Rufus rips...Whitlock!

Hammock Parties · 07-19-2007, 02:24 AM

This is terrific stuff.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/07...eart__age_too/

Think Michael Moore and George Bush. One guy is obsessed with the other guy who, by all appearances, ignores him. That would probably best describe one local columnist’s feelings for Peterson, the man-he-can’t-get-fired. The fact is American newspapers are losing their readers so fast that in their search for diversity they somehow forget about diversity of opinion. “Same stuff different day,” correctly observed one reader after scanning one of our columnist’s latest screeds. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007), adding, “We are so tired of hearing the SOS from you.” Like this gentleman wisely figured out, if you read the columnist in question you know the outcome before you open the fold; for to be this writer is to breathe in a climate of unrelieved pessimism when writing about Carl Peterson.

Newspaper articles are inevitably drawn to melodrama, and Peterson has historically been cast in the role of cad in most of this fellow’s offerings. “I’m on Trent’s [Green] side,” our columnist writes, “mostly because there’s a bigger issue at stake. Peterson needs to go.” (Kansas City Star, May 24, 2007) We’re beyond subtle knifings now and no interpretation of events, trends or feelings is too silly or contradictory for this columnist if it helps to fan his resentment that Peterson still holds his post. In this latest episode in four parts [columns] our columnist’s thoughts undergo further hydrolysis, separating out the relatively legitimate arguments and criticisms you can make about Peterson and offering in their place what amounts to some personal attacks and a tin-ear understanding of the salary cap. (Kansas City Star, June 25, 2007) Explaining that Larry Johnson [despite an already existing contract] has no choice but to hold out for his money, he writes in the same column the disturbing downside for the team if Peterson should give it to him. “Stop fighting [Johnson’s] fight for him,” suggested one reader. (Kansas City Star, July 15, 2007)

Indeed, the columnist is so committed to make a case that Peterson is tight-fisted that he writes that Brian Waters was swindled by signing an “extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement….simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters,” conveniently neglecting to mention that Waters negotiated his own contract and in doing so saved himself from having to pay an agent over $1.05 million dollars. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007)

We can take it as serious that the team’s running back – accompanied by agent, of course – is contemplating holding out in hopes of getting more money from the team. Nothing new here. It happens everywhere. And we can follow that if that player [or more likely his agent] wanted to send signals that he was going to do that he would line up someone who would do a bang-up job of selling his case. And you wouldn’t need to pay a finder’s fee to locate that fellow, especially one who is permanently seeking a national recognizability quotient that exceeded Anna Nicole Smith’s when she was alive. So, take a little something of what the player said and magnify it by the weight of the writer’s angst every time he thinks of Peterson and these columns are what you get. The pen is mightier than the bored, or so he must think.

A player who is angry for reasons neither you nor I will ever understand is nothing new. But the personal bitterness that fuels a member of the media to write “nappy-headed, leather-coated GM” in one of his columns (Kansas City Star, May 22, 2007) certainly is. In the spring, summer, fall, and winter of his discontent, hatred for Peterson has become for him a mental paralysis.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 07-19-2007, 02:32 AM

Tell us how you really feel Rufus.

ChiefsfaninPA · 07-19-2007, 05:16 AM

I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.

**Mr. Kotter** · 07-19-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsfaninPA

I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.

Yup. It's pretty pathetic, really.

**BigRedChief** · 07-19-2007, 07:13 AM

This is not funny. Our team's front office should not be hiding under fake names and bashing the local media that critizes them. It's just pathetic and small minded.
Damnit Carl!

Dr. Johnny Fever · 07-19-2007, 07:27 AM

The only funny thing about this is that the Chiefs and Carl Peterson are claiming to be untouched by Whitlock... by pissing and moaning about Whitlock. Morons.

siberian khatru · 07-19-2007, 07:30 AM

They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

Reerun_KC · 07-19-2007, 07:36 AM

More proof that it is time for a change in the front office of the Chiefs...

Typical pathetic BS that we hear year in and year out from WildCarl and his cronies...

Chiefs front office is about as pathetic as one can get...

Brock · 07-19-2007, 08:14 AM

Wow, embarrassing.

**HemiEd** · 07-19-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

Yep, they are basically legitimizing him. But it is still entertainment.

Eleazar · 07-19-2007, 08:43 AM

It's true what they say about Waters. Whitlock accuses the Chiefs of swindling him, but he wanted to negotiate on his own, with no agent, and just get the deal done quietly and without having to pay an agent. It's not like Carl convinced Waters to release Johnny Fontaine here. What evidence does Whitlock have that the negotiations did not play out on an even keel?

htismaqe · 07-19-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Yep, they are basically legitimizing him. But it is still entertainment.

Yep.

But it goes both ways.

Every time Rufus or Gretz lights into the local media, they galvanize the supporters of those personalities against them.

But every time Whitlock, Harry, or Keitzman goes off on one of their idiotic rants, they galvanize the support for Peterson.

In essence, they're keeping each other employed.

Chief Faithful · 07-19-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up.

Jason's gotta be loving this.

I think Rufus is Whitlock.

htismaqe · 07-19-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

I think Rufus is Whitlock.

