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

I've argued these points over and over with you.

It's like banging my head up aginst the wall.

He took one team that you might legitimately call his to the playoffs.

And two of the other three teams basically backed into the playoffs.

Horrible coaches who inherit other coaches rosters have made it to many playoffs.

Ever hear of George Siefert?

How about Rich Kotite?

And with the Chiefs and the Jets, he left those teams in far worse shape when he left them than when he inherited.

Apples to Oranges comparison. First of all, you're comparing Herm Edwards to two coaches in an uncapped era who inherited insanely talented teams. The 49ers and Cowboys were in an arms race--they spend a shitload of money and nobody stopped them. They practically bought their last Super Bowl by bringing in several ultra-expensive defensive free agents to shore up their defense. There wasn't an even remotely level playing field. Kotite had guys like Randall Cunningham, and one of the most talented defenses in the league with players like Reggie White and Seth Joyner. It's an interesting point you make, but with the Jets, the team went from a borderline playoff team to a borderline playoff team who made the playoffs the next season. He didn't leave it any better or any worse. As for the Chiefs... c'mon man. I know you're better than this. And I know you know that Carl Peterson is very highly responsible for the Chiefs not being better now than they were in 2005.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by kstater

Herm is average? A coach with a .422 winning percentage is average?

Dick Vermeil's winning pct in St. Louis was .458.

You can't use winning pct. as your basis for argument when two of those years were the result of a painful rebuilding process that is the fault of poor front office decisions made before you got there.

[Brock]

Good grief. The guy sucked. They lost a lot of games directly attributable to coaching decisions he made DURING THE GAME. The guy was a moron backed up by a staff of morons.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Apples to Oranges comparison. First of all, you're comparing Herm Edwards to two coaches in an uncapped era who inherited insanely talented teams. The 49ers and Cowboys were in an arms race--they spend a shitload of money and nobody stopped them. They practically bought their last Super Bowl by bringing in several ultra-expensive defensive free agents to shore up their defense. There wasn't an even remotely level playing field. Kotite had guys like Randall Cunningham, and one of the most talented defenses in the league with players like Reggie White and Seth Joyner. It's an interesting point you make, but with the Jets, the team went from a borderline playoff team to a borderline playoff team who made the playoffs the next season. He didn't leave it any better or any worse. As for the Chiefs... c'mon man. I know you're better than this. And I know you know that Carl Peterson is very highly responsible for the Chiefs not being better now than they were in 2005.

No it's not an apple to oranges comparison.

And those are only two examples off the top of my head.

Dave Wannstedt is another.

The point is, a mediocre coach can win a lot of games with another regime's leftovers if there is any talent.

Herman ****ing Edwards went to the playoffs that was only a couple of years removed from an AFC Championship apprearence.

Bit in both cases, the Jets and the Chiefs, he left them in worse shape because they were poorly coached and poorly conditioned teams that suffered both from piss poor coaching (game day, preparation and fundamentals) and injury riddled.

And I'm not exonerating Carl from blame, but before Herman ****ing Edwards, the Chiefs were only mediocre.

With herman ****ing Edwards, they were complete dogshit.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Dick Vermeil's winning pct in St. Louis was .458.

You can't use winning pct. as your basis for argument when two of those years were the result of a painful rebuilding process that is the fault of poor front office decisions made before you got there.

Actually the Rams made a lot of good decisions before he got there, and it wasn't until the management stepped in and forced him to make some changes that lead to the SB season.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

No it's not an apple to oranges comparison.

And those are only two examples off the top of my head.

Dave Wannstedt is another.

The point is, a mediocre coach can win a lot of games with another regime's leftovers if there is any talent.

Herman ****ing Edwards went to the playoffs that was only a couple of years removed from an AFC Championship apprearence.

Bit in both cases, the Jets and the Chiefs, he left them in worse shape because they were poorly coached and poorly conditioned teams that suffered both from piss poor coaching (game day, preparation and fundamentals) and injury riddled.

And I'm not exonerating Carl from blame, but before Herman ****ing Edwards, the Chiefs were only mediocre.

With herman ****ing Edwards, they were complete dogshit.

Wannstedt is a better example. I can accept that. But I'm not arguing against people thinking Herm Edwards is mediocre. I'm arguing against people who say he was horrendous and the worst coach in the league. He was mediocre. And I know you don't like Peterson either, but again, you say the team was largely dogshit because of Herm Edwards. Here's my point... let's assume that the Chiefs hired a coach like Mike Smith instead. With the state the Chiefs were in in 2007 because of Peterson, do you really think he would have done any better? I don't think even Bill Bellichick could have had a winning season in either 2007 or 2008.

