Poll: Who Do You Think Is Responsible For The Chiefs' Problems This Year?

I am with you,

It is a combination. Carl for bringing in Herm, Herm not being able/not willing to change.

by Eric Allen on Oct 8, 2008 9:45 PM CDT 0 recs

I Am Curious

Whether DJ’s right on who the fans hold accountable. Hopefully this will clarify things just a bit.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 9:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

I just heard the rumor this weekend from my cousin. Herman Edwards will destroy this young teams confidence which was already evident against the panthers. “You see back in 1981 this is the way Herm Edwards did things” I am sorry Herm this is 2008 and the ship continues to sink. You saw what he did in New York yet Carl Peterson wasted a pick on this guy. Ok so you have started over you may as well put carl and herm in the mix to and start over. Chiefs organization have nothing to loose at this point.

by rs5500 on Oct 14, 2008 8:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

Yeah ...

You saw what he did in New York yet Carl Peterson wasted a pick on this guy.

Yeah. Went to the playoffs three times in five years, and built a team that went there again the year after he left. He really sucks.

by JacinB on Oct 14, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

Parcells team he took.

We have won fourteen games in three years, that screams winner to me!

by Eric Allen on Oct 14, 2008 4:56 PM CDT up 0 recs

For how many years

does Parcell get credit for the Jets?

For how many years does Herm get credit after he left?

Just curious.

by NJChiefsFan on Oct 14, 2008 9:13 PM CDT up 0 recs

They got better as

Soon as he was gone, you tell me.

by Eric Allen on Oct 14, 2008 9:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

Huh?

Funny, I thought they went 4-12 last year. Just like us.

by primetime 07 on Oct 14, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

10-6 The Year Before That Is What I Think Eric's Pointing Out.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 14, 2008 10:23 PM CDT up 0 recs

If Parcells gets credit for playoff teams

1, 2 and 4 years after he left the team, do you not have to give credit to Herm for the playoff appearance the first year after he left?

by NJChiefsFan on Oct 15, 2008 11:00 AM CDT up 0 recs

We should rec these polls so they are

Uptop for easy access.

by Eric Allen on Oct 8, 2008 9:46 PM CDT 0 recs

How Do I Rec The Poll?

I’m not sure how it works.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 9:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

The 'Rec' button

At the bottom of the post.

by primetime 07 on Oct 8, 2008 10:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think this is lame

Not getting the results you expected so you make another poll? Sounds like what politicians will do.

by ChiefDJ on Oct 8, 2008 9:54 PM CDT 0 recs

Honestly I don’t see whats wrong with clarifying the question. In reality if you go back and look at the previous poll its saying the samething.

KC Tat Guy

by KC Tat Guy on Oct 8, 2008 10:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

You’re talking about doing a weekly poll (which I think will be ineffective anyway since people will be changing their answers week to week depending on their mood about the past game instead of several weeks in a clump and judging them as a whole) but regardless, you don’t get the answer you want so you reword it with more chances to get the choice you want.

Who’s going to blame the “players”? Nobody is going to blame Tony G, D-Bowe and DJ!

Polls are so easily manipulated by the wording. You could do the exact same poll and add choices for “Inexperienced Players”, “Vet Players”, “Hole Plugging Players”, etc. on top of the other choices already listed and I guarantee you will get vastly different results.

This is designed to get the answer Crawford wants and nothing more.

Totally lame and I for one will not participate.

by ChiefDJ on Oct 8, 2008 10:09 PM CDT up 0 recs

You Made The Point That The Last Poll Was Being Misconstrued

And that it didn’t say who the fans thought was responsible for what was happening. So I did another poll to address the issue you brought up and attempted to do so in an objective fashion. Don’t bitch just because so far it’s not giving you the result you wanted.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 10:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

And If You Think It's Subjective

By all means offer a suggestion to improve it.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 10:32 PM CDT up 0 recs

You kinda did participate by answering the post

:)

"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"

by Lanier63 on Oct 9, 2008 8:57 AM CDT up 0 recs

Problem with the Poll

If you have a problem with the poll, then please suggest a change. When answering the last one I really wanted to be able to put Herm and Carl but only voted once and so I picked Herm. Carl is as big a problem if not bigger but I don’t have to listen to him on a weekly basis.

by skibum1537 on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 AM CDT up 0 recs

UCrawford

I read you catching a lot of shit for expressing your opinions and people considering you having a bad attitude. From a newcomer’s perspective which I would consider objective, I have to tell you that you couldn’t possibly be any more right on about the coaching & management of this team. I think you genuinely understand the root of the problems which effect this team and I’m glad you’re vocal about them. I think it takes a bigger man to see something thats wrong and speak up about changing it, than it does one who turns a blind eye to it or lives in utter & complete denial.

