Why I Can Wait and What Success Will Look Like

Great post

I totally agree with you. My expectations for next year is 9-7 which hopefully will win the AFC West and get us a playoff berth.

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 11:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

And just to point out...

…although I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re wrong or I’m right, it just means that their definition of successful improvement aren’t the same as mine.

Even if someone says “win the SB” so be it, it’s a measurable goal. I wouldn’t agree, but then again I laughed about a QB named Warner playing in St. Louis :)

If 9-7 gets them to the playoffs then I concur KCking…if not, in my book they fell short.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Given...I'll give him until next year

My signature reflects my expectations and if I’m proven wrong by that accomplishment then I’ll be the first to admit it.
As I’ve stated before give MEASURABLE goals that show what your expectations are for management to be considered effective/improving.

Mine is simple, get to the playoffs next year. No more excuses (other teams release, trade, acquire from practice squad, have hurt players, etc.)

Anyone saying the team “is getting better” or “I want to see improvement” is purely a debatable and non-measurable comment. Saying “I expect the Defense to be top 15” or “the team to go 8-8” or “The defense to allow an average of less then 10 pts. per game” are measurable.

Giving stats on individual performances does NOTHING for the franchise accomplishment as a whole.

IMHO make a statement as to what specific measurable goal you expect the team to achieve to consider them successful and if they fail to do that REGARDLESS of the reason is still a failure.

Enough of excusism….show me the money.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 11:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you... enough excuses

A 9-7 record is my expectations. Even if we don’t get to the playoffs I’ll be satisfied because that is significant improvement in the only stat that really matters. Anything less than 8-8 and I will apologize for defending Herm.

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

9-7

Considering the state of our division, that’s fair. No clue if 9-7 will be enough to get us into the playoffs, but it’s competitive for them. And I don’t care how many injuries the Chiefs have next year, anything less than a winning record is unacceptable.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to believe

that 9-7 would get us close to winning the division (unless those 7 losses include 5 division games =) )

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We missed the playoffs

after going 10-6 once didn’t we?

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 2, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

but that was when the AFC West was good

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and the AFC was better

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

You can’t tell how the rest of the league will perform. 10-6 may be the cutoff or 8-8. No way to know. But if Herm’s here next year the only way I’ll say he’s done an acceptable job is if he goes 9-7.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rebuttal

I can respect where you’re coming from but I disagree with almost all of your points.

1. Before last year, Herm was a .500 coach that had reached the playoffs in 4 out of his first 6 seasons. I think last year and this year (hopefully not next) are roster rebuilding years and I expect Herm’s record to correct upward.

And the two years after that have pushed his record well below .500. He had a losing record in five years in New York (where he never won a division title or advanced past the second round of the playoffs) and he’s had a losing record here. You can’t ignore the last two years simply because they don’t fit your argument.

2. The offense is better than last year and I expect the D will bounce back from this year’s performance. The team had the sense to get a new O coordinator and let him use the players in ways that we can be successful. Our D coordinator has improved the D every year he has been here. I give a pass on this year due to injuries. Am I the only one that is surprised that some of the best offenses in the NFL barely beat us when we were fielding a team that consisted of back-up’s back-ups?

71% of our first day draft picks for the last eight years have been dedicated to defensive players and we’ve still got the worst defense in the NFL. Tamba Hali’s looking like a bust, Tank Tyler’s disappeared, Turk McBride wasn’t that effective before he got hurt, Derrick Johnson’s regressed, DeMorrio Williams is looking like a bust, our leading tackler from last year got dumped because he couldn’t get along with Gunther, and our team’s on pace for the lowest number of sacks ever.

There’s no indication that this team is on the right track for fixing this defense…our best players are rookies and the rookies on this team during Herm’s tenure haven’t shown much in the way of development, so this may very well be as good as they get with Herm in charge.

3. Also, am I the only one that remembers a stretch of 4 games (against good teams) where we could have won all of them (most without our star RB who it seems can be productive in this new offense)?

“Almost” winning doesn’t count in the NFL. There are no good losses…only losses. You don’t get into the playoffs based off of popularity polls and nobody votes you the champion afterwards. You either win games or you don’t. And the Chiefs didn’t win any of those games. In fact, they choked big-time in several of them.

4. They benched LJ (when they didn’t have to). I was raised in OK and had the luxury of choosing my team from the nearby states (Cowboys, Chiefs, Broncos, Cardnials). This my friends is why I root for the Chiefs.

Then they should have been able to adapt to his absence and it’s not an excuse for why they couldn’t win.

5. Those early season losses? Turns out the teams were pretty good. (Falcons, Panthers, Titans).

How about the Raiders, Bills, and Chargers? They all sucked and they all beat us.

6. Tyler Thigpen? Who’d have thunk? Carl and Herm must have. At least enough to sign him away from another team and keep him as a back-up.

They thought he could run Herm’s loser ball offense. He couldn’t. The only reason he succeeded was because Herm finally abandoned his plan and installed a spread that Thigpen could perform in. That’s not a good sign for the front office and coaching staff’s ability to evaluate talent to fit their “plan”.

7. A lot of young talent.

Very little of which has developed as promised.

8. I really don’t think good things that happen are despite Herm and that bad things that happen are because on him.

Very true…but the fact remains that there’s been much more bad here than good since he arrived. I’ll give Herm credit for going with the spread offense. It was clearly the best move this season and it went against his grain. But I look at this team and I can’t see anything else that looks remotely like Herm and Carl have a clue about what they’re doing. Everything except the offense looks bleak.

9. Carl was smart enough to have this team great once and I’m willing to let him finish his contract to see if he’s still smart.

How can a team be considered great when it’s never even appeared in a Super Bowl, much less won one during his tenure? We went to the AFC Championship game in 1994 where we got blown out. That’s not close to being “great”.

Carl Peterson’s teams have had a losing record for the last decade…that’s indicates he hasn’t got a clue how to build teams capable of winning a championship.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well....

“6. Tyler Thigpen? Who’d have thunk? Carl and Herm must have. At least enough to sign him away from another team and keep him as a back-up.
They thought he could run Herm’s loser ball offense. He couldn’t. The only reason he succeeded was because Herm finally abandoned his plan and installed a spread that Thigpen could perform in. That’s not a good sign for the front office and coaching staff’s ability to evaluate talent to fit their "plan".”

Well UC…. It Seems to me Herm made a well thought out coaching decision to find a new offense that would win games….. Isn’t that what you want? To at least be competitive?

It really seems to me that like LIL Wayne would say… " If you can’t see any good in a person…..you’re just being a Hater….."

Sebo!!!

by bouzi on Dec 2, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But We're Not Competitive

Because while the offense moved forward the defense moved backwards. And the only reason the offense moved forward was because Herm was forced to change it from the offense he wanted because his defense was so atrocious that the team would have been blown out in almost every game running the loser ball offense.

It really seems to me that like LIL Wayne would say… " If you can’t see any good in a person…..you’re just being a Hater….."

Funny, you just quoted my comment where I pointed out a good thing that Herm did. So it would appear that your “hater” accusation is rather groundless. Here’s a quote that I like:

“You are what your record says you are.”

I’ll see the good in Herm Edwards as a football coach when he starts demonstrating with his record that he’s a good football coach.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It Seems to me Herm made a well thought out coaching decision to find a new offense that would win games….. Isn’t that what you want? To at least be competitive?

Competitive? Again, how is that measureable?

It’s a word that is descriptive as “dog”…..some might envision a maltese, others a bulldog, while still others a mallamute.

Give me a SPECIFIC stat that has increased positively throughout the season for the Chiefs.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

UC...you have some problems...lol...

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Only That I'm A Fan Of An Incompetently Run Team :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sucks to be us.

Right? :)

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 2, 2008 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

'Fraid So :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

could be worse

we could all be Lions fans

by KCCheeze on Dec 2, 2008 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But The Lions Fired Their Incompetent GM

So they may very well get better. We’re still stuck with ours.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I completely ignore the last 2 years on Herm's record

For one, the team Herm inherited was OLD, not just and average old team in the NFL, this team was filled with grandpas and great grandpas. Second, when Herm was hired he was told he was going to get a rebuilding deal immediately. Then his team “backed into the playoffs” This is when Clark and Carl tell him he has to compete. The old ass players on his team can’t compete and most of them retire withouth acceptable recplacements. (Not Herm’s fault). Now Herm gets to start from scratch in what we ALL KNOW will be a very very hard rebuilding process. This is like an expansion club starting without draft picks. The chiefs record and Herm’s record obviously suffer. 2 wins in the last 21 is called rebuilding. That’s what happens and Herm was chosen to do this because he was somewhat successfull in the past with New York. They weren’t a great team but they made the playoffs playing “Harm ball”. Our team as young as it is is plagued with injuries. Some really hurt us and some have seemed to help us “Bones”. However, I am not saying Herm is a wonderful coach and I certainly don’t always agree with his calls (This is why he is an NFL coach and you and I are not) but I certainly am saying he could be the right guy for us. His record has been diminished because of KC and hopefully this rebuilding project will bring it back up around 500 and if we turn out to be a great franchise I can see it rising above that.

by Shawn on Dec 2, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Carl Peterson’s teams have had a losing record for the last decade…that’s indicates he hasn’t got a clue how to build teams capable of winning a championship."

And the decade before that? We had the best record in football. yes, not winning a Super Bowl sucks, but to ignore the nineties is unfair. I’d rather compare the two decades. What changed?

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 12:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And The Decade Before That

He had Marty Schottenheimer. His record with coaches other than Marty Schottenheimer is a losing one.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Marty's Record With GMs Other Than Carl

Is a winning one.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Chargers are idiots.

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 2, 2008 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

To let go of a coach after he took you 13-3 to what they are now is abyssmal.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Has any team Marty left

been right afterwards?

Cleveland, KC, Washington, San Diego?

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 2, 2008 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

....?

Is that a sign that he leaves at their peak of underachievement or that he should be left on…or what? lol

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When He's Been At Four Stops

And has success at all of them, that’s generally a sign that he’s a pretty good coach. And the decline afterwards can probably be taken as a sign that he shouldn’t have been let go.

Washington’s a bit of a pass, though…he was only there for that one year and went 8-8. So it’s not like he made a major imprint on that team.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree....

(WE AGREE?!?!?!) That Marty should’ve been left on in all those jobs…especially here…but in perspective, there were alot of us upset about him not being able to get us over the hump just the same….

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, But

I’d still rather have had him than Herm because, simply put, he wins most of his games and Herm doesn’t.

Honestly, though, I think it was probably time for Marty to leave KC when he did. Any coaching stop in the modern NFL is usually going to have a short life expectancy. My personal take is that a head coach should never have two completely non-competitive seasons in a row. You can have a couple of losing seasons in a row, but not non-competitive ones where you get blown out as much as the Chiefs have been this year punctuated by massive losing streaks. That’s just unacceptable.

For GM’s I generally think they should be given five years at a job regardless. After that they should be replaced two years after their team’s last playoff appearance, three years after their last playoff win, and/or four years after their last legitimate run at a championship. Teams should simply not have decade-long dry spells with the same people running the show. That would have put Carl Peterson out of town around 1998 or so (about the time Marty left) and based on the results since then that probably would have been for the best. Carl should not have outlasted Gunther Cunningham’s tenure as head coach.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Marty's Last Season Wasn't Non-Competitive

But I think he’d kind of lost the team and I got the idea he wasn’t particularly happy here anymore. I was sad to see him go, and if I’d known what was going to follow I’d have been even sadder, but I’m not sure that we’d have stayed as good if Marty had stayed.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My Pops

quit being a Chief fan the day Marty left. I thought it was a bit extreme being as he was the man that turned me into a fan, but in hindsight my old man was a lot wiser than I gave him credit for

by KansasCityShuffle on Dec 2, 2008 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Wouldn't Have Gone That Far

But they haven’t done much to reward their fans since Marty left.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

#8

is the best point in the OP

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 12:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Everyone blames Herm for the abysmal offense early in the season let’s give him the credit for the pretty good offense now

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And What About The Abysmal Defense

How much blame does he get for that?

If you’re going to credit him with the good, you also have to blame him for the bad.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Aghh!

Real life getting in the way again. Later

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I DON'T!

Herm put Tyler on the field cause Brodie’s tires went flat and Damon quit… We stumbled on Tyler Thigpen!

I am one who would LOVE to see Herm go after this season. ESPECIALLY if we lose the rest of our games.

If we finish 4-12/ 3-13/ or 2-14… Herm NEEDS to go. In my opinion… I know that some say that “You are what your record says you are.”… But really… I feel that our team THIS year is better than our team LAST year. So, theres no excuse why Herm produced a worse season than ’07.

And the way I see it is… if we have a better team this year than last ( QB situation is better, Offensive Line is better, Run game is better, Secondary is better, Special teams is better, etc. etc) then WHY CAN’T WE WIN?!?

COACHING!

I would accept one more year with Herm if we show that what we have the ability to win. If we can be consistant.

by ROC 27 on Dec 2, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the post...

It is dead-on….People arguing against it so far have had absolutely no good arguments which is quite amusing…You can’t choose when to apply and revoke credit for things…

I don’t have time to write up huge posts, unfortunately…but the constant “actually” ’s and sarcasm and hubris is getting really….REALLY old…I have not heard a SINGLE person who knows football well say that Herm should be fired, not one…in fact, Collinsworth apparently endorses the opposite.

I also find these lengthy discussions to be particularly useless because it has no effect on what will eventually happen….Due to the relatively small number of those dissenting it is just words and no change in attendance or viewership…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

"knows football well"

Is operationally defined as one who is paid to give his “professional” opinion on the topic…Whitlock does not count due to his sensationalizing in order to boost responses…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Always Easier To Dismiss A Results-Oriented Football Argument

When you ignore the evidence and pretend that everyone who presents one is simply insane.

Keep in mind that “know-nothing” Whitlock’s not the one pretending that a 2-10 team that’s been blown out in half of their games is somehow promising…like you are. So until you provide some evidence that he’s wrong and you’re right, you’re the one with the weak credibility as a football expert.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

....

You would actually say there has been no promise shown in this rebuilding year? Well….I’ve said it before and I will say it again….I am glad, UC, that you have no employment in the NFL…You are entitled to your opinion but I dont think you have the appropriate perspective or patience….

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

None

Because every time we show any improvement in one area (offense) it’s because we backslid in another (defense) so the team had no other choice but to scrap their plans.

And be glad all you want…but what I can say is that if I were the team’s GM and I hadn’t produced a Super Bowl contender in the first 5-6 years I’d actually have the integrity to admit that I wasn’t up to the task of doing the job and step down. I wouldn’t hang around for another 13 years just to draw a paycheck.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

....

The inconsistency would be a tell-tale sign of both youth and injuries, which we have had an outrageous amount of (don’t say “this is the NFL, deal with it” please, lol) ….I