You and I have had this conversation many times. I have always said that Herm Edwards was a good option for the rebuild, poor option once the rebuild was completed. I know he's not a good gameday coach. And you're right about preparing his players. But I respect his adamance for a youth movement--I truly believe that his stubbornness on that issue finally convinced Clark Hunt to force Peterson out. I respect that he stuck to his guns and cut veterans and did everything he could to put young players on the field. And I respect the fact that even in a losing season, he had young players playing their heart out for him. And yes, when he finally got some money to spend on real free agents and finally had the time to get his young players the 2-3 years they need to start to show their potential, I believe Herm would have fielded a 9-7 team. Like Wannstedt, with pretty decent talent, he can field a winner.

But as I've said many times, he would never be good enough to win in the playoffs. That's why coaches like Wannstedt and Herm are mediocre, but not great.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

Actually the Rams made a lot of good decisions before he got there, and it wasn't until the management stepped in and forced him to make some changes that lead to the SB season.

No, but I think the point to be made is... there are coaches who adopt insanely talented teams and bring them to the playoffs right away. Their job is to sustain an already really good team. Their win % will obviously be higher, because their team is good enough to win right away. And then there are coaches who are starting from the ground-up--few coaches can sustain a winning record in the middle of a rebuild. My point is that I'm just tired of hearing people point to the idea of the Chiefs winning only 6 games, completely disregarding the fact that they lost Roaf, Shields, Green, Holmes, T-Rich, Kennison, and eventually Jared Allen, with only less than a handful of quality players under 30 because of 10 years of horrendous drafting. Again, what coach could possibly do well under those circumstances?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wannstedt is a better example. I can accept that. But I'm not arguing against people thinking Herm Edwards is mediocre. I'm arguing against people who say he was horrendous and the worst coach in the league. He was mediocre. And I know you don't like Peterson either, but again, you say the team was largely dogshit because of Herm Edwards. Here's my point... let's assume that the Chiefs hired a coach like Mike Smith instead. With the state the Chiefs were in in 2007 because of Peterson, do you really think he would have done any better? I don't think even Bill Bellichick could have had a winning season in either 2007 or 2008.

You and I have had this conversation many times. I have always said that Herm Edwards was a good option for the rebuild, poor option once the rebuild was completed. I know he's not a good gameday coach. And you're right about preparing his players. But I respect his adamance for a youth movement--I truly believe that his stubbornness on that issue finally convinced Clark Hunt to force Peterson out. I respect that he stuck to his guns and cut veterans and did everything he could to put young players on the field. And I respect the fact that even in a losing season, he had young players playing their heart out for him. And yes, when he finally got some money to spend on real free agents and finally had the time to get his young players the 2-3 years they need to start to show their potential, I believe Herm would have fielded a 9-7 team. Like Wannstedt, with pretty decent talent, he can field a winner.

But as I've said many times, he would never be good enough to win in the playoffs. That's why coaches like Wannstedt and Herm are mediocre, but not great.

I'm saying that Herman ****ing Edwards is horrendous.

He won some games and made it to the playoffs with veteran laden teams that could overcome some of his dumbassery, because they had been through it all before.

I think Herman ****ing Edwards made the righ call in going with a youth movement, but he took it too far.

Any rebuild needs a few vets that can teach the kids the ropes if only by example, and I highly doubt he would have ever taken the Chiefs to the playoffs with the players he drafted and signed, because they were getting horrendous coaching and would never develop the work habits they needed to reach their potential.

[KCBOSS1]

OK, on CP, starting a thread with "I'm tired of......" is just a wide open door for a verbal butchering.

[KCBOSS1]

I like Herm.... glad he's not our coach.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm saying that Herman ****ing Edwards is horrendous.

He won some games and made it to the playoffs with veteran laden teams that could overcome some of his dumbassery, because they had been through it all before.

I think Herman ****ing Edwards made the righ call in going with a youth movement, but he took it too far.

Any rebuild needs a few vets that can teach the kids the ropes if only by example, and I highly doubt he would have ever taken the Chiefs to the playoffs with the players he drafted and signed, because they were getting horrendous coaching and would never develop the work habits they needed to reach their potential.

Well, you say he was horrendous, but I think you're undermining his commitment to building through youth. Especially after seeing Vermeil's outright refusal to play young players. It sounds to me like he was kicking and screaming for Peterson to shape up and it says a lot that he committed to it, even if he knew it might cost him his job. That's pretty ballsy--we saw what happened with Lane Kiffin when he had the audacity to question his front office.