Don’t shutup for anybody and keep saying what you’ve been saying because it needs to be heard. Again and again and again, because you know why? It’s the truth. The more its read the further it will spread and hopefully the sooner Carl and our subpar coaching staff will be gone

by KansasCityShuffle on Oct 8, 2008 10:16 PM CDT 0 recs

Thanks

I appreciate the support. And no worries…if I haven’t learned to shut up by now then it’s not too likely to happen in the future. :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 10:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think you've got an attitude sometimes

But for the most part I enjoy discussing the issues with you UC, you are very well informed and your research skills are impecable, sometimes I just think that you have a “conspiracy theory” going – I like to believe the best about most people and would like to think the CP and Herm really want the Chiefs to get better. Sometimes you make it seem like CP is working for CP only, and I don’t necessarily agree with that – he has done SOME good things for the organization.

You, however, make some wonderful points AND back those points up with references and statistics. I agree to disagree with you on some points, but the reality is I think you hit the nail right on the head most of the time.

I really have enjoyed the posts you have been putting up lately, I wish I had time to post as prolifically as you have been. Keep up the good work, just remember, if I say it’s a certain way I’m right and you are unfortunately wrong =)

by KCFanatic on Oct 9, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Carl

Just to be clear, I do think Carl Peterson wants the Chiefs to succeed. Just not as much as he wants to be the one to make them succeed. And those two desires aren’t actually compatible because if there’s anything that he’s shown us for the last 14 years it’s that he hasn’t been able to build a team capable of competing for a Super Bowl, or even getting a winning record outside of the AFC West for the last nine, so there’s little reason to believe that he’s going to be able to field that kind of a team even with the youth movement. The conflict comes in that he’s demonstrated he’s not capable of building a championship team, but he’s also not able to recognize that, nor is he willing to step aside. Therefore he has become the problem and needs to be removed because it really has become about him (even though I don’t think he consciously realizes it).

That’s not to say he hasn’t done some good things for the team…he has, quite a few actually. And I’m sure he wants to win. But ultimately the job of the GM/CEO/etc is to build a championship team, that’s what Peterson hasn’t done (or gotten close to for well over a decade) and that’s what he needs to be judged on. Meaning well and doing well, sadly, aren’t the same things.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 10, 2008 5:32 PM CDT up 0 recs

Seriously… I don’t get it? Some one has to be blamed, but the poll even gives an out for that with the whole “Expected Problems From A Rebuilding Year (Nobody At Fault)” blanket. How is there any manipulation there? As far as the weekly poll thing there’s nothing wrong with the idea. For one thing people should be able to change their mind. Thats one thing I have noticed it seems there are alot more polls thrown out there on arrowheadaddict and the star. Good or bad its nice to know what other fans think of our team. Here’s the thing none of us here can determine the out come of what the Chiefs do or don’t do. I think the whole idea of this site is for fans to be able to feel like they do have a voice about what’s going on. Who knows maybe Clark looks at these sites to see what the fans think…

KC Tat Guy

by KC Tat Guy on Oct 8, 2008 10:24 PM CDT 0 recs

Good thoughts

But the Chiefs are SO far behind in recognizing blogging it’s ridiculous.

by primetime 07 on Oct 8, 2008 10:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

They're Not As Bad As The Bengals

But then considering how terrible Mike Brown’s been I’d probably want to interact with the fans as little as possible too. :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 8, 2008 10:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

I feel the same way

about things as it appears UCrawford does.

Yes, we have the few Herm apologists who just can’t stand to hear that people don’t love the HC.

I would be interested to be in the locker room when Herm isn’t there ( as I have heard he doesn’t spend a lot of time there, interacting with the team)

It is odd to me that a team that is capable of putting together plays and blocking, etc as they did against Denver, could play so extremely opposite during the other games.

