Carl Peterson Will Be Picking His Successor
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 11:55 AM CDT
145 comments
So much for wishing the owner would say more about the state of the team.
Per the Red Zone, Clark Hunt told other owners at the NFL's fall meeting this week that Carl Peterson will be selecting his own successor.
"He and I had the discussion when he signed the contract that at the end we would need a succession plan," Hunt said. "It’s not a subject we’ve revisited but logically we would revisit after the season. Carl heads both the business side and the football side of the organization, which is a little bit unusual for the league. We need to think through carefully where we’re going with regard to both aspects of the operation and who the right people are for those roles."
Hmmm, this sounds suspiciously like what Jason Whitlock said a week ago that Carl Peterson was angling for...keeping the CEO job so he could move his current assistant Bill Kuharich into the GM role, thereby allowing him to maintain control of the franchise and direct decisions through his proxies.
Asked whether that meant he had made the decision to eventually split Peterson's duties into two and hire different people to run them, Hunt said, "No. Two people is much more typical but that’s not to say if we found the right person who had both skill sets, I wouldn't be open to that.
"It’s worked for us for 20 years so I don’t want to preclude that but it’s more likely that we’ll end up with two people filling the roles."
So, in 20 years this team has won three playoff games (none in the last 14 years) and gone to zero Super Bowls, and the owner thinks things have been working out? The only way that you could describe a record like that as "working out" is if ownership cares less about whether the football team is competitive and more about whether the stadium is full every Sunday. Which would indicate that the Chiefs' management's mindset is exactly what Arrowhead Pride commenter TouchdownKansasCity suggested it was in an earlier discussion...only mildly interested in building a championship caliber team. Here are his thoughts:
Chief fans, I most certainly enjoy exploring the endless possibilities of players, coaches, and strategies that will turn this dark season into a less painless season. But, I submit to you that we should also focus some of our distain of this season upon the Kansas City Chief organization itself.
In 2003, this organization was the 19th most profitable franchise in the NFL with a net worth of $601 million. Our won/loss record that year was 12-4. I believe that many fans would find it interesting that in 2007 this organization was the 13th most profitable franchise in the NFL with a net worth of $960 million. Our won/loss record last year was 4-12. As an added note, that was a 7% increase in net worth as compared to 2006 9-7 playoff season. I was amazed to learn that gate receipts, including club box seats, were $46 million in 2007. The capacity of Arrowhead stadium is 79,451 with an average ticket price of $67. In 2007, that average attendance was over 68,000 fans.
When we say organization, let us be realistic and say Clark Hunt and Carl Peterson. These two gentlemen have invoked an age old sports business technique know has "Rebuilding". This technique is only profitable in markets where a strong fan base exists. I offer the Pittsburg Pirates as an example of the opposite of this technique. This is most certainly a young (in NFL experience) team, but this is not a young talented team. We most certainly can question the level of talent in the "experienced" coaching staff. This team was assembled not to be a contending team with a successful won/loss record, but merely to be a profitable team.
Some would say they are simply making room for future higher salary players to improve the talent level of this team. I answer that with this simple question: When was the last appearance by this organization in the Super Bowl?
I have no doubt that when the 2008 numbers are compiled, Clark Hunt and Carl Peterson will have realized and achieved their goal for this season. Unfortunately, it will not equate in our goal of seeing a successful contending team in 2008.
I'd like to be able to say he's wrong, but based off of Clark Hunt's actions and comments I don't think that he is.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
0 recs |
145 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss
Exactly the same as the old boss.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can things
Change if the same person is ultimately in charge?
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They Don't
In his column Teicher also said that Hunt and Peterson said that this would be Peterson’s final contract with the Chiefs in that interview. But Hunt didn’t say that…he said that Peterson “mentioned” to him three years ago that he planned to retire after his contract was up and that he’d never openly changed his mind…but Peterson has never publicly said he plans to retire after 2009. Hunt never said that Carl Peterson is definitely leaving after the contract’s over, or that he wouldn’t be open to accepting another contract for a different job running the organization. Based off of what was written in the interview, Teicher simply assumed that’s what he meant.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is one way to change this
But it is going to take a monumental set aside of every season ticket holder that shares a stake in the Chiefs organization. I understand how the ticket game works and know there are few if any season tickets available each year. But Clark Hunt has to be hit in his wallet..Period, end of sentence.
The season ticket holders have to stop purchasing the tickets. All 77,000 or whatever. 77,000 times $67.00 (average price) equals $5,159,000.00. I have no idea what the club prices are and boxes and all that stuff. But I can almost guarantee Clark hunt will get THE message when he sees that money going elsewhere.
I know I don’t hold season tickets and don’t have that stake, but it’s the only way to get something “realistic” done. I am not willing to go through 1977-1988 again. Been there done that, bought several jerseys. Fans can have a major impact on a decision, if they REALLY WANT to, and deserve to be heard, when they WANT to.
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Thats the thing. For all the people saying the majority of fans are disgruntled, they are still paying for the tickets. Arrowhead still hasn’t been blacked out on TV.
Many season ticket holders at least claimed they were not buying tickets anymore after last year, but many more stepped up and took them.
I’m not saying there never will be a blackout. I’m just saying that the fans in general are not as disinfranchised as some claim. Going to Arrowhead is still a big part of life in KC and likely will continue to be.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll actually be surprised if we have a blackout
even this season. You’re right about others stepping up and buying the season tickets – I know a lot of people in KC who have always wanted season tickets, but could never get them. Now they are looking at it as an investment – when the Chiefs turn things around and start winning, they’ll have good seats, and the ones who decided not to renew their tickets will be sitting in the 300’s =)
by PVChiefsfan on Oct 17, 2008 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something I regularly bring up
Is what Tim Grunhard said last year when the Chiefs were losing really bad and the fans were really pissed off. He said in the early 90s, a new breed of Chiefs fan came to Arrowhead than the leftovers from the 60s. There were still loyal fans that came and watched them no matter how bad they were, but there was a new influx of people in the early 90s that swept out a lot of the old disgruntled ones that stopped coming to show their displeasure.
