"I used as my measuring stick the fact that the New York Giants got a second and fifth round picks for Jeremy Shockey," said Peterson. "Although he is five years younger, in my opinion he’s not as good and never will be as good as Tony Gonzalez. Had a team come to us with a second-round pick, then there would have been a reason to continue the conversation. That never happened.
As far as I’m concerned, if you trade Tony Gonzalez for a second-day draft pick, you really have demeaned one helluva football player. I know where he’s at, I know he’s 32 years old. His value to the Kansas City Chiefs exceeds anything that was offered."
about 1 month ago
primetime 07
20 comments
0 recs |
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Gretz versus Holthus
After reading a lot of Gretz and listening to a lot of Holthus on 810 it makes me wonder. Who would win in an ass kissing contest between Bob and Mitch?
by ashleylat on Oct 15, 2008 9:40 AM CDT 0 recs
Gretz
Holthus criticizes more.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 9:47 AM CDT
up
0 recs
but its close....really close
and Holtus does observe the 24 hour rule…in that he takes it all back by Monday morning
by sm7600 on
Oct 15, 2008 10:16 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I agree with Carl on this one
TG is going to be a good TE for another 2-3 years. I know it’s smarter to trade him but we have to get at least a 2nd round pick for him.
Herm Edwards is a retard.
by CBaller13 on Oct 15, 2008 9:41 AM CDT 0 recs
Agreed
Now the question is…if he thinks Gonzalez is worth a 2nd rounder, why couldn’t he get that for Gonzalez in trade? It’s not like there wasn’t a market out there.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 9:46 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Well
it’s tough to get a high pick in the middle of the season for someone. It means they have to learn the system, etc. etc. I think with Dallas, they had been going after Roy Williams for like a year now and they finally said to themselves we need to do it to salvage this season bc TO is getting double team and old real fast. I also think Dallas is now a better team with Johnson at QB; TO, Williams and Crayton at WR, Witten at TE and Barber getting all the carries. If they get it together and Roy Williams learns the playbook, they could win it all this year. Before this trade, I didn’t see that happening – there O was struggling – particularly the OLine.
One thing thats being overlooked about Roy Williams is that he is a great YAC receiver and you can get quick passes to him and allow him to act like a Wes Welker with TO as a deep threat.
Herm Edwards is a retard.
by CBaller13 on
Oct 15, 2008 10:28 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I Agree That Williams Was Worth More Than Gonzalez In Trade
Age, position, etc.
What I’m saying is that Mayhew rated Williams as worthy of more than a first-round pick. So he got more than a first round pick for him.
Peterson rated Gonzalez worthy of a 2nd round pick (which I think is accurate in terms of his value to us), so why didn’t he get a 2nd round pick? And if he knew he wasn’t going to get a 2nd round pick for Gonzalez and that he wouldn’t accept less than that, why didn’t he quash Gonzalez’s trade request upfront instead of going through the charade then dumping the problem back on the coach’s lap? My point is that either Peterson’s assessment on Gonzalez’s value was really off, or Peterson had no intention of trading Gonzalez to begin with but decided to dupe the player by telling him he’d seek a trade, even if that created animosity with the player and put the coach in a tough spot…either way Peterson botched his handling of the situation (even though I think he made the right choice by not trading Gonzalez for a third rounder).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 11:34 AM CDT
up
0 recs
You know Crawford
In order to get a higher pick you have to get an offer for that pick from the other team. Just becuase you demand a second round pick for him doesn’t mean that the other team is going to cave and give it, especially if they’re a good team already.
Obviously the point you are trying to make is the point you are always trying to make, that Peterson is the worst GM in the history of the NFL, which isn’t even close to being true.
Tight End is honestly not that important a position for most teams and if they are a contender, they are doing it without the services of a Hall of Fame TE, so his value in their eyes is likely not as high as it is in ours.
by ChiefDJ on
Oct 15, 2008 5:11 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Straw Man, Straw Man, Straw Man
In order to get a higher pick you have to get an offer for that pick from the other team
No kidding? And here I thought it was just like Madden.
Just becuase you demand a second round pick for him doesn’t mean that the other team is going to cave and give it, especially if they’re a good team already.
Yeah, I know…I’ve said that before. So if Carl Peterson was looking for a trade with someone and he and Gonzalez knew a second-rounder wasn’t likely compensation, why’d he tell Gonzalez he take a third rounder? You try to attack my position by claiming I’m saying he should have gotten better trade offers, when what I’m saying is that Peterson either misjudged the value of Gonzalez on the market or lied to Gonzalez about how seriously he’d try to make a trade happen. Attack the argument that I’m actually making, don’t attack the one I didn’t make that you think you can beat.