The Denver game was singular in that out of seemingly nowhere the offensive line did actually play much better as a unit. The blocking was visibly improved and the backfield had time to make the plays happen.

One game. out of the total so far, only one game has the team really looked like it could or should. the rest of the time, it’s like watching JV football and that is not meant as a bad term for JV kids because they at least are trying to play well.

This team, in respect to that one game, has an attitude problem. They don’t really “want” to win, at least under Herms terms.

I know the apologists are going to coming knocking now and demand that it’s too soon after a big loss to criticize Herm but I think it’s time to consider not just replacing players who don’t know how to win next year.

Big Bear

by bigbearomaha on Oct 9, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up 0 recs

IT'S TOO SOON AFTER A BIG LOSS.....

Just joking. Thought it would be fun to get your attention with that headline. :)

I was one of the few that nobdy at fault, simply because I believe that – No ONE person is at fault. This is a team sport and really, I think there is a team problem.

1. Multiple players are not fulfilling the assignments consistently.
2. Carl admittedly neglected his responsibility to bring in the best players over the past couple of years, bringing us to the point of even having to do such a radical rebuild.
3. Herm has ultra conservative tendancies with his coaching style to limit a wide open offense that makes it difficult to score a lot of points. He was also to stubborn to bring in young 2nd and 3rd year guys early on in the season when he knew we had holes. (could be put on Carl though)
4. Not having a consistent QB on the field is causing confusion with wide receivers and O linemen. If they don’t know what to expect the QB will do in a given situation, they are not sure how to react. (Will he step forward under pressure, will he run, will he roll left or right, should I break off the route to assist, etc)
5. Rookie and first time starter mistakes.
6. Some of the coaches just don’t seem to be able to coach their position effectively.
7. Ultimately and importantly, the attitude from the players that things are falling apart and they don’t have the desire to play until the final whistle.

The problem I have is that the fix isn’t to fire, fire, fire…cut, cut, cut …for this year. The current team and coaching staff have to get it together, suck it up, and just get themselves better and more consistant. I think there may be something about how the players learn from their film review, quality of practice practice, learning the specific systems, player position assignments, future opponent scouting, starting players and their position on the field, and game plan adjustments (whew) that all needs work. This is a whole team problem, and will take a whole team effort to fix it.

It is fine to point out and identify problems and it is fun to discuss solutions, but just because our solution isn’t specifically used, doesn’t mean that we have to break out the pitchforks and torches, or boycott the team. My mantra is to just support the effort and watch the excitement.

by TXChiefan on Oct 9, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up 0 recs

We

by AngryJesus on Oct 9, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

we're going to have to do

What we all said we’d do when the season started.

Be patient, give it until the end of the season. No judgment is appropriate until we’ve seen what these guys can do over a long period of time.

And 4 games isn’t long enough. By now, we know what’s wrong with the team.

by AngryJesus on Oct 9, 2008 4:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

The only problem

With that argument is that it still looks like the 2007 season.

by Eric Allen on Oct 11, 2008 7:49 AM CDT up 0 recs

after four games

by AngryJesus on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up 0 recs

Five Games

Almost a third of the way through the season. And the “new offense” that Chan Gailey’s running looks exactly like the “old offense” that Mike Solari ran last year in its ineptitude while the defense has completely regressed, so I’m not inclined to cut him a break.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 11, 2008 10:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

after 5 games

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 2:13 AM CDT up 0 recs

That's Right

Because I’ve seen nothing that indicates that the next 11 games are going to be any different.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 9:08 AM CDT up 0 recs

I see it

As something that will just need to “click”.

But I’m a huge optimist, and a homer.

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Nothing Really Wrong With That

Optimism’s a good thing. I just think it’s misplaced on this particular season.

But I do have optimism that things will get better next year.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 8:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

I understand the enormous

Odds of this team making it through this season without some nasty tastes in their collective mouth.

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 9:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

You sure...

…witht the status quo of managements decision making?

2009 Chiefs Home Opponents:

· Dallas Cowboys

· New York Giants

· Pittsburgh Steelers

· Denver Broncos

· San Diego Chargers

· Oakland Raiders

· Cleveland Browns

· Two Preseason Games TBD

· One AFC East Opponent

by THE_TRUTH on Oct 15, 2008 2:23 PM CDT up 0 recs

Trade Deadline

Would be nice if we could trade Carl Peterson – good things might happen

by tonyg on Oct 12, 2008 12:25 PM CDT 0 recs

The Chiefs Could Take...