What Grunhard said was that this is what may be happening again. The team will go through a couple bad years and the disgruntled fans will stop buying their tickets and fans that appreciate the team more and are excited to watch them rebuild will buy them and enjoy watching this team grow up and eventually become a great team again.
Thus a new generation of Chiefs fans not raised on Marty and Derrick Thomas will be largely replaced by fans raised on Herm and Glen Dorsey.
I think that statment was very inciteful and likley to happen. There will always be old timers from the previous generation that stick around like theres guys from the Len Dawson era that bought tickets all those years the team was bad and continue to buy them today. But the digruntled fans will eventually find things to spend their money on that cause them less stress and eventually come back when the team gets better and it will be a new experience for them learning who all the new guys are.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it comes down to
Either you learn to live with it or you go insane out of frustration.
I know nobody wants to hear that but if the owner is going to continue down a pat that a section of the fanbase is absolutely revolted by, you have no recourse. You can’t overthrow the owner unless the majority of people stop going to games (which isn’t happening, they still are yet to have a blackout due to lack of ticket sales after a 4-12 season and a 1-4 start this year) and the owner sells the team in which case there likely would no longer be the KC Chiefs but likely the Los Angeles whatever the hell they would be called.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Memories...
pressed between the pages of my life… (Elvis, 1968 comeback special) I thought about that as you mentioned being sold and moving away.
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's About Right...Or There's A Third Option
You simply quit paying attention because you find better things to do with yourself on Sundays. Happened to the Royals after too many years of the Glass/Robinson/Baird/Muser/Boone era(s).
Hate to say it, but if you want the Chiefs to improve, don’t accept mediocrity from them. Don’t buy jerseys or tickets until they put a product on the field that’s worth watching. If they use corporate sponsorship to keep the games from being blacked out, then that’s even better…watch the games at home for free (then you’re not punishing yourself by skipping the games or putting money into the owners’ pockets to reward them for doing a bad job). And be public in your criticisms on sites like this…say exactly what you’d like to see from them before you’ll be their paying customer again.
Sometimes being a good fan means using a little tough love.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly right
Ranting and raving does nothing.
If you really think change needs to be made, you have to be willing to stop supporting it.
The problem is, there really is not that groundswelling of desire to make that leap. Thats why theres so much complaining.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'll Happen Gradually
It happened in the ‘70s and ’80s. Eventually fans quit showing up. It’ll happen here too. But I also recognize that it won’t have much to do with anything I write…I’m just expressing my own opinion here. But for my own small part I am now officially boycotting all Chiefs’ products until such time as the team improves. And I’ll forego buying any products advertised during Chiefs games unless it’s an absolute necessity.
I have no illusions that my choice will have any real impact, but I can only control what I choose to do so I’ll follow my conscience. If others do the same eventually it will have an impact, but I won’t pretend that anything I write’s going to kick that off. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Of Course I'll Keep Watching The Games
Might as well…since they come with my cable package.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So back to Clark
…is he:
1) Ignorant of the facts of the fans feelings
2) Brainwashed
3) Naive
‘Cause if this is a learning process, it’ll cost him a lot of money.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So my comment on the bottom of my post is correct
it’ll cost him a lot of money.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
George W. Bush Had A Plan And Stuck To It
And the results have been bad. So that argument’s never held much weight with me. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think Whitlock Said It
He still sees the fans showing up, so he figures that the fans still have faith in the team, so he figures they’re on the right path.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My post...
…“All of the above” is correct in it. He keeps this up he’ll have wished he kept Worlds of Fun for the revenue.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you really believe we are going that direction
That is your only choice.
I admire people that actually take action much more than simply complaining about it.
Though by watching it on TV you are still supporting the Chiefs since they get money for televising the games. :)
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True...
…but he can cover his windows without black plastic so nobody can see him in Chiefs his Grbac jersey while watching the game ;-)
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Most Recent Jersey I've Got
Is a Boston Bruins jersey with 77 and “Bourque” on it. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No More Than I Support "The View"
The Chiefs games come with my basic cable package…I don’t have DirecTV or anything like that. So whether I watch the game or not is irrelevant because I’m still supporting them just as much if I watch “Dirty Jobs” or the game on Fox.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A closet "Star Jones" fan?
totally kidding, couldn’t help myself. Of all the shows on TV you pick that one though…lol. Couldn’t resist.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Admire People
Who are good at what they do, regardless of whether they’ve got a “plan” or not. As for taking action, all I can do is boycott…unless Clark Hunt offers me the GM job, in which case goodbye Herm. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say sell'em
We’ll retain the rights to the name like Cleveland did and have a new owner and Chiefs franchise. then we’ll win the SB in 3 years.
Ohhhh how I wish it were that easy.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I quit!
This is my 2 week notice, as I have found a new team. I am moving on the the Green Bay Packers. It has been a great 20 years, but I think its time for me to move on. I wish you the best in the future.
Thanks for the memories,
JasonM
Go to Wide World of Roto for all your fantasy news!
by JasonM on Oct 17, 2008 12:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Relationships On The Side
I don’t think they’re the worst thing in the world. I’m a Royals fan, but I’ll admit that I followed the Boston Red Sox as closely as the Royals from about 1995 on. Does it mean I didn’t care about the Royals or that they weren’t my team? No. Was it cheating? Probably. But sometimes you just do what you’ve got to do to make it through the rough patches in a relationship until the other party starts to fix the problems that are causing the rifts. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya it was a joke
but I really do think that for the next year or 2 I will be a pretty big Packers and Browns fan. So I guess that until the Chiefs change I will still be a huge fan, just not spend any more money on them.
Go to Wide World of Roto for all your fantasy news!
by JasonM on Oct 17, 2008 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was gonna say
You have to suffer with us my friend!
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm here
I just really need some changes, if this is true, then Clark is really just about the money and nothing else. I wonder if we started a petition and got signatures by the majority of KC fans would Clark change his mind? I’m gonna look into start a petition.
Go to Wide World of Roto for all your fantasy news!
by JasonM on Oct 17, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Petitions Are Useless
Someone else here said it, the only way that you affect team owners’ mindsets is by affecting their bottom line. Look at the Raiders fans…those guys have been terrible for most of the last decade and yet their fans still show up to all the games. So Al Davis doesn’t care.
