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

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Todd Collins has looked great and under control in that offense. The Chiefs let the wrong back up go, and I thought so at the time.

How does 8 of 25 "look great"?

Please advise.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

They actually have looked pretty damn good on offense since their QB of the future went down. I have watched their last two games in complete envy. Todd Collins has looked great and under control in that offense. The Chiefs let the wrong back up go, and I thought so at the time.

So if Collins had led this team to a 8-5 record, you'd be happy about it?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by GOATSE

Todd Collins was awesome in his last start.

Did you watch the game? 153 yards rushing and 156 yards passing, that looks pretty good to me right now.

[Coach]

I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters.

[Tribal Warfare]

It was always my opinion that a good HC can turn a team to a contender in 2 years, the 1st year is the remnants of the prior coach(usually a losing season). The 2nd year is that HC's team and if it regresses then that's the reflection on his coaching and scouting ability.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Did you watch the game? 153 yards rushing and 156 yards passing, that looks pretty good to me right now.

Ed, he was 8 for 25. Not even 50%. That's 32%!

You think that a 32% passer "looks pretty good"?

W.T.F.?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

It was always my opinion that a good HC can turn a team to a contender in 2 years, the 1st year is the remnants of the prior coach(usually a losing season). The 2nd year is that HC's team and if it regresses then that's the reflection on his coaching and scouting ability.

I think three years is more the standard, but it also depends on the state of the personnel.

Considering that every starter with the exception of LJ was over the age of thirty to begin the 2007 season, ANY head coach would have to be given more time to rebuild.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Brock

So if Collins had led this team to a 8-5 record, you'd be happy about it?

Oh hell yes, a lot happier than the pathetic display we have witnessed this year. See, I don't buy into the lack of talent BS. I think it is coaching. Herm has lowered my standards considerable.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

See, I don't buy into the lack of talent BS.

So how many points was our collection of offensive talent capable of producing this year?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

See, I don't buy into the lack of talent BS. I think it is coaching. Herm has lowered my standards considerable.

You are officially, an idiot.

Turley, Terry, Welbourn, McIntosh nor Weigmann would not be starting for ANY other NFL team. Period. There is absolutely NO WAY that all of them should have been playing at all, albeit, together!

But I'm sure they're all just Pro-Bowlers with a different coach, right?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by GOATSE

So how many points was our collection of offensive talent capable of producing this year?

I have no idea, do you? You think they were performing at their capability? So miraculously, the Chiefs ended up with all the turds?

The one common denominator with this offensive decline, and recent defensive decline, is the coaching. The players don't buy it and it is nothing new.

So do you throw out all the players? Not usually.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I have no idea, do you? You think they were performing at their capability? So miraculously, the Chiefs ended up with all the turds?

Not all of the players are turds. We can clearly see LJ, Kolby, Bowe, Tony, at times Croyle, and even Webb at times, are not turds.

But 3/5 of that o-line?

Turds.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I have no idea, do you? You think they were performing at their capability? So miraculously, the Chiefs ended up with all the turds?

That's usually what happens when you ignore your offensive line for 9 YEARS.

The Chiefs haven't drafted a FIRST DAY offensive lineman since 1999.

How could you expect the results to be any different?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by GOATSE

Not all of the players are turds. We can clearly see LJ, Kolby, Bowe, Tony, at times Croyle, and even Webb at times, are not turds.

But 3/5 of that o-line?

Turds.

Ok, not trying to have it both ways. Who assembled that group coming out of camp?

To what do you attribute the Defensive decline? Did the talent go to shit all of a sudden?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by GOATSE

Not all of the players are turds. We can clearly see LJ, Kolby, Bowe, Tony, at times Croyle, and even Webb at times, are not turds.

But 3/5 of that o-line?

Turds.

The Chiefs are pretty untalented as a whole, at least compared to other teams.

We made LJ a turd by running him into the ground.