…a box of used jock straps in return. And they’d be getting the better end of that deal.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up 0 recs

Who is at fault

I blame Carl because he allowed the team to get old. The youth movement was a necessary evil,however, if Carl had productive previous drafts the impact would not be as noticable. It’s the NFL folks and you don’t just step on the field and produce as you do in college. The are learning curves and growing pains. Like it or not. With so much in experience we are what we are and only time will change it. This year and maybe next so….buckle down. We are in for some horrible play.

Chiefs the & thru

by bharris3012 on Oct 12, 2008 3:51 PM CDT 0 recs

Simple answer

Get rid of Herm Edwards, Larry Johnson and the wimpy QB’s and stop letting the good ones get away. Herm hasn’t ever been good at coaching so what made anyone feel that he would be different here? And Larry Johnson, over rated hack. He can’t improvise. “The play says go up the middle, by god I’ll do it. Never mind the three 800 lb gorillas in front of me.” The numbers are very misleading, so don’t even try to defend LJ. The good ones make decisions for themselves. Pathetic…….

by Dead_b4_SB on Oct 12, 2008 5:53 PM CDT 0 recs

I think your gys biggest problems stem from Peterson

The fact he never addressed getting some good depth at O-line and belived that Brodie Croyle is a starting QB are the two biggest issues with the Chiefs.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum

by Broncoman on Oct 12, 2008 8:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Yes

Those two instances combined with past behavior of our GM make many question him.

by primetime 07 on Oct 12, 2008 8:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

At least we're not the Broncos

Or something like that.

It doesn’t even feel right dogging anyone’s team right now.

Raiders suck? Something’s wrong.

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 9:13 PM CDT up 0 recs

Carl Peterson

Has even taken that guilty pleasure from us.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

you have

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 10:22 PM CDT up 0 recs

by AngryJesus on Oct 12, 2008 10:23 PM CDT 0 recs

Being An Atheist Myself

Expressing thoughts that would anger Jesus is nothing new to me, nor is that prospect particularly dissuading.

But I do like the picture.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 11:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Also

Jesus, assuming he existed, would most likely have been either black or olive-skinned. Racist :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 11:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

I for one am offended by that picture

That is not the Jesus I know.

by TheQ on Oct 12, 2008 11:08 PM CDT 0 recs

For What It's Worth

I was partly kidding. I’ve got nothing against Jesus personally and he had some good ideas (many of which I still follow even though I am an atheist).

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 12, 2008 11:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

And I don't want to be hipocritical

But I had to draw the line somewhere, and that picture is horrible. AngryJesus has a right to post it, I just don’t like it!

by TheQ on Oct 12, 2008 11:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

Fair Enough

It was probably a little over the line and I could see how it could offend.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 13, 2008 7:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

SOMEBODY

Watches the history channel.

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm just glad this place isn't SO uptight that the pic is removed

Thank you primetime, for being a proponent of 1st amendment issues.

And I kid, of course.

I’m not that sorry if i offended anyone. At the same time, I can see it as a callous gesture. And for THAT I am sorry. Or something to that effect.

Remove it if you like, I understand either way.

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

AngryJesus, I didn't hide my name

so you should have said " I am not sorry that I offended TheQ". No one else seems to have a problem with this picture. So I assume you were talking to me.The thing I want you to understand is that I do not get upset about how people view God. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. He gets a lot of good and bad press, whether he deserves it or not is for a whole other conversation. One that doesn’t need to be discussed on this forum. Which is exactly why this is not the place for that. I by no means consider myself some perfect person because I have a belief in God. I am quite flawed actually. But when you put a picture of Christ flipping somone off, you need to be prepared for someone to “not like it” and not be so flip about me stating so. I also think you are referring to me as being uptight because I don’t like the picture, I don’t believe in 1st Amendment rights, and I would be smarter if I watched the History Channel. If you didn’t directly state these things for my benefit, then I apoligize. But then I have no idea who that comment was aimed at? Also understand, that I am not so vain that I think you took the trouble to pick out this picture and post it online to offend theQ. I get that. You probably actually didn’t mean to start any of this either. Like I stated in my comment, I had to draw the line somewhere. I was offended and felt compelled to speak up.

by TheQ on Oct 13, 2008 7:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

No problem with you

You’re a Chief’s fan.

