Dillon Arrested...

[Fort Chief]

BTW Luznicky,

You said it was a FACT that he was a top three GM in the NFL.

You saying "you talked to some GM's in the league and they told you so" is not proof, not in the slightest.

Talk to you tomorrow night.

[htismaqe]

Jeff,

My only criteria is winning.

How many teamshave been to the playoffs as many times as we have?

I'm sure there are several, but there are a whole bunch that haven't.

I think Carl has consistantly put this team in a position to win. We (as a team) haven't pulled it off yet. In that sense, yeah he's just as responcible as anyone else in the organization for not having a Super Bowl this decade. It is IMO (and quite frankly much of the professional sporting world's) that Carl is very, very good at his job. I have no disagreement with that.

Understand Jeff, I'm not trying to convert you (I don't think even a Super Bowl would do that), I'm just answering your question about why I think he's one of the best.

Luz
sorry you feel differently...

[Fort Chief]

Frazod,

I think you're right!

Sorry about that BTW.

[HC_Chief]

Gee, I wonder if Cannibal's nickname on another BB in a galaxy far, far, away might have been Packfudge?

[milkman]

But on the other hand, I don't think Oakland has won a playoff game since we have, either.

Feel a little better now...


Oh wow, Cannibal, you're being likened to KEN!

[This message has been edited by frazod (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Fort Chief]

If you choose to believe Carl is a "top 3" GM, that is fine by me [truly].

But please don't try to state it as fact when many of us know better.

That's all I'm saying.

[Fort Chief]

Frazod,

You're correct,

replace Chi-town w/ Oakland.

[Fort Chief]

There is a fudamental difference between Ken and myself...

We both may dislike Peterson, but I am a fan of of the team. Ken is not a Chiefs fan. <P>

[milkman]

Do I think Carl is one of the top three? No. Do I think he's better than most? Yes.

Keep in mind, we won two division championships and made the playoffs as a wildcard three or four other years under his tenure.

Things Carl did not do: (1) miss three FGs in the 95 loss to Indy; (2) make the call to go for that damned fake FG in the 97 loss to Denver; (3) kick off out of bounds three times OR miss the winning FG against Oakland last year.

Its not Carl's fault that we were CURSED with bad luck at the least opportune moments. We were good enough to win the SB in 97 and damn well should have (remember, we were the only team in the playoffs to give Denver a game). Were it not for those handful of occasions when we got reamed by the football gods, the recent history of this team would be completely different.

Unfortunately, I think Carl's time may have passed. His sticking with the Three Stooges and failure to procure any meaningful talent during the past offseason does not bode well for his (or our) future.

I'm not calling for his head now, but if we suck as bad this year as I think we're going to, I will be soon. Hope he pulls through, though. He has done a good job with this team in the past. But unfortunately, not lately.

[This message has been edited by frazod (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Ugly Duck]

If I may jump in with my 2 cents. I think we have to put Peterson's performance into perspective. He has brought a tradition of winning football to Kansas City with the moves he has been able to make. While many of them were not as fruitful as expected (Perriman, Gray) many were, (Drafting DT, bringing in Joe, Marcus). I think if we had a complete moron in the window office at Arrowhead we would still go 4-12 like when I was a kid, and we would be satisfied with 8-8, even thinking 7-9 is great. Now we expect to win if not be in contention for the division title and the play-offs every year. Does that mean we are going to win the Super Bowl? No, but find 3 other GM's that have turned their teams into anything similar to the Chiefs over the same period of time. I believe that the Super Bowl will come sooner than later.

[Fort Chief]

Carl is responsible for the loss in 95 IMO.

Lin Elliot sucked ARSEHOLES out in Dallas before Peterson signed him. Then he sucked ARSEHOLES out the entire season in KC before the playoffs. Elliot should have never been signed and definitely should have been replaced well before the playoffs started.


There are numerous other personnel blunders I could mention, but it's time for me to hit the hay. Talk to everyone later.


[img]http://www2.southwind.net/~ripley/thomas26.jpg[/img] <P>

[BroncoFan]

LUZ, Good grief, for someone who claims to want to let the Peterson discussion die you sure do seem to have a desire to keep fueling the fire. Why can't you just accept that fact that there are qualified individuals [here] that posses a different view of "The King" than you and let it die? It is obvious that you are oblivious to any factual information in regard to this so why not just let it go?

You have become just like talking to Denise about socialist issues.

*BTW-I NEVER wanted Dillon in the first place. I contended that TRich should be our halfback since mid-last year. OH, I guess THAT makes me stupid now doesn't it. Have you noticed yet who our starting HB is?

[Boise_Chief]

This legal problem will hurt his "long term contract" negotiations and salary next season. Too bad for Demoff and Corey "one year" Dillon....

burger time bungle

[Mosbonian]

Kurt,

Perhaps it is the inflammatory style the Cannibal is using that is making it difficult for Luz to quit posting on the topic.

There is a precedent (by the way Cannibal) to say Carl is one of the top three GMs in the League in the 90s. That would be regular season wins, and very close in winning seasons in the 90s. Carl's teams are in the top 3 in wins. So there is the logic you are looking for to declare Carl in the top 3 GM category. Actually there is one other category, drafting and putting together top notch defensive personnel that can make up a top defense.

I am no Carl fanatic as I believe he is poor at drafting QBs, HB, and WR. He has been very good with offensive lineman, FBs, and at least one TE. I do not know if you were to judge all aspects of a GM hiring Head Coaches, managing the cap, and hiring the administrative personnel whether he makes the top 3 or not. But I would say it is safe to assume that he is in the top 5 or 6 when it comes to all aspects.

I believe what Kurt and Cannibal are doing is rating only one aspect of a GMs job, getting the team to the SB. In that case Bobby Beatherd was better in the 90s (see how ridiculous that criteria can be) as his team lucked out and made it to the SB once. The same for Harold Richardson GM of Atlanta, one SuperBowl and he is better. What about NE Patriots one Superbowl, so there GM must be better, oh yeah wait he was dismissed so Bellichek could be in charge.

Yeah I guess making the SB is the only real criteria for a great GM.

------------------
Jim Reynolds
Please no squiggles in my discussion zone!


[This message has been edited by Logical (edited 08-28-2000).]

[BroncoFan]

Jim-I appreciate your humor, actually though I believe the tables may be turned. I am convinced that it is LUZ, and King Carls little army of defensemen that have tunnel vision. Their battle cry is "100 wins in the 90's." Frankly I have grown very tired of it.

I can't speak for Cannibal or Packfan or anyone else, only myself. In retrospect my dislike of "The King" has much more to do with the bigger picture. In an attempt to be brief I'll simply say this; Yes, there are player moves that are questionable, (ex. Bono, Elliot, Gray, Tree-zel, Baker, Pope, McMillan, Greg Hill (handling?,) Grbac vs. Gannon (handling-as much perception as reality,) Rison (some of you thought Carl was the saviour for releasing him, who brought him here in the first place?,) Bam, John Tait fiasco,............you get the picture. Now, let me say this, take any NFL team and they probably all have stories and personel goofaas just like these, so that is no indicator. What it does say is that The King is no better than any other manager in this area! (Maybe worse.)

(cont.)<P>