ing Edwards drafted that I was pleased to get, and root for to succeed, but the fact is, it is unrealistic to expect some of those players to transition, and has nothing to do with rooting for them to fail.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

In all the years that Carl was in charge, when did "rebuild" ever come into the equation? Look at his history as soon as Vermeil got there. They spent big when he got in. A few years later, spent a shitload on guys like Barber, Holliday, McCleon. The next year, they were right at the cap and restructured a bunch of contracts. The next year, they had almost no money to spend and instead chose to sign nobody. The next year, they spent a shitload of money on guys like Bell, Surtain, and Knight. And then the next year, rather than wreck the ship, he tacked on some veteran stopgaps like McIntosh and Law. His history has been spend big, don't spend to save some cap. Spend big. Don't spend to save some cap.

I stand by my claim that we made good personnel decisions, particularly in 2007 and especially in 2008. I won't win you over on that because we have differences of opinion, but I don't see why I wouldn't win you on the cap situation. Credit whomever you want. The decision to strip down the roster was a planned decision and it is one that puts us in a very good position in 2009 and beyond.

The fact is, every time the Chiefs were reprtedly up against the cap, they were able to manipulate the cap to get the players they wanted to sign.

The fact that roster was blown up and the Chiefs are in good shape cap wise is a good thing, but if Pioli came into this team with the same kind of cap shape that Carl always had it until the roster blow up, Pioli, like Carl, would have been able to manipulate the cap to make the moves he needed to make, especially since he hasn't gone out and made any big free agent signings.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

There are a number f players that Herman ****ing Edwards drafted that I was pleased to get, and root for to succeed, but the fact is, it is unrealistic to expect some of those players to transition, and has nothing to do with rooting for them to fail.

Agreed.

The fact is, every time the Chiefs were reprtedly up against the cap, they were able to manipulate the cap to get the players they wanted to sign.

The fact that roster was blown up and the Chiefs are in good shape cap wise is a good thing, but if Pioli came into this team with the same kind of cap shape that Carl always had it until the roster blow up, Pioli, like Carl, would have been able to manipulate the cap to make the moves he needed to make, especially since he hasn't gone out and made any big free agent signings.

But the main issue is that GMs are often forced to hold onto a lot of players they don't want to keep, only because of the cap consequences of cutting them. GMs want to come in and immediately build toward their agenda. They don't want to be forced to field a bunch of players from the previous regime. And often times, it forces coaches to play marginal veterans instead of starting a young player who might have more upside--especially for a team trying to win now instead of building for the long term.

That's a great luxury, especially when they move to a 3-4. If they don't fit the system, he can quickly cut them and not suffer from it. And you don't get forced to keep players who don't fit as deadweight or do some financial gymnastics to help them fit your salary cap. If we signed a bunch of defensive veterans in 2008, I think that would have tremendously slowed a shift to a 3-4 defense.

[Mecca]

Basically all of the front 7 players Herm drafted are probably going to end up cut within a year or 2...

[Reerun_KC]

This thread and the love for Herm is about to make me puke...

Time to banish this thread into orbit...

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Basically all of the front 7 players Herm drafted are probably going to end up cut within a year or 2...

I can see this happening as well. Also I can see most of Herms drafted players being off the roster within 2-3 years...

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I can see this happening as well. Also I can see most of Herms drafted players being off the roster within 2-3 years...

Well which guys are you seeing cut...

[Reerun_KC]

Give me some time and I will put a list together for you and why I feel that way Mecca, Have to go fly for a bit...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I can see this happening as well. Also I can see most of Herms drafted players being off the roster within 2-3 years...

Disagree. I think the only players in major jeopardy are on the defensive line.

STAY:
Starters:
Albert
Bowe
Cox
Flowers
Page
Leggett (nickel)

On-the-fence starters / good chance of being a backup:
Carr
Charles
Morgan
Pollard
Cottam

Backups:
Niswanger - Depth at C/G
Kolby Smith - if healthy
Herb Taylor
Tyler Thigpen (not drafted, but part of youth movement)

Borderliners:
Dorsey - I think he'll function okay as a 3-4 DE, but will be traded to get value
Tank Tyler - Might find a good spot at nose tackle. I don't know how sure I am about this.

Cut:
Hali
Richardson
Croyle
Turk McBride - I still think he could fare well as a 3-4 DE because of his experience at DT. But the fact that Haley has him as a OLB makes me think he's doomed.