OOOHHHH...now that would be a juicy twist...

siberian khatru · 07-19-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

I think Rufus is Whitlock.

Voldemort is Harry's father.

07-19-2007, 02:24 AM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4700478	Rufus rips...Whitlock! This is terrific stuff. http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/07...eart__age_too/ Think Michael Moore and George Bush. One guy is obsessed with the other guy who, by all appearances, ignores him. That would probably best describe one local columnist’s feelings for Peterson, the man-he-can’t-get-fired. The fact is American newspapers are losing their readers so fast that in their search for diversity they somehow forget about diversity of opinion. “Same stuff different day,” correctly observed one reader after scanning one of our columnist’s latest screeds. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007), adding, “We are so tired of hearing the SOS from you.” Like this gentleman wisely figured out, if you read the columnist in question you know the outcome before you open the fold; for to be this writer is to breathe in a climate of unrelieved pessimism when writing about Carl Peterson. Newspaper articles are inevitably drawn to melodrama, and Peterson has historically been cast in the role of cad in most of this fellow’s offerings. “I’m on Trent’s [Green] side,” our columnist writes, “mostly because there’s a bigger issue at stake. Peterson needs to go.” (Kansas City Star, May 24, 2007) We’re beyond subtle knifings now and no interpretation of events, trends or feelings is too silly or contradictory for this columnist if it helps to fan his resentment that Peterson still holds his post. In this latest episode in four parts [columns] our columnist’s thoughts undergo further hydrolysis, separating out the relatively legitimate arguments and criticisms you can make about Peterson and offering in their place what amounts to some personal attacks and a tin-ear understanding of the salary cap. (Kansas City Star, June 25, 2007) Explaining that Larry Johnson [despite an already existing contract] has no choice but to hold out for his money, he writes in the same column the disturbing downside for the team if Peterson should give it to him. “Stop fighting [Johnson’s] fight for him,” suggested one reader. (Kansas City Star, July 15, 2007) Indeed, the columnist is so committed to make a case that Peterson is tight-fisted that he writes that Brian Waters was swindled by signing an “extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement….simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters,” conveniently neglecting to mention that Waters negotiated his own contract and in doing so saved himself from having to pay an agent over $1.05 million dollars. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007) We can take it as serious that the team’s running back – accompanied by agent, of course – is contemplating holding out in hopes of getting more money from the team. Nothing new here. It happens everywhere. And we can follow that if that player [or more likely his agent] wanted to send signals that he was going to do that he would line up someone who would do a bang-up job of selling his case. And you wouldn’t need to pay a finder’s fee to locate that fellow, especially one who is permanently seeking a national recognizability quotient that exceeded Anna Nicole Smith’s when she was alive. So, take a little something of what the player said and magnify it by the weight of the writer’s angst every time he thinks of Peterson and these columns are what you get. The pen is mightier than the bored, or so he must think. A player who is angry for reasons neither you nor I will ever understand is nothing new. But the personal bitterness that fuels a member of the media to write “nappy-headed, leather-coated GM” in one of his columns (Kansas City Star, May 22, 2007) certainly is. In the spring, summer, fall, and winter of his discontent, hatred for Peterson has become for him a mental paralysis.
Posts: 277,920

07-19-2007, 05:16 AM	#3
ChiefsfaninPA "F_ck Family Fun Night" Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: York, PA Casino cash: $10005025	I think Whitlock is really hitting a nerve in that front office. Every week now one of King Carl's minions are taking shots at him. Once again, I say this is totally unprofessional of the Chiefs since it is coming from their website.
Posts: 2,373

07-19-2007, 07:13 AM	#5
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $3129627 VARSITY	This is not funny. Our team's front office should not be hiding under fake names and bashing the local media that critizes them. It's just pathetic and small minded. Damnit Carl! __________________ Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. -YODA
Posts: 79,028

07-19-2007, 07:27 AM	#6
Dr. Johnny Fever stax of wax Join Date: Feb 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	The only funny thing about this is that the Chiefs and Carl Peterson are claiming to be untouched by Whitlock... by pissing and moaning about Whitlock. Morons. __________________ courtesy of BoneKrusher "Baseball? It's just a game. As simple as a ball and bat, yet as complex as the American spirit it symbolizes. It's a sport, a business and sometimes a religion." Ernie Harwell
Posts: 34,865

07-19-2007, 07:30 AM	#7
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2534950	They think they're tearing him down, but they're really just building him up. Jason's gotta be loving this.
Posts: 69,187

07-19-2007, 07:36 AM	#8
Reerun_KC Rock Chalk Jayhawks! KU!!! Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $8301160	More proof that it is time for a change in the front office of the Chiefs... Typical pathetic BS that we hear year in and year out from WildCarl and his cronies... Chiefs front office is about as pathetic as one can get...
Posts: 934

07-19-2007, 08:14 AM	#9
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Wow, embarrassing.
Posts: 47,314

07-19-2007, 08:43 AM	#11
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	It's true what they say about Waters. Whitlock accuses the Chiefs of swindling him, but he wanted to negotiate on his own, with no agent, and just get the deal done quietly and without having to pay an agent. It's not like Carl convinced Waters to release Johnny Fontaine here. What evidence does Whitlock have that the negotiations did not play out on an even keel?
Posts: 80,659