Florio: Haley threatened to trade Bowe during Redskins game

[OnTheWarpath15]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...r-dwayne-bowe/

Trade threat turned the light on for Dwayne Bowe
Posted by Mike Florio on October 19, 2009 3:05 PM ET

As pointed out in the Chiefs-Redskins portion our Morning Aftermath, Kansas City receiver Dwayne Bowe caught six passes for 109 yards. It was his best output of the season.

Bowe's performance came at a time when rumors are rampant that he (and pretty much any other Chiefs player not named "Matt Cassel") is available as the trade deadline looms.

So was he motivated by the rumors? As it turns out, no.

Bowe was motivated by a specific threat, from coach Todd Haley.

Per a league source, Haley tore into Bowe early in Sunday's win over the Redskins, urging Bowe to pick up his game and threatening to trade Bowe if he didn't.

Though some might have seen it as a chance to get over the wall and head to a contending team, the exchange seemed to light a fire under Bowe.

So we suppose it would be fitting if the performance prompts a team like the Dolphins or Ravens to make the Chiefs an offer for Bowe that G.M. Scott Pioli accepts.

WTF?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

You, at the refs.

Of course I would. They would obviously be the reason we would not have scored any TD's!!!

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Of course I would. They would obviously be the reason we would not have scored any TD's!!!

Well played.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Of course I would. They would obviously be the reason we would not have scored any TD's!!!

Pete, SHUT UP nice job.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by FAX

Rome wasn't built in a day, Mr. doomy3. We're seeing improvement ... it's just slow.

As for the question above, why do players want to play for Belichick or Cowher or other, similar, demanding coaches with reputations as hard-nosed, hard-to-please hard-asses?

Because they want to win.

Let's take Vrabel for example. He wasn't thrilled about leaving New England. He's a talented, take-no-sh*t veteran who was perfectly comfortable playing for Bill "Ice Man" Belichick. Why? Because he likes winning and he likes being part of a winning program. He doesn't work his ass off for a kiss on the cheek and a piece of pie. He works his ass off for money and to win. And, maybe not always in that order. Why did Gonzo want to leave last year? Herm would have gladly spent every Wednesday singing soft love ballads in his ear while massaging his ass with aloe and rose petals. But he wanted out ... because he wanted to win.

Chiefs fans are used to losing. We think that guys will only want to come play for our suck team because, even though we suck, we're really respectful and nice to them. That makes sense as long as we suck and that's all we have to offer talented guys (along with a paycheck).

However, maybe ... just maybe ... we won't suck forever. Maybe we'll start winning. Maybe we'll create a competitive program that brings trophies and rings and hot chicks and awesome creamed corn recipes back to Arrowhead on a regular basis. Maybe we'll emerge from the depths of despair like Indianapolis to become a consistent, winning program year after year. If and when that happens, players will want to be here - and it won't be because we know how to gently coddle their precious testicles after a long, hot practice. Ironically, that's what Pioli and Haley are trying to build. And, even ironicallier, it begins with a winning attitude ... the idea that you demand more of yourself than others do ... an attitude that I believe Haley is trying to instill in these players.

FAX

I miss those creamed corn recipes.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by FAX

Rome wasn't built in a day, Mr. doomy3. We're seeing improvement ... it's just slow.

As for the question above, why do players want to play for Belichick or Cowher or other, similar, demanding coaches with reputations as hard-nosed, hard-to-please hard-asses?

Because they want to win.

Let's take Vrabel for example. He wasn't thrilled about leaving New England. He's a talented, take-no-sh*t veteran who was perfectly comfortable playing for Bill "Ice Man" Belichick. Why? Because he likes winning and he likes being part of a winning program. He doesn't work his ass off for a kiss on the cheek and a piece of pie. He works his ass off for money and to win. And, maybe not always in that order. Why did Gonzo want to leave last year? Herm would have gladly spent every Wednesday singing soft love ballads in his ear while massaging his ass with aloe and rose petals. But he wanted out ... because he wanted to win.