Primetime does a wonderful job patrolling this place, allowing some unsavory things to be posted (in moderation, of course).

The 1st amendment comment was ironic, I don’t pretend to be a champion of any sort.

I recognize that the picture is offensive. For that, I have no objections to it (or me) being criticized or removed*.

The History Channel comment was to Crawford for pointing out the common misinterpretation of how Jesus of Nazareth looked. His image was popularly portrayed by medieval Europeans, who painted him in their image when in fact he more than likely had the image of a Middle Easterner, or even an African.

But the offense that you feel, according to me of course, is no different than what a Bronco’s fan might feel for an image of John Elway making sweet love with a Thai ladyboy. So for that I don’t apologize.

I knew it might get a response, and I’m ok with that.

Again, no slight against you.

*please don’t remove me

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 8:18 PM CDT up 0 recs

so we cool?

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 8:20 PM CDT up 0 recs

Wait, What In The Hell Are You Talking About?

We weren’t even discussing Jesus or religion before you posted that picture (I made the comment after you posted your picture), so don’t lay any of it on me. You wanted to send a “fuck you” to me using something that tied into your screen name so you posted the pic. I didn’t care because it’s not something that bothers me, but don’t be full of shit…own up to your own comments and lack of tact.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 13, 2008 8:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

Double you tee eff

….

Come on man. Don’t make me have to like…quote and give retorts and all that jive.

I posted the pic, you said something to the effect of Jesus not being white. This is not any new revelation. A couple History Channel specials on the Man (capitalized for ironic purposes) have brought that notion to light.

I sort of had the notion that you’d:
A) Take it in stride (the flip off)
B) Not be bothered/offended
C) See it as humorous

So now it’s your turn to quote me and tell me how I didn’t “own up to [my] comments”

My response was to TheQ in utter sincerity. I’m not here to alienate everyone.

Color me confused.

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 9:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

I do understand if you want to stay away from this thing altogether

But my better judgment smells a response.

And frankly it smells pretty good, like a garlic-herb encrusted roast beef with all the fixin’s

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 9:23 PM CDT up 0 recs

I wish you would be one way or the other

Be proud that you offended me or not. (For the offense that you feel, I do not apologize), so I am glad to know that you meant that sincerely. Please, don’t mock me too. Gee thanks for explaining the History Channel thing to me. I would have never figured that one out. Jesus is Jewish by the way. Dark curly hair, brown eyes. I get it. I find your response very self serving and not sincere at all. Do you treat people of other religions like this? Why your angst against Christianity? The picture is anti-semitic too. It is easy to alienate when you post a picture like that. Don’t be surprised.

by TheQ on Oct 13, 2008 9:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

!!!

The only thing I can do to rectify this is to not respond.

I…don’t know what else to say other than that I am sorry.

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 9:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

maybe I'm taking both of your comments too seriously

But I am trying to be amicable here.

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 9:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

I accept your apology

and I apologize also. Things like this should not get to this level in this forum. You have your views and I have mine. I do feel that you never intended for this to be a big deal to anyone and I felt compelled to speak up. It was just exasperated by your reply. I will take no hard feelings away from this.

by TheQ on Oct 13, 2008 10:09 PM CDT up 0 recs

Let me at least try to clear something up

After you expressed you feelings, I apologized in sincerity (posted at 6:18 PDT on Oct 13).

In that post I mentioned Crawford who, in my eyes, misinterpreted my intentions. He posted at 6:53 of the same day. My second response (at 7:21) was to him, not you.

Then you responded and I didn’t really know how to react.

Somewhere I think there was a miscommunication, either in my posts, Crawfords, or yours.

I recommend taking another look at the timeline and it may become more clear as to my intentions.

I am an admitted muckraker, but at the same time I don’t like genuine strife and fuss.

And this felt genuine. This was my bad (but I still don’t regret posting the picture as I saw humor at the time).

by AngryJesus on Oct 13, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

Rule of Thumb

Always best to stay away from religion whenever possible I’ve found…especially in forums like this. All it does is make people upset. Better to stick to football and less polarizing topics.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Oct 13, 2008 10:50 PM CDT up 0 recs