Obviously the point you are trying to make is the point you are always trying to make, that Peterson is the worst GM in the history of the NFL, which isn’t even close to being true.
Actually I’ve never made that argument. In fact, I said that Matt Millen was probably the worst GM ever in my Mayhew post and I haven’t seen anything to convince me that was wrong.
This “all of your opinions are invalid because you’re a Carl-Hater” stance of yours is getting old. I’ve generally pointed out that Peterson is a terrible GM who often handles delicate situations terribly, usually because it works to his own advantage (and not necessarily because it works to the advantage of the team). I’ve backed it up with examples. Your defense of Peterson, on the other hand, can usually be reduced to “he was good back in the 1990s”, or “he’s not really in charge of the Chiefs, Herm’s really in charge of the Chiefs” (a position you’ll conveniently abandon whenever we try to point out Herm’s shortcomings, of course), or “you’re a Carl Hater”. I honestly don’t know where this continual faith in Peterson comes from but you’re looking for a pony under a pile of horseshit…don’t try to paint me as irrational just because I won’t help you dig.
Tight End is honestly not that important a position for most teams and if they are a contender, they are doing it without the services of a Hall of Fame TE, so his value in their eyes is likely not as high as it is in ours.
I agree. We were extremely unlikely to get a 2nd round pick and a 5th rounder for Gonzalez. A trade was not likely to happen. So why didn’t Carl Peterson tell Tony Gonzalez that?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 5:33 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Boring Boring
You try to attack my position by claiming I’m saying he should have gotten better trade offers, when what I’m saying is that Peterson either misjudged the value of Gonzalez on the market or lied to Gonzalez about how seriously he’d try to make a trade happen.
You yourself said you would not have traded Tony for a 3rd rounder. A bit hypocritical to be bashing him for not doing it isn’t it? You can get by with it with a lot of people because everyone hates Carl and will say “We bashing Carl here? Yeah me too!” but it doesn’t change the fact you are criticizing him for doing what you wouldn’t have done and would have blasted him for trading him for less than his value.
What argument are you making? Everything you say is full of bile and venom and most of the time is so ridiculous its hard to take you seriously.
You weren’t in on the conversation between Tony and Carl. Tony says Carl told him he gave a 3rd rounder for Willie Roaf. Big deal. I saw nothing in the quote that Carl specifically told him what they were looking to get out of him, just a frustrated Tonys assumptions.
I’ve generally pointed out that Peterson is a terrible GM who often handles delicate situations terribly, usually because it works to his own advantage
Generally pointed out in every single one of the dozens of posts you make a day whether it is related to the topic at hand or not. You can squeeze a Carl or Herm bash into anything. Obviously you’re quite talented at it.
Your defense of Peterson, on the other hand, can usually be reduced to "he was good back in the 1990s", or "he’s not really in charge of the Chiefs
Provide me with a quote of my comments please. I believe you must be mistaking me with someone else. I do not generally defend Carl Peterson because its a lost cause and he has had plenty of time to do what he is going to do. I do it only when, again, you make ridiculous outlandish comments in which Peterson does what you would have done and you still bash him. Or when you try to flake off good deal he has made, like the Jared Allen trade by saying it was the least he could do.
We were extremely unlikely to get a 2nd round pick and a 5th rounder for Gonzalez. A trade was not likely to happen. So why didn’t Carl Peterson tell Tony Gonzalez that?
Are you serious? You never know until you try and Tony wanted them to try. He tried, it didn’t happen, end of story. Tony is obviously disappointed because this was a difficult decision for him to make and he finally had come to peace with it and it didn’t happen.
How do you know Carl DIDN’T tell him it was unlikely that they would get what they were after but Tony told them to try anyway?
You make so many jumps to conclusions because you already have your mind made up on any matter involving Carl Peterson that there isn’t even the hint of objectivity anywhere near.
by ChiefDJ on
Oct 15, 2008 5:51 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Straw Man...Again
You yourself said you would not have traded Tony for a 3rd rounder.
Yes I did. I’m also not the one who told Tony Gonzalez that I would trade him for a 3rd rounder.
A bit hypocritical to be bashing him for not doing it isn’t it?
Not really, because I actually complimented him for not trading Gonzalez. I blasted him for lying to Gonzalez and creating a potential problem this offseason.
but it doesn’t change the fact you are criticizing him for doing what you wouldn’t have done and would have blasted him for trading him for less than his value.