Chiefs fans are used to losing. We think that guys will only want to come play for our suck team because, even though we suck, we're really respectful and nice to them. That makes sense as long as we suck and that's all we have to offer talented guys (along with a paycheck).

However, maybe ... just maybe ... we won't suck forever. Maybe we'll start winning. Maybe we'll create a competitive program that brings trophies and rings and hot chicks and awesome creamed corn recipes back to Arrowhead on a regular basis. Maybe we'll emerge from the depths of despair like Indianapolis to become a consistent, winning program year after year. If and when that happens, players will want to be here - and it won't be because we know how to gently coddle their precious testicles after a long, hot practice. Ironically, that's what Pioli and Haley are trying to build. And, even ironicallier, it begins with a winning attitude ... the idea that you demand more of yourself than others do ... an attitude that I believe Haley is trying to instill in these players.

FAX

Solid post, FAX. Not a lot I really disagree with.

However, I would say that this is similar to Belichick constantly beating down Randy Moss on that team. How do you think that would go? Or if BB would have gone into this season not making a clear stance on Brady being his QB and visibly questioned nearly every decision he makes every game. Do you think that would shake his confidence some? Of course I realize those guys are more proven players, but I haven't seen BB put on the displays on the sidelines that Haley regularly does.

And I do think having a track record like BB and Cowher definitely helps now in hindsight.

I suppose we could also look at disciplinarians like Mangini and Mirranelli.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by FAX

Chiefs fans are used to losing.

Your ship ****ing sank right there.

I did not grow up with losing. I grew up with DT and Lewis and Marty and Deberg and you go to ****ing work with a broken finger and you go and try to make shit happen. If it didn't happen it was your fault.

Here was Shields, Okoye, Kimble (I will make all your $#it offensive calls work) Anders, Dan Saleuamua (sp?,) Hasty, and a ****-ton of guys who MADE PLAYS that we don't have now.

You make the playoffs EVERY ****ING YEAR IF YOU HAVE TO MISS GRAMMY'S BIRTHDAY AND SKIP YER' FUN TIMES. EVERY ****ING YEAR!

I look back now and we had mostly NOTHING playing for us! Who the **** is honestly worth remembering from most of the Marty years!?! How many HOF players were there?

There weren't any. They were all lunchbox guys making things happen with 1 or 2 studs thrown in from year to year.

This whole winning thing is not new...

[boogblaster]

Went to quite a few games during the Marty era ... they won them all ... and yes Arrowhead was hard place for visiting teams to win at ... we had lunch-box players then .....

[FAX]

Originally Posted by doomy3

Solid post, FAX. Not a lot I really disagree with.

However, I would say that this is similar to Belichick constantly beating down Randy Moss on that team. How do you think that would go? Or if BB would have gone into this season not making a clear stance on Brady being his QB and visibly questioned nearly every decision he makes every game. Do you think that would shake his confidence some? Of course I realize those guys are more proven players, but I haven't seen BB put on the displays on the sidelines that Haley regularly does.

And I do think having a track record like BB and Cowher definitely helps now in hindsight.

I suppose we could also look at disciplinarians like Mangini and Mirranelli.

Yeah, that's the main problem the way I see it. Haley has zip for a track record - at least, as a head coach. That makes it difficult to have full confidence in his approach. Not that he's necessarily wrong ... just that there's no evidence to demonstrate that he might be right.

It's kind of a chicken/egg problem. I haven't followed Belichick's career as closely as you and many others probably have. So, using BB as an example, I don't know if he started out as an egotistical head case or he evolved into one as the victories started piling up. But, at this point, it's difficult to separate the results from the rhetoric.

