Haley Should Cut Johnson

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You should really contain yourself to DC, Dumb****.

The Raiders have won three Super Bowls and appeared in a fourth since the Chiefs have won ONE.

JFC.

Are you really this stupid?

I'll take a 100 years of no championships over a lifetime of franchise whack-a-mole.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by jAZ

I'll take a 100 years of no championships over a lifetime of franchise whack-a-mole.

Huh?

You've already had 40 years without a championship.

Obviously, you don't really give a **** about the Chiefs.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Huh?

You've already had 40 years without a championship.

Obviously, you don't really give a **** about the Chiefs.

I'll take an owner who's failed to deliver on a Championship over the last 40 years ala KC.... over an owner who rips out the heart of the fans and takes an atomic crap on it every 10 years, no matter how many championships that owner wins.

I'm not a fan of the Chiefs because of the owner, or because of the championships, or because of the uniforms or whatever. I'm a fan of the Chiefs because they are my hometown team.

The moment Clark Hunt moves the team to LA, I become a fan of the expansion Kansas City Jazz or Jaguars or whatever NFL team they end up with. The moment Hunt makes his 2nd move to another city, he enters the discussion of worst owner ever. The moment he threatens to move the team to every open city he thinks might make him an extra $1 billion in profit, he ties Al Davis.

Until then, the owner who's only major move was hiring the "the most successful GM of this decade" can't remotely be considered among the worst owner in the NFL.

Suggesting that his grade is anything other than "Incomplete" is just taking stupid to 11.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by jAZ

I'll take an owner who's failed to deliver on a Championship over the last 40 years ala KC.... over an owner who rips out the heart of the fans

And the difference is?

Until then, the owner who's only major move was hiring the "the most expensive GM of this decade"

Yep, had to put the fix on that one.

Suggesting that his grade is anything other than "Incomplete" is just taking stupid to 11.

It's early, but still you can not deny that the total moves in general present a very clouded vision at best in terms of where the overall program is headed.
And with all due respect, the "revolving roster" at this stage in the season smacks of desperation that runs fully counter to the "I build teams"-mantra.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

And the difference is?

We have a team.

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

It's early, but still you can not deny that the total moves in general present a very clouded vision at best in terms of where the overall program is headed.

Yes, I'd agree that future success is cloudy at best. But, I think the vision is pretty clear. Whether it's going to work remains in question at the moment.

But no matter the case, anyone trying to argue that Hunt is the worst owner in the NFL based on the uncertain success our future holds, 7 games into a new regime is just acting like an over-reactive drama queen.

Again, Hunt's lone major move was putting the future of the football operations in the hands of "the most successful GM of this decade". That's a homerun move that might or might not work out. But that's the sort of owner I want. That's so far from the worst owner in football it's pathetic.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

And with all due respect, the "revolving roster" at this stage in the season smacks of desperation that runs fully counter to the "I build teams"-mantra.

Maybe so. But you are talking about Haley.

If, in the end, Todd Haley fails, it in no way means Hunt is the worst owner in football. In fact, unless something massively horrible transpires, the only way that Hunt can really have that case made about him, is if he emasculates his GM and starts micromanaging and trying to fire the coach or force various player moves like Al Davis or Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones have at times.

I want an owner who hires the best people and gives them the freedom to do their thing and a fair chance to succeed. Hunt clearly is doing that. Whether he hired the best person is "incomplete".

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by jAZ

We have a team.



Yes, I'd agree that future success is cloudy at best. But, I think the vision is pretty clear. Whether it's going to work remains in question at the moment.

But no matter the case, anyone trying to argue that Hunt is the worst owner in the NFL based on the uncertain success our future holds, 7 games into a new regime is just acting like an over-reactive drama queen.

Again, Hunt's lone major move was putting the future of the football operations in the hands of "the most successful GM of this decade". That's a homerun move that might or might not work out. But that's the sort of owner I want. That's so far from the worst owner in football it's pathetic.

Then we disagree.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

Then we disagree.

I assume you disagree with the "vision is clear" part, and not with everything.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Maybe so. But you are talking about Haley.

If, in the end, Todd Haley fails, it in no way means Hunt is the worst owner in football. In fact, unless something massively horrible transpires, the only way that Hunt can really have that case made about him, is if he emasculates his GM and starts micromanaging and trying to fire the coach or force various player moves like Al Davis or Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones have at times.

I want an owner who hires the best people and gives them the freedom to do their thing and a fair chance to succeed. Hunt clearly is doing that. Whether he hired the best person is "incomplete".

No, I am talking about Pioli. You don't build a team by shuffling players in and out of a revolving door for half of the season. At some point, you have to bunker-down with what you have and build some solidarity for the season.
Otherwise, you're calling the season and the good players you DO have a wash, and that you'd rather play chess and diddle with a never-ending roster of has-been's and wannabe's than try to build some consistent support for your GOOD players.
Cull the chaff from the wheat BEFORE you go to war. Players have been inconsistent because the PROGRAM has no consistency, save "your job and livelihood are on the line every week".
Bottom line; there were no better players to be had, at least not in great leaps and bounds talent-wise.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

No, I am talking about Pioli. You don't build a team by shuffling players in and out of a revolving door for half of the season. At some point, you have to bunker-down with what you have and build some solidarity for the season.
Otherwise, you're calling the season and the good players you DO have a wash, and that you'd rather play chess and diddle with a never-ending roster of has-been's and wannabe's than try to build some consistent support for your GOOD players.
Cull the chaff from the wheat BEFORE you go to war. Players have been inconsistent because the PROGRAM has no consistency, save "your job and livelihood are on the line every week".
Bottom line; there were no better players to be had, at least not in great leaps and bounds talent-wise.

I don't know that on this issue it's possible to seperate Haley from Pioli. In fact, I'd guess that Haley is a huge part of the in-season player decisions, largely because he sees the threat of losing your job as a key part of his coaching philosophy. But that also means that you are right. Pioli is a key part of that approach.

That's not true of Hunt though. It is (as I understand it, and as it should be) hands off on his end.