Actually I never made that argument. You did, then attempted to attribute it to me so you could knock it down and claim you defeated the argument I did make. Why? No clue…I suspect it’s because you either don’t understand my argument (in which case you should ask for clarification, which I’ll happily provide absent the snark) or because you can’t actually beat the argument I make (in which case you should either admit you’re wrong or simply not engage me in a debate).
What argument are you making?
That Carl Peterson’s handling of this football team is what’s keeping it from progressing more than any other factor. Not the aging players. Not Dick Vermeil. Not the inexperience on this year’s staff. Carl Peterson. Because he was responsible for all those other things.
Everything you say is full of bile and venom
Well, to be blunt it’s because people who consistently make straw men of my arguments kind of get me riled. I get really sick of having to explain myself over and over again to the same people who automatically assume I’m saying something different and never bother to read what I’m actually saying. You want less bile? Then quit making up bad arguments and attributing them to me or dismissing my position as “Carl Hatred”. There are rational explanations behind what I’m saying if you’d bother to pay attention.
I’ve got to run right now, but I’ll address the rest of your comment a little later. You’ve got a valid point in there that I’d like to bring up.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 6:06 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yes I did. I’m also not the one who told Tony Gonzalez that I would trade him for a 3rd rounder.
Actually I never made that argument. You did, then attempted to attribute it to me so you could knock it down and claim you defeated the argument I did make. Why? No clue…I suspect it’s because you either don’t understand my argument (in which case you should ask for clarification, which I’ll happily provide absent the snark) or because you can’t actually beat the argument I make (in which case you should either admit you’re wrong or simply not engage me in a debate).
Powers of deduction my friend. You made it clear that Tonys value was more than a late 3rd round pick. I cleverly deduced that considering your attitude towards Carl and how you try to pick every nit that presents itself that you were more than prepared to blast him for giving him away from a low pick.
Maybe I’m wrong about your intentions, maybe I’m right. Regardless of what you say publicly, only you know what you would have said had it happened that way. Maybe the same can be said for your deductions on Carl?
That Carl Peterson’s handling of this football team is what’s keeping it from progressing more than any other factor. Not the aging players. Not Dick Vermeil. Not the inexperience on this year’s staff. Carl Peterson. Because he was responsible for all those other things.
Yep, he was responsible for Lin Elliot missing the field goal in the AFC Championship game in 1993. He was responsible for the Chiefs defense failing to force the Colts to punt a single time in 2003.
Peterson is an extremely abrasive and arrogant person with horrible people skills, but he has put this team in positions to succeed many times over the last 20 years. Unfortunately it didn’t happen. In the end I guess thats all that matters.
Well, to be blunt it’s because people who consistently make straw men of my arguments kind of get me riled. I get really sick of having to explain myself over and over again to the same people who automatically assume I’m saying something different and never bother to read what I’m actually saying. You want less bile? Then quit making up bad arguments and attributing them to me or dismissing my position as "Carl Hatred". There are rational explanations behind what I’m saying if you’d bother to pay attention.
Thats because your arguments are Paper Tigers. They are wholly based on your opinion and personal interpretation of the facts colored by your prejudice of the people involved.
Early when you began posting at AP you made logical arguments and promoted good discussions. But you’ve somehow gone beyond that into the arena of KC Star Messageboard contributor. All you have done for a couple of months is bash with little useful or interesting to say.
I would love to have conversations about the Chiefs that don’t devlove into Herm/Carl bashing/defending sessions, but it always ends up there doesn’t it? Because you blame everything bad that happens on those guys and I think that is absolutely ludicrous.
by ChiefDJ on
Oct 15, 2008 6:42 PM CDT
up
0 recs
There was a thread posted today
Where the poster asked to not devolve into an Organization bash-fest.
Sure enough it devolved into an Organization bash-fest.
by AngryJesus on
Oct 15, 2008 7:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Organization Bash-Fest
I don’t mean this to sound snarky, but where else do you think the finger should be pointing? The Chiefs have been a franchise with problems for a very long time, and the one constant during all of that has been the general manager (who’s had complete control over the franchise). Some people blame the coaches, but he hired all of the coaches. Some people blame the players, but he drafted and signed all the players. Some people blame bad drafting, but he was responsible for all the drafting.
He’s the one who’s been in charge all this time, so is it really a stretch to point out that out and wonder why he’s not being held responsible for the performance of the organization he’s running?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 9:09 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Going On Two Threads
Powers of deduction my friend. You made it clear that Tonys value was more than a late 3rd round pick. I cleverly deduced that considering your attitude towards Carl and how you try to pick every nit that presents itself that you were more than prepared to blast him for giving him away from a low pick.