Either way, a head coach has to hold both his staff and his players accountable to his own, personal approach to the game. And, he has to work with what he's been given. If (as is the case here) he has little or no talent on his team, he has to start with the basics ... developing a solid work ethic, instilling effective practice habits, consistent technique, attention to detail, avoiding mistakes, etc. And, an important component in a situation like this is trying to create a winning attitude ... that's the hard part ... especially when you aren't winning.

Time will tell if Haley can develop into a good HC. I think he has the capacity to be a very good one. However, I know for sure he'll damn well break a few eggs along the way to Omeletville. It doesn't guarantee success, but given the specific task before him, it's an unfortunate and unavoidable part of the job.

FAX

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Your ship ****ing sank right there.

I did not grow up with losing. I grew up with DT and Lewis and Marty and Deberg and you go to ****ing work with a broken finger and you go and try to make shit happen. If it didn't happen it was your fault.

Here was Shields, Okoye, Kimble (I will make all your $#it offensive calls work) Anders, Dan Saleuamua (sp?,) Hasty, and a ****-ton of guys who MADE PLAYS that we don't have now.

You make the playoffs EVERY ****ING YEAR IF YOU HAVE TO MISS GRAMMY'S BIRTHDAY AND SKIP YER' FUN TIMES. EVERY ****ING YEAR!

I look back now and we had mostly NOTHING playing for us! Who the **** is honestly worth remembering from most of the Marty years!?! How many HOF players were there?

There weren't any. They were all lunchbox guys making things happen with 1 or 2 studs thrown in from year to year.

This whole winning thing is not new...

Hmmm.

I believe this is correct ... I think we've won 3 playoff games since 1970 and 2 of those were wild card games. I'm all for the lunchbox guys, Mr. Rausch, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Chiefs fans have become accustomed to losing. Hell, Arrowhead was half full of Cowgirl fans two weeks ago. Would that happen if the fanbase expected the Chiefs to kick NFL ass all the way to the playoffs? I think not.

I loved DeBerg, Anders, Hasty, Saleamua, DT, and those guys. Hell, I loved Otis, Bell, Lanier, Buck, Culp, and Garrett ... not to mention Shields, Roaf, TRich, Priest, Gonzo, and Green. I'm the biggest friggin' homer you'll ever run across. But, it doesn't mean the post-69 teams won much of anything other than regular season games. I can't recall the records at the moment, but the Chiefs have to be one of just a mere handful of teams to fail to make it to the Superbowl in the last 40 years ... 40 years! An entire generation of Chiefs fans have come and gone and we've made it to the AFC Championship game once during that time. Once.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that we stop living in the past, get our sh*t together, and build a program that consistently competes for championships - not just for the hearts of lifelong fans.

FAX

[Hammock Parties]

****ing awesome.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by boogblaster

Went to quite a few games during the Marty era ... they won them all ... and yes Arrowhead was hard place for visiting teams to win at ... we had lunch-box players then .....

Lunch-box players?

Please explain.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

Agreed. Here's the best part of this thread:

Yea, Parcells is now the most overrated coach in football history. I love this shit.

Parcells has sucked dick without Belichick. Look it up. He has never won anything without Belchick coaching his defenses.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Parcells has sucked dick without Belichick. Look it up. He has never won anything without Belchick coaching his defenses.

I don't give a **** what he's done w/o BB.

He has taken 2 different franchises to the bowl, won twice, and had two other franchises within a game of going. What you wrote was some of the most pretentious, ridiculous shit ever plinked out on a keyboard. More amazing, was that somebody else agreed.

Your criticism of Parcells is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.

[kcpasco]

You gotta admit the guy has to stop dropping the ball.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

I don't give a **** what he's done w/o BB.

He has taken 2 different franchises to the bowl, won twice, and had two other franchises within a game of going. What you wrote was some of the most pretentious, ridiculous shit ever plinked out on a keyboard. More amazing, was that somebody else agreed.

Your criticism of Parcells is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.

You can't ignore the fact that Parcells has never won a Super Bowl without Belichick.

I don't know if he's won a playoff game without Belichick.