Actually, he probably wouldn’t care even if they didn’t show up. I saw an article that pointed out that the Raiders franchise is one of the least valuable in the NFL. Davis is so loony he doesn’t even seem to care that much about the money anymore, or winning…just staying in charge of the Raiders.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Rooted For The Cowboys A Lot Last Year
Partly because my brother-in-law is a huge fan, partly because Tony Romo was on my fantasy team (why oh why did I keep Steven Jackson instead of him), partly because they’re fun to watch, partly because their games are on all the time here. But I don’t know that I could actually make that leap and cut ties with the Chiefs. I can definitely choose not to give them my money (not that I give a lot anyway), but I’ll still keep up with them.
I suppose that I’ll get back into watching them again this year, though…since Roy Williams is on my fantasy team and he just got himself traded back. Plus, it’s fun talking about the Cowboys with my brother-in-law (he’s a long-time season ticket holder).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
I’ll still be a Chiefs fan first and foremost…same as I’m a Royals fan first and foremost. I’ll just cheat with others on occasion to keep life interesting. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need for you to
check out that potential GM list now. Carl’s list will be: Bill Kuharich, Denny Thum, Lynn Styles, Bill Newman, and Ray Farmer. If I had to choose one it would be Ray Farmer out of that group.
Go to Wide World of Roto for all your fantasy news!
by JasonM on Oct 17, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Farmer Seems To Have A Clue
So I wouldn’t mind him based off of his scouting ability but he doesn’t seem to have much of a mind for the other stuff. But my money’s solely on Kuharich…he’s got the experience, even though most of it isn’t that good, and he’s Carl’s right-hand man.
I don’t think Lynn Stiles is with the organization anymore.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least when Ray tells people they are let go
he tells em like it is, “you should have made chicken shit out of chicken salad!”
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He Didn't Say That
It was actually Printers trying to defend his performance. Farmer gave him diplomatic answers and admitted that he didn’t know what else Printers could have done to keep the job. But Farmer handled the situation about as well as could have been expected.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Will Say
That Printers’ remark is, to my mind, one of the best quotes ever in NFL history. Even if it’s probably not going to be remembered by anyone outside of KC.
One of those few times when an athlete is just brutally honest about his team and makes a catchy remark.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah Ah
No No No. You can’t get off that easy. Bandwagoner ;-)
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bandwagon Fans
Are those who abandon their team entirely and then claim that they’re fans of another team. I, on the other hand, am merely a cheater. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ho ;-)
…I hope you’re not a cheap one.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Cowboys Affair
Started the day I acquired Tony Romo for Edgerrin James straight up in trade and he carried my fantasy team for a year. Would that be considered cheap? :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What year is the question of the trade?
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2007, Prior To The Start Of The Fantasy Season
Although I actually had him on my team the year before that as well. I snagged him when Drew Bledsoe (my 4th round pick that year) tanked in 2006. He was drafted in the 10th round in 2007, I desperately needed a QB (because I had to go to a wedding on draft day and the autopick only gave me Eli Manning as a QB) and Romo was my first target on the trade market. I offered a lowball bid to the guy who had him (Edgerrin James and Terry Glenn, both of whom I knew weren’t going to be that good) and the guy accepted and threw in Jason Witten as well as the player-to-be-named-later.
Needless to say that our fantasy seasons went in completely different directions from that point on. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating = Good Football
Is it cheating to watch and cheer for other teams? Maybe. But if that’s what you have to do to see some good football, go for it. Luckily, I live in Iowa and not all of the Chiefs games are televised here, so it feels less like cheating since watching the Chiefs is not an option. Now I need to find a team that plays good football and won’t soil my red-and-gold heart. The Packers are livable. Maybe Buffalo.
by Chiefs4Life on Oct 17, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Packs beat us in the SB so no go
…and no divisional opponents. Everything else is fair game Chiefs4Life and UC.
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I could never root for a divisional opponent. I do like Buffalo this year, primarily because they’re kind of an underdog but I think they’ve got a good football team (plus, I’ve got Marshawn Lynch). I also couldn’t see myself rooting for any team who doesn’t have at least one player on my fantasy football team. Otherwise there’s just no upside.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously this is rotten news
and confirmation that the Chiefs are becoming the Chicago Cubs of the NFL
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 1:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I see a pattern here
I think this is who he is referring to except in Carl’s image
by THE_TRUTH on Oct 17, 2008 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I said it before and I'll say it again
Carl will pick the KC Wolf to run this organization.
by Shawn on Oct 17, 2008 1:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
At least the Wolf knows how to tackle a guy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOofejdChSg
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's really sad
I now have no respect for Clark Hunt.
Herm Edwards is a retard.
by CBaller13 on Oct 17, 2008 2:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The great thing about the 1977-1988
period was that you could come to Arrowhead and on many Sundays pick where you wished to sit because no one was there. Is that what we are reduced to, again? Some fans (they know who they are) are perfectly content with this fiasco, because they think it is part of a plan. The plan itself is not flawed, but the execution of it and the coaching are. Carl Peterson needs to go. He has had his twenty years on the Chiefs stage and it is time for his exit. Herm’s poor,poor,poor,POOR, coaching abilities and absolutely goofball coaching philosophy will NEVER win a Super Bowl. Not now, not ever, never in a million seasons. He has shown us what his philosophy will bring. It brings absolute chaos and a directionless, losing football squad incapable of righting itself. Carl Peterson tried. Kudos to him for doing so for twenty years. Now it needs to be adios, muchacho and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Herm, should never have been the coach of the Chiefs or any other professional football team. We need to get some one in here to clean up Herm’s mess and get on with the business of building a respectable football team. I, for one, will never rest until Herm is out of here and just an unpleasant asterisk in Chiefs history.
by G.L. on Oct 17, 2008 2:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I assume you're directing this at me
What you are saying is exactly what the fans of the 1989 Dallas Cowboys said.
It’s the same thing the 2004 Giants fans said.
It’s the same thing the 1998 Colts fans said.
etc etc.
Every fan thinks their team is blowing it when they lose and are rebuilding. After all, if they were rebuilding properly they wouldn’t be losing right? Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones were the biggest boobs in Dallas when they went 1-15 in the first year of a rebuild after trading away Hershell Walker and their 1st round QB threw for 53% accuracy and 18 INTs.