And while you might think he took it too far, I don't think they lacked the leadership values you claim. Despite the lack of leadership, it seemed like they had an incredibly close locker room and it always amazed me how the Chiefs walked into a game in a losing season with fire and intensity, while teams like the Lions gave up before they even stepped onto the field. The players on the Chiefs did get better as the season got along and, most importantly, they stayed motivated. Maybe they weren't the best conditioned, but think back to how many young players failed not because of conditioning or coaching, but because their coach couldn't motivate them to give a shit.

Keep in mind that we kept games close last year despite a cheapskate, scumbag GM who didn't give him any good free agents to work with in 3 years. Which is what brings me back to the point that for bringing a team along, I'm glad Herm Edwards did that. But I've said all along that there needed to be a handoff, because you're right, the coach to finish the job had to be one who was real good at training/coaching these players and in implementing gameplans that put the team in a position to win. Herm was not horrendous because, in my opinion, he did a good job of bringing the talent along--something you can't say for guys like Marinelli or Linehan, who completely lost their teams. I think those are qualities people quickly forget. He did some good and a bit of bad. That doesn't make him horrendous, but it doesn't make him anything better than mediocre.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Clark Hunt really liked Herm Edwards. I'm not even going to argue this point. Look on the internet for the 1,000 blogs/articles on this subject.


Ha. You said they were horrible. No horrible team makes the playoffs, regardless of the schedule. Herm left the Jets an average team. And that is consistent with the idea that that average team got some good breaks that got them into the playoffs.


I was going to argue the rest of your post point for point, but it's pretty clear that you have some weird vendetta against the man. There's no credibility in a person that hates a man so much that he goes out of his way to blame him for everything bad, but then make excuses or credit someone else when things go well. Look, we can argue until we're blue in the face. But in his short career, he's brought 4 teams to the playoffs. And with teams that weren't outstanding talent-wise. You guys can all come up with excuses. But that track record is better than a lot of coaches in the league. He's an average coach, but not the incompetent shit that you for some weird reason are set out to make him.

And I root for the Chiefs. Same team you root for. **** you for telling me to root for someone else as if you're some kind of an ambassador for Chiefs fans.

Go root for someone else you ****ing loser lover. The fact that you and some other asshole are one of only two defending this guy tells me all I need to know. I don't want you rooting for the same team I do. You obviously have standards that are well below anyone else.

My vendetta is that he was a horrible football coach. You can go back and look at the archives, I actually DEFENDED this asshole against NaptownChief and Reerun_KC for years. I can admit that the guy is a loser, and I'm sorry for ever wasting my time defending him. It's sorry that you actually believe this bullshit you type.

So no team lucks into the playoffs? Really? The 2006 Chiefs were good? Do you actually watch the NFL? That Jets team was NOT average. It was a below average team that had just about the easiest schedule in NFL history.

When did I make excuses for things that went well? What exactly went well during Herm Edwards tenure here? He found 3 players that are going to be very good players for this team. But then again, you're the one telling me that Carl Peterson ruled with an iron fist, so should I be giving him the credit?

You know what I'll give him credit for? Being such a terrible coach that Carl Peterson had to go. I'll give Herm credit for Scott Pioli coming here. There, I gave him credit.

And I have no doubts that Clark Hunt liked Herm Edwards. He's a bullshitter who talks a big game.

[The Bad Guy]

Hahaha, undermining his committment to build with youth. Look around the NFL you ****ing idiot. All of the "young" teams in the NFL have a balance with veteran players. Herm refused to have balance. He wanted just to go with youth and that was it. Where do these young players learn from? Is Herm providing that veteran leadership?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

Hahaha, undermining his committment to build with youth. Look around the NFL you ****ing idiot. All of the "young" teams in the NFL have a balance with veteran players. Herm refused to have balance. He wanted just to go with youth and that was it. Where do these young players learn from? Is Herm providing that veteran leadership?

You're comparing a team that was rebuilding because of 5 years of milking everything they could out of over-the-hill players to teams that are a few years into a rebuild. Most teams load up on younger players during a rebuild, and then add veterans along the way--they load up on veterans especially when they think their team is on the brink of competing. That's especially true for a team like Tennessee and KC, who got to the point where their roster was almost completely empty. Teams like New England can afford to keep a few veterans around, because every year they draft well and can replace an old game if they leave. How many veteran Chiefs could you say that about? Knight? Wesley? Wiegmann? Jordan Black? Who?

And again... please tell me again where leadership was such a big problem in KC. Leadership is a critical issue for teams where idiots are always getting into trouble and aren't motivated to play. Turns out the only idiot on the Chiefs' roster was a veteran.

[Extra Point]

GET OVER IT!