Hate to break this to you, but you’re better off not relying on your powers of deduction because they’re not serving you well at all. Your powers of “deduction” are leading you to misinterpret other peoples’ arguments entirely because you’re not actually paying attention to what they’re saying, you’re just creating caricatures of their arguments and attacking those.
Did I blast the failure to trade Gonzalez? No. Did I blast how Peterson handled the trade process? Yes.
Perhaps you should leave the deducing to others and focus more on what I’m actually saying rather than what you think I’m saying. It’s not like I’ve been unwilling to explain myself fully whenever anyone’s been unclear.
Yep, he was responsible for Lin Elliot missing the field goal in the AFC Championship game in 1993.
Yes, he was…because he signed Lin Elliott to be our kicker when the guy was a terrible kicker in Dallas.
He was responsible for the Chiefs defense failing to force the Colts to punt a single time in 2003.
Yes, he was…because he built that defense, he drafted and recruited the players on it, and he left Greg Robinson in charge of running it well after the point where it became apparent he was doing a terrible job. He is responsible for the quality of the product on the field because he put that product on the field.
Peterson is an extremely abrasive and arrogant person with horrible people skills, but he has put this team in positions to succeed many times over the last 20 years.
The teams he built haven’t won a playoff game in 14 years. They’ve been to the playoffs twice since Marty Schottenheimer left a decade ago. They’ve had the same level of success against the AFC West that the rest of the NFL has had in the last decade, and they’ve got a losing record outside of the AFC West. He hasn’t been a successful GM in a very long time and he should have been fired well before this.
Unfortunately it didn’t happen. In the end I guess thats all that matters.
You’re right…that is all that matters. Because that’s supposed to be his damned job. To build teams that win football games and compete for championships. And if he can’t do that after 20 years he can go sell cars, or work for charity, or do commentary on the networsk, or do whatever it is that GMs who aren’t good at their jobs anymore do after their former teams realize it’s time to cut ties. This isn’t a retirement home…especially for someone who’s never won a championship.
Thats because your arguments are Paper Tigers. They are wholly based on your opinion and personal interpretation of the facts colored by your prejudice of the people involved.
My opinions based on the facts that Peterson’s teams haven’t won a playoff game in 14 years, that they’ve been to the playoffs twice in the last decade, that no other team in the NFL has kept a GM that unsuccessful that long unless he also owned the team, and that the 2008 Chiefs are one of the worst football teams I’ve ever seen. What are your opinions based on?
I would love to have conversations about the Chiefs that don’t devlove into Herm/Carl bashing/defending sessions,
And I would love it if you’d admit that when the same guy’s been in complete control of the franchise for the last 20 years, with supportive ownership and the team hasn’t been successful for the last half of that, that maybe, just maybe, he’s the one responsible for most of the problems and probably isn’t a good choice to have responsibility for fixing it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 9:03 PM CDT
up
0 recs
As For This
Early when you began posting at AP you made logical arguments and promoted good discussions. But you’ve somehow gone beyond that into the arena of KC Star Messageboard contributor. All you have done for a couple of months is bash with little useful or interesting to say.
And you used to write opinions that didn’t make commenters question whether you were Herm or Carl writing under a pseudonym.
Sorry, if you’re tired of hearing me point out the obvious problem, but since that’s the necessary step on the way to fixing this I’d rather not pretend that the problem doesn’t exist so I can write stuff that you find more interesting. As far as I know, nobody’s forcing you to read anything I write…or forcing you to respond to it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 9:14 PM CDT
up
0 recs
KC Star message boards
Now let’s not degrade anyone :)
by primetime 07 on
Oct 15, 2008 10:04 PM CDT
up
0 recs
The Troll Kingdom
KC Star message boards
I don’t think that anyone here has sunk quite that low yet. Well, maybe the guy who wrote that FanPost that said “Thank God we didn’t keep Sippio” over and over again until he hit the minimum word limit.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 15, 2008 10:09 PM CDT
up
0 recs
On CP
Is it demeaning to trade a guy for a 2nd round pick IF HE ASKED TO GO? I think we should have let TG go for his sake. But not for what was offered. It’s a tough call. TG bashed the organization a few weeks ago on a selfish tirade. Maybe we should have moved him.
Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.
by 306008 on Oct 15, 2008 12:47 PM CDT 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Arrowhead Pride
Stories From Around 
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
