Edwards said that even with that knowledge — if there were some way he could have been given advance information on the Chiefs’ horrific pass rush this season — he still would have given Peterson his blessing in April when Allen was on the trading block.
Do you think Herm really believes that or are we in the spin zone?
11 months ago
Joel Thorman
5 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
and they call us Monday Morning quartebacks?
"But what do I know, I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"
by Lanier63 on Nov 28, 2008 10:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I Think Herm Believes That
Because Herm is probably stupid enough to dump his most productive players if he can’t get along with them or if he thinks they might be prone to point out just how incompetent Herm is as a head coach.
Herm’s opinion didn’t really matter, though…Jared Allen and Carl Peterson couldn’t get along, Allen didn’t think the Chiefs were going anywhere with Carl and Herm at the helm and he didn’t want to sign here long term (especially since he didn’t think he’d get the deal he wanted from Carl), so Allen was probably gone no matter what Herm thought about it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 28, 2008 10:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Who's spinning now?
Allen didn’t think the Chiefs were going anywhere with Carl and Herm at the helm and he didn’t want to sign here long term
I have never once seen Jared say anything of the sort. He loved Herm and thought the defense was going to be good this year just like everyone else. His problem was solely with Carl and his feeling slighted that Carl wouldn’t give him a big contract the year after getting 2 DUIs. From then on it was personal.
Herm had no say in the matter, it was between Carl and Jared and once it got to the point that it wasn’t going to happen, the best thing that could be done is get the maximum you could from the guy and his value would never have been higher than after a 15.5 sack season in 14 games.
by ChiefDJ on Nov 28, 2008 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He Said So In An Interview At The Beginning Of The Season
When he was questioning why the Chiefs hadn’t been calling what they were doing before rebuilding. It was linked to by articles posted here.
Herm had no say in the matter
Says who?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 28, 2008 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that I have to agree with DJ
It was between Carl and Allen. Herm I would however argue had some say-so, but Carl had the veto power and he strung Allen along promising an extension. The funny thing was that according to the NFL suspension, Allen was to stay out of trouble until the end of September (if memory serves). If he got into another mess he would’ve been suspended for a year.
That timeframe passed and if he did screw up it would’ve been a fine/suspension, but not for a year.
Allen is back in his old ways…drinking/partying as some Minnesooootan’s have witnessed. He hasn’t changed, albeit he has less to lose suspension wise.
This isn’t hyperbole because I remember Allen talking about the suspension timeline. Unfortunately Carl and he had words and Carl pulled rank. Should we have kept him? Most have said that he wouldn’t produce (myself included), but hindsite being 20/20 I wish we would’ve signed him.
Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."
by THE_TRUTH on Dec 1, 2008 10:15 AM CST 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.