A couple years later they’re winning the Super Bowl.
The point being just because it looks bad doesn’t mean its not working. It always looks bad.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparisons
The 2004 Giants brought in a new head coach to run things and the team improved his second season and hasn’t had a losing season since.
The 1998 Colts deposed their old owner (Jim Irsay forced out Bob Irsay) brought in a new GM, a new head coach and a new franchise QB and they went from 3-13 in Jim Mora’s first season to 13-3 in his second.
The 1989 Giants got a new owner, a new GM and a new coach and went from 1-15 to 7-9 to 11-5 in Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones’ first three years.
The 2006 Kansas City Chiefs kept the same GM they’d had for 16 years, hired a coach who was accused of not playing to win in New York, and went 9-7 (down from 10-6 the previous year), 4-12, and now 1-4 (with a good shot at winning no more games this year).
So you tell me, DJ, which one of those teams doesn’t fit the pattern?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does it matter?
I’m sure if Herm had been allowed to rebuild his first year here we would be further along today than we are now.
The Chiefs situation is unique in that the team did not degrade due to bad coaching but rather because of bad drafting / rejuvenating of the roster. If you want to blame that on Peterson, go ahead, he was the one ultimately responsible for those things. But in the end it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that year 1 rebuilding teams typically suffer and that we are now a year 1 rebuilding team.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Matters Because That The Reason The Chiefs Aren't Going To Progress
I’m sure if Herm had been allowed to rebuild his first year here we would be further along today than we are now.
And I’m sure that if Herm had seriously believed that he needed to rebuild from the start and Carl Peterson told him no that he wouldn’t have taken the job. You say “Herm never had a chance”, I say “Herm’s making up excuses and revising history to cover his ass”.
The Chiefs situation is unique in that the team did not degrade due to bad coaching but rather because of bad drafting / rejuvenating of the roster.
There’s nothing unique about the Chiefs’ situation. They were an old team populated by bad players and old players and bad coaching and they were going nowhere. Just like the 1988 Cowboys. Know how the 1989 Cowboys addressed the situation? By firing the GM and head coach and bringing in new blood to run the team. That’s something the Chiefs have yet to do.
But in the end it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that year 1 rebuilding teams typically suffer and that we are now a year 1 rebuilding team
“Rebuilding” entails doing something different. I see the same head coach and GM that did a lousy job with the 2007 Chiefs and I hear a lot of excuses for why the team’s not performing up to even the low expectations we had for it and I recognize that nothing’s really changed. Ergo, we’re not actually rebuilding.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I’m sure that if Herm had seriously believed that he needed to rebuild from the start and Carl Peterson told him no that he wouldn’t have taken the job. You say "Herm never had a chance", I say "Herm’s making up excuses and revising history to cover his ass".
Your word vs. Herms. Frankly there is no evidence there of anything.
There’s nothing unique about the Chiefs’ situation. They were an old team populated by bad players and old players and bad coaching and they were going nowhere. Just like the 1988 Cowboys. Know how the 1989 Cowboys addressed the situation? By firing the GM and head coach and bringing in new blood to run the team. That’s something the Chiefs have yet to do.
Well in 2-3 years we’ll see whether you’re right or wrong. Until then we don’t know.
"Rebuilding" entails doing something different. I see the same head coach and GM that did a lousy job with the 2007 Chiefs and I hear a lot of excuses for why the team’s not performing up to even the low expectations we had for it and I recognize that nothing’s really changed. Ergo, we’re not actually rebuilding.
If you don’t think the Chiefs bringing in 16 rookies on the roster and cutting / trading away nearly all the vets older than 27 and building nearly exclusively out of the draft is different than the past 20 years, I don’t know who you’ve been watching.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evidence
Your word vs. Herms. Frankly there is no evidence there of anything.
9-7, 4-12, 1-4…there’s plenty of evidence that Herm’s incompetent. It’s a very clear pattern.
Well in 2-3 years we’ll see whether you’re right or wrong. Until then we don’t know.
Well I’m going to go out on a limb and call it now. The Chiefs will never be a good team as long as Herm and Carl are running them.
If you don’t think the Chiefs bringing in 16 rookies on the roster and cutting / trading away nearly all the vets older than 27 and building nearly exclusively out of the draft is different than the past 20 years
Deckchairs on the Titanic. I look at the games and see a team that’s even less competitive than the pathetically uncompetitive team from last year…despite the influx of young players (which should have made the team more competitive ala Miami and Atlanta). And I point the finger at the people who assembled that team, because it’s pretty obvious to me they did a lousy job.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there is a case that can be made
that Carl has been rebuilding for 19 years
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it also doesn't mean that its going to work
you described the success stories (although Colts 98 is quite the reach). Far more teams “rebuild” and never make it. The chances are quite good, given the percentages and the persons involved, that this rebuild won’t work either. By work I mean make the Super Bowl.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we should just not even try and be 8-8 forever?
Good plan.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
We should actually rebuild and hire a new GM and head coach instead of fake rebuilding by keeping around the same guy who ran the team into the toilet in the first place.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are starting from false reasoning
You start off by assuming that Peterson and Herm are incapable of rebuilding the roster.
Yes, Carl is ultimately responsible for the condition the chiefs are in now. He took a gamble during the Vermeil years and the consequence is what we are dealing with now. But in the end, the rebuild had to happen sooner or later. Carl has just been putting it off for way too long because he knew many fans would not stomach a rebuild. He was right.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My False Reasoning
Is predicated on Carl’s inability to build a team capable of winning a playoff game for the last 14 years and Herm’s questionable history of performance both here and in his previous job. You’re assuming that Carl and Herm can build a championship team because you want that to be true. I’m assuming that Carl and Herm can’t build a good team because I look at what they’ve already done and realize that they haven’t come close for a very long time so it’s unlikely that they’ve finally figured it out.
Carl has just been putting it off for way too long because he knew many fans would not stomach a rebuild.
So you’re saying that he decided a better way to force a rebuild was to slowly run the team into the ground for the last decade so that the fans would finally be willing to let him do a “rebuild” even though he’s never really shown much interest in what fan opinions were?
The reason Carl Peterson didn’t do a rebuild was because he didn’t want to. Period. And because he thought his methods would give the team a better chance of winning. And he was wrong. And his tenure has demonstrated that we shouldn’t be trusting his judgment of how well he can build a team now either.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I’m saying the he was plenty happy to field 9-7 and 10-6 teams that would lose in the first round of the playoffs because it kept the fans happy enough to keep paying for tickets, which is what his primary job is.
Carl Peterson NEVER wanted to rebuild. Especially not in the last two years of his contract. It wasn’t left up to him.
As much as people complained about the “mediocrity”, most of them are pining away for it now. Carl knew what he was talking about.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
Your contention is that the only reason the Chiefs didn’t do well was because he had no interest in making them do well? That he was holding back on what he knew would make a championship team? Because even I don’t think he went 9-7 and 10-6 on purpose.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Point Being
That Carl Peterson went 9-7 and 10-6 because he doesn’t know how to build a championship team while maintaining profitability. That’s why he’s not a good GM and why the fans shouldn’t trust him with a rebuild.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not pining for anything old.
I gave up my season tickets in 96. Best decision of my life.
I want something new. Like a super bowl champion.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
way to say something
I never hinted at in the post
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what are you saying then?
Far more teams "rebuild" and never make it. The chances are quite good, given the percentages and the persons involved, that this rebuild won’t work either. By work I mean make the Super Bowl.
Because to me that sure sounded like because you think the chances of a team rebuilding making it to the Super Bowl are bad, we shouldn’t even try. Or are you just complaining to complain?
Every team rebuilds eventually (well, except for probably the Steelers). The Patriots went through their rebuilding. The Colts went through theirs. The Chargers went through theirs.
You don’t just wake up one day and are a great team.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
AND THE PERSONALITIES INVOLVED
you really don’t pay attention, do you?
I have no confidence in the people doing the rebuild.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunatly for you
Clark Hunt doesn’t care what you think.
If the Chiefs end up as a serious contender a few years down the road, nobody will.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is a mighty big if
given the people doing the “assembly”
It might be pointed out that you’re probably not on Mr. Hunt’s speed dial, either.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't pretend to be
But obviously Clark agrees with much of what I think.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trolling
Clark Hunt doesn’t care what you think.
Cracks like that are why a lot of people here don’t care what you think. You’re going down that personal attack route again to shout down his argument.
Not trying to insult you by saying this…just pointing it out.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its also the reason I don't care what you think
I didn’t insult him. It is a fact. Clark Hunt doesn’t give a crap what you or I or sm7600 think. Pretending that he does is where most people are going wrong.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cause God knows measuring public sentiment
is no way to run a business predicated on ticket sales and TV ratings
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point sm
You brought up quite a few of them.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is why
I think you are Herm. But obviously Clark agrees with much of what I think.
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I am
Maybe that’s why I’m pulling my magic strings and making Bowe drop balls or Huard throw interceptions. Just to piss you off.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surprised
You have not tackled him for getting yards after the catch!
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trolling
Its also the reason I don’t care what you think
So you’re back to this after a day? Grow the fuck up, DJ…seriously. You’re so full of shit on most of your arguments that your eyes must be brown. You ignore people’s evidentiary arguments whenever they conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions. That’s not an exercise in mental debate…that’s just you being a childish asshole because you’re not able to match wits with anyone in a serious discussion.
I’m done with this topic…you lose the argument on the basis of utter cluelessness.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford
You resort to what you always resort to. Anyone that disagrees with you is full of crap you disregard anything they say out of hand.
You are not making points. You are taking things that can be interpreted in any number of ways and saying the way you view it is right and its all there is to it.
Pretty impossible to carry on a conversation that way. If I can’t match wits with you, I AM in big trouble. Everything you say is based on one thing. How much you hate Carl Peterson. No reasonable argument will ever be able to be made because it all comes down to Carl Peterson and you’re pissed he hasn’t been fired.
Well here’s something you need to figure out. You are NOT the GM or the owner of the Chiefs as you wish you were. You DO NOT have decision making power. You are a specator. You watch what happens.
That is the limit of your mystical powers. Watching.
Sorry if that makes you feel powerless so you have to lash out and scapegoat people, but its the way it is and something you’ll need to learn to deal with.
If you actually made a point that could be logically responded to without breaking it down paragraph by paragraph and nitpicking it, we could have a conversation. But you don’t. Everything boils down to “Well this situation isn’t EXACTLY like that one because Carl Peterson IS STILL OUR GM AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED 10 YEARS AGO!” and “well they had a new GM when they started their rebuild, ergo PETERSON MUST BE FIRED OR THE REBUILD IS NEVER GOING TO BE SUCCESFUL”.
You act as though Peterson is a curse and that everything he touches immediately turns to shit and so no matter who or what is done around him it will be horrible by the simple fact that he is still sitting in the office.
That is so boring. Boring, unrealistic and aboslutely insane in the real sense of the word.
If you don’t like what I have to say, then please, keep it to yourself so you don’t have to put yourself unders so much anguish. In 2-3 years, we will see if you were right or wrong and either way, nobody will really care much.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, then let's turn it around
how many GMs presided over their own rebuilds, that is to say, built a team up, Super Bowl participant, then knocked it down and rebuilt to the same level?
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me where I can find a list of GMs for teams
Like profootball reference has for coaches and I’d love to do the research. I don’t know of a source.
And I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. You want to know what GMs took their teams physically to the Super Bowl and then had to rebuild them, or what GMs built a team CAPABLE of going to the Super Bowl?
Because you could argue that Carl has built several teams that were good enough to go but for different reasons got tripped up. 1993 and 2003 being the most obvious.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
except they weren't good enough
because they did not get there.
Which is why I specified that they had gotten there.
And by the way, not being good enough is not the same as being tripped up. Buffalo routed them in the Championship Game, and I would submit that a team that couldn’t get one defensive stop against the opposition, when playing at home, is nowhere near a legit super bowl team either.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well you don't have teams
That go to the Super Bowl one year and rebuild the next and the Chiefs have never gone to the SUper Bowl anyway, so Im not sure where you’re going with this.
1993 was the year Lin Elliott missed the field goal with 2 second on the clock in the AFC Championship game that had he made it we would have gone to the Super Bowl.
You are right about the 2003 team not being able to get a stop, but in reality they were playing against a very very good Colts team and that year if we had been in the NFC or the Colts had, we likely would have been meeting in the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, we met maybe the only team better than us in the first game of the playoffs that year.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, the 1995 season was the Lin
Elliot Experience. You could look it up.
In 2003, I would point out that the Colts didn’t make the Super Bowl either. And after watching the Patriots work over the Colts in that AFC championship game, I’m not exactly sure that the Chiefs weren’t the third best team in the conference that year anyway.
Yes, it would be nice if we could magically change conference to give us an easier path to the super bowl, but that is not the reality.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry you're right about Elliot
Got that mixed up.
Yes, it would be nice if we could magically change conference to give us an easier path to the super bowl, but that is not the reality.
The point is, just because they didn’t win doesn’t mean that Peterson didn’t put together a team that was good enough. I think you could say that the 2007 Patriots are possibly one of the greatest teams of all time, but they didn’t win the last game.
That doesn’t mean that if they played the games 10 times they wouldn’t have won 9 of them. It just means that they didn’t win the one that counted.
But I don’t think that makes them less of a quality team just because that was the only game they lost that year.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
let's be clear, NE got to the
Super Bowl. Yes they barfed all over themselves, but they got there.
I don’t believe in this, oh they were good enough to go stuff. You either do, or do not.
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But when you're talking about a GM, which is what this is all about
A GMs job is to get the players and coaches that have the capability of doing it. The GM does not control what goes on on the field.
So when you’re talking about incidents that happen to a good team inside a game, that is out of the GMs control. Fumbles, Interceptions, hell there are so many things that happen that are just pure luck.
So to go hardcore and say that the team that wins the Super Bowl is THE best team that year is really not true. That team had things go the right way for them.
The Giants last year were not a very good team in the beginning of the year but got really hot towards the end and it carried through.
So does that mean the Giants GM did a better job then the 18-1 Patriots GM? No. Both did their jobs. They fielded a winner, but in the end there can only be one champion.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
When a GM continuously assembles teams that fall short…it’s a pretty good indication that he’s doing something wrong. And Carl’s assembled those kind of teams for a very long time…much longer than any other GM who’s never been to a Super Bowl.
The odds of somebody being that unlucky for 20 years are extremely slim. And if they are that unlucky, then we don’t really want them as our GM.
So does that mean the Giants GM did a better job then the 18-1 Patriots GM? No. Both did their jobs. They fielded a winner, but in the end there can only be one champion.
The difference between the Giants the Patriots and the Chiefs is that the Giants and the Patriots made it to a Super Bowl. None of Carl Peterson’s 19 teams ever have. And I don’t care if it was bad luck, or bad planning, or incompetence or anything else…he hasn’t gotten the results he’s promised in 19 years so he deserves to be fired. He doesn’t deserve to stick around and try again.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what we're talking about
We’re talking about how hardcore you’re going to be on whether a GM actually built a championship caliber team or not.
The GM brings in and pays the coaches and the players. His responsibiltiy more or less ends there. From there on its up to the coaches and players.
So it is entirely possible and quite frequently happens, that a GM will build a team fully capable of being a champion but that for whatever reason, stuff happens on the field and it doesn’t work out.
How about the Steelers when they went 15-1 in 2004 only to lose to the Patriots in the AFC Championship game? Was it the GM a failure because that team lost to the Patriots in the AFC Championship game?
Same with last years Patriots.
Same with the teams that were around the years the Chiefs almost went. We talk about 1993 because that was the year they got the closest, but the truth is for most of 4 or 5 years there they were a team that was good enough to win, but by bad luck or whatever, never got there.
Granted, they really haven’t been that team for a long time. For one year during the Vermeil era I think they were one of the best teams in football.
I’m just saying that if a GM builds a championship caliber team, thats all he can do. From there its up to the coaches and players. It’s like a QB throwing a pass. When the ball is in his hands, its his job to throw it in the right place (build a team capable of winning a championship) But no matter how perfectly that ball is thrown, if the WR (coaches and players) don’t catch it, it doesn’t matter.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody will
care if the team sucks still after all this?
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, nobody will care
whether Crawford was right or wrong about what GMs went through bad years and THEN rebuilt the team.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not talking about
other teams, I am talking about this team. If this team still sucks next year after two horrible back to back seasons people will care.
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You made it sound like Clark consults you
But obviously Clark agrees with much of what I think.
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Don't Just Wake Up One Morning
And suddenly you go from being a GM who builds mediocre teams to one who builds championship teams either.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is year freakin three
Of the rebuild, he ignored theoffense the first two. The defense has been completely rebuilt! It has been donein the prior two years.
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 3:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They did not commit to a rebuild until this year
Say what you want, it didnt happen.
Look at the record of most rebuilding teams. They have several bad years leading up to an actual beginning of the rebuild. Teams don’t wake up the season after going 13-3 and just say “Hey, lets rip the roster apart and start over”. They do it because the bandaid fixes aren’t working and they won’t work until they level everything and start over. That’s what happend this year.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just because Carl Peterson didn't say it
doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
by sm7600 on Oct 17, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look At The Record Of All The Rebuilding Teams You Pointed Out
In every single case it’s been pointed out to you that the Chiefs aren’t doing what they did and that their actions in no way indicate they’ll improve like those other teams did as long as Carl and Herm are in charge.
If you’re trying to play Devil’s advocate on this one, you’re not doing so constructively…you’re just being a contrarian who’s got no case.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only
Thing getting tore down is the offense. Herm will be judged alot more by the performance of Croyle the rest of the season. That is if Croyle can make it through eleven straight games. He probably will not due to a bad right side of the o-line, which Herm says needs continuity. So if Croyle gets hurt again, say he is out the rest of the season, are you still going to buy, “you play to win the game” if they keep Croyle as the unquestioned starter next year?
by Eric Allen on Oct 17, 2008 3:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No, I didn't direct that post at you ChiefDJ,
but I guess if the shoe fits………..About Herm,rebuilding or not, he sucks. Say what you want about the team Herm “inherited”, but these are the facts. That team had one of the top offenses in the NFL. After Herm took over, the offense sputtered and managed to just barely back into the playoffs. The team looked pitiful and lost. The following year, the team went 4-12 and suffered through the longest losing streak in Chiefs history during last year and this year. Currently we are 1-4 with no end in sight. No offense, no defense. The team is not improving, they are actually getting worse in many respects. The coaching philosophy has failed miserably and will continue to do so. Herm needs to go. I am unsure why you do not see this. Rebuilding? Perhaps in some fashion. To me it appears to be team wrecking by a totally incompetent coach. Why is there no progress?
by G.L. on Oct 17, 2008 4:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
but I guess if the shoe fits
It does. :)
That team had one of the top offenses in the NFL. After Herm took over, the offense sputtered and managed to just barely back into the playoffs. The team looked pitiful and lost.
And you don’t think having a rookie O-Coordinator that obviously was out of his league, having Trent Green being knocked out for half the season and obviously being out of sorts the rest of it had anything to do with it? How about losing your Hall of Fame left tackle and only having Jordan I-65 Black there to replace him?
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry hit enter too soon
The team is not improving, they are actually getting worse in many respects. The coaching philosophy has failed miserably and will continue to do so. Herm needs to go. I am unsure why you do not see this. Rebuilding? Perhaps in some fashion. To me it appears to be team wrecking by a totally incompetent coach. Why is there no progress?
The Cowboys went 1-15 the year they rebuilt. Do you think it looked succesful at the time?
When you build a house, the first thing you do is build the foundation. It takes time and doesn’t really look like a house, but without it the house will fall apart.
We’re doing the ugly foundation part right now.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my question:
Why does everything here have to break down into an argument between ChiefDJ and UCrawford? I hit this site every single day (several times) but I rarely post because I doubt anyone will see it amidst all the bitching at each other.
On that note, I don’t fault either one of you for voicing your opinions. I do see both of you somewhat as extremists, but I think both of you have valuable contributions here.
DJ – You are more of an optimist, like myself. Maybe too much of one, but I can see the point in a lot of your arguments. I enjoy your posts that try to give us a little hope and bring out any positives of the team.
UC – You seem like a bit more of a pessimist. By your demeanor I would imagine that you have been an avid fan for quite some time (long enough to develop a true hatred for Carl). Your arguments are very well written and insightful. I’m not quite as untrustworthy of the current regime as you are, but I’m getting there.
Let me offer an outside view to the two main points of the majority of your debates:
1. DJ argues that UC does nothing but bash on Herm and Carl. Yes, it does get old seeing it from everyone, all the time, but if it isn’t said then the organization has no way of knowing the fanbase is displeased, so ease up DJ. UC – you could try to not have such a one-sided view of things. To me, you border the Whitlock line, meaning no matter what Herm or Carl does you will complain, just because they did it.
2. You two go on about the future of this organization. You debated in this thread about the ability of the current regime to build a team. UC thinks that Herm and Carl must go. DJ thinks that things are normal because of the rebuild. Here’s my take on it:
I’m not sure what to think of Carl. I’d like to see him gone just for a change of atmosphere. If nothing else, he’s shown that he can piss off players like nobody’s business.
On to Herm. I blame him for most of the in-game problems. He seems to have a real lack of ability to evaluate and adapt (case in point McIntosh). He seems to be very stubborn about making any changes until the season’s over. The way the games are played also makes me question just how much he meddles with both the offensive and defensive coordinators.
Bottom line: the main debate seems to be if they can build a team. I say yes. Herm and and Kuharich seem to do a great job with the draft. My problem with them is the management of the team. Herm is a great scout and secondary coach. I doubt his abilities and philosophies as a head coach. Carl knows how to deal with money. I doubt his abilities to deal with the players.
I think you two are on the same track a lot more than you realize. Just in different ways. :)
by TheScootness on Oct 17, 2008 4:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just To Clarify
I don’t actually hate Carl Peterson…I just think he’s a GM who used to be decent but has had the game pass him by and has no clue how to build a championship team in today’s NFL. It’s not like I want the guy to get hit by a bus or anything. :) I’m sure he’s got his good points personally.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the thoughts Scootness
My thing is I hate scapegoating. When everything someone says is based on scapegoating and then presenting their opinions as facts and then getting mad at you for not responsiding to their opinions as though they were facts, its an impossible situation.
Regardless of the impression people get from my comments, I am not 100% convinced that Herm (much less Carl) can rebuild this team. But what I DO know for 100% certainty is that they ARE going to rebuild it. Whether we like it or not. We are going to find out one way or the other. Clark made that certain in the article this thread is originally based on.
It is absolutely pointless to kick and scream like a 3 year old about how its DOOMED TO FAILURE because if we just sit and wait, we are going to find out for a certainty.
Same thing with whether Herm is a good coach or not. Frankly right now its tough to evaluate just like its hard to evaluate Brodie Croyle. When the team is made up of a patchwork of rookies and washed up hole pluggers that will be replaced in the next draft, how can you judge what things are his fault and what are not?
It all boils down to peoples distaste for Carl. I’m absolutely convinced that if Carl had been fired and another GM had come in and hired Herm and done the EXACT SAME THING that peoples opinion of this whole thing would be completely different.
Look at the Royals. Everything Baird touched turned to crap and no matter what move he made, it was the wrong one to the fans. Had Baird brought in Trey Hillman from Japan, it would have been laughed at, criticized to no end. Bringing in some nobody from a place where they don’t even play major league baseball! But Baird gets fired, Dayton Moore is brought in, does the exact same thing and all the sudden Hillman is a wise sage that has been away learning the mysical nature of baseball in the Far East! (this is where if Crawford wasn’t pissed at me he would come in and nitpick it saying "Well David Glass held Baird back and wouldn’t give him blah blah blah, it has nothing to do with the overall point of how the fans receive things)
In the end, we are never going to agree because Crawford thinks Peterson should have been fired a long time ago and because of that no matter what he does is wrong and I don’t worry about what I can’t change so I deal with it and look for the best. Just not compatible.
But no worries, I’ve gone through this with lots of people before. Eventually either we will reach a balance or Crawford will have a stroke.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks For The Concern
But my physical condition will be just fine…I’m in no danger of a stroke, aneurysm or heart attack from having an online posting session.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding The Royals
What I’ll point out in regards to Baird is that Moore’s teams show a consistent improvement in performance. Baird’s didn’t. They were mostly bad and they stayed bad. Even during the one winning season they had they weren’t good…the winning record was attributeable to their luck in one-run games (which Bill James and Rob Neyer have shown isn’t really a measure of skill on the part of a team). Also, I didn’t see Moore shopping off Jermaine Dye for the worst-hitting shortstop in the majors (Neifi Perez)…or deciding that Tony Pena was a better manager than Buck Showalter. Or sticking with Tony Muser after he posted the worst record of any manager in his first five years in MLB history.
Whether Baird was held back by Dan Glass or not, I’m not sure. There were plenty of reports that the Glass family interfered (Randa trade being a prime example). Didn’t really matter, though…he didn’t do anything to distinguish himself as good. He couldn’t build a good team. Neither could Herk Robinson. So I was fine with both of them leaving. And if Dayton Moore’s team drift directionless like Herk’s and Baird’s did for another three or four years, I’ll probably turn on him too. But right now he’s okay because his team is showing improvement (although the Guillen signing was terrible).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not the point
This is why we always get off track. We go down sidepoints that are irrelevant to the discussion.
The point is, the fans attitude towards a GM makes a huge difference in how they receive the decisions made, even if they would have been the exact same.
And you can’t say that the reception of Trey Hillman was because Moores teams had improved every year because they had only played one year when he hired Hillman.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Fans Who Criticize Peterson
Aren’t interested in giving Carl Peterson a chance because they’ve already watched him fall short for 19 years. They’ve seen what he can do. He can’t build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl. It’s extremely unlikely that he’s hit on the right formula now.
As for Hillman, the reception of Hillman was good because fans knew just how terrible of a manager Buddy Bell was. Seriously, he stunk. He stunk in Cleveland too. He nearly derailed Zack Greinke’s career by trying to make him a power pitcher and wrecking his control. He was tactically inept. There aren’t a lot of managers out there who wouldn’t be better than Buddy Bell. That said, I was disappointed in how Hillman handled his job this year, but hopefully he grows into it. I thought Posnanski had some good thoughts as to where some of his problems stem from.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aren’t interested in giving Carl Peterson a chance because they’ve already watched him fall short for 19 years. They’ve seen what he can do. He can’t build a team capable of winning a Super Bowl. It’s extremely unlikely that he’s hit on the right formula now.
Regardless of how unlikely it is, we ARE going to find out. That’s the whole point. Regardless of whether we like it or not, its going to happen and we will find out for 100% certainty in 2-3 years.
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And its all I can handle right now arguing football with you
I’m not about to start on baseball. :)
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Too Much Argument About The Royals
I like where they’re headed. I think Hillman might be okay if he loosens up a bit and tries to be more like the manager he was in Japan and less like the manager he was last year. And if he doesn’t give Ross Gload so many at-bats. He’s young, though, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hillman, Not Gload, I Mean :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gload Is Definitely Hillman's Jon McGraw
And Ryan Shealy should be his Jon McGraw instead. Or Justin Huber before we dumped him. Actually, I think that Gload is more of Hillman’s Adrian Jones…McGraw does better at his job than Gload does. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright
I’ll agree with that. I do think that he’s done some great things for the organization. I was just trying to say that your opinions seem a bit jaded. And you’re right, Whitlock did defend him a bit. He seems to really be coming around as a columnist in my opinion – not such a one-sided view.
by TheScootness on Oct 17, 2008 4:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm Jaded
Only because Peterson’s been given ample opportunity to prove that he can win a championship, he’s had incredible support from ownership, he hasn’t come close in over a decade, and he’s never held accountable for it. In fact, people go out of their way to make excuses for him when he fails because of things that he himself has done and willfully ignore the evidence in front of them
I mean, it’s not really rocket science…when the team hasn’t won a championship in 20 years and you’ve had the same GM running the show the entire time, it’s pretty obvious where a large part of the problem is. The Kansas City Chiefs are not incapable of competing for championships. Our current GM is simply unable to assemble a team that will do so. And so he shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt when he tells us “Wait…now I’ve got it all figured out.”
Your points were all well-stated.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Time will tell.
Herman Edwards is in way over his head. But hey, that’s what’s great about the NFL. You have to go out and play. The young guys have to make plays. You have to see where its at and then when you find where its at…………………..uh, I forget.
by G.L. on Oct 17, 2008 5:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the next part is
“All of a sudden, he’s the guy. He’s the guy and then, all the sudden he’s playing football. And that’s good for us because after ten years of playing rookies, all of a sudden we’re a young team.”
Or something like that. :)
by ChiefDJ on Oct 17, 2008 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys Guys Guys
DJ can you rename yourself to the Hatfield’s and UCrawford could you rename yourself to the McCoys? I think we could choose sides better or understand the debate with a history…lol
Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Oct 17, 2008 10:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This place would be boring
Without those two as the de facto leaders for the pro and anti current regime.
by Joel Thorman on Oct 17, 2008 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DTReigns Is Trying To Contact You
Regarding an AP league trade.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 17, 2008 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
UCrawford...
your theories are as crackpot as the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. You know the chiefs use to spend all the way up to the cap in the 90s and that worked out well. What do you want us to do! Sign a bunch of mediocre free agents! Or build through the draft. Peterson has always delivered the product that the head coach wanted! He gave Marty Montana, Allen, Thomas, and Smith. He gave Vermil Holmes, Roaf, and Green. He has acquired a lot of good talent in the past. Its the head coaches who haven’t fully implemented that talent or their philosophy was flawed in the first place (like having too much of a veteran team that bogs down in January)
by chiefsfan1384 on Oct 18, 2008 5:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You Know
It really irritates me when people start whining about my bad ideas when they really have no clue what ideas I proposed in the first place.
So, either go back and read what I’ve actually written in threads and comments, ask me what I actually think should be done, or don’t waste your time and mine by attacking me, because until you actually do some research on my positions you’ve got nothing to say to me.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 18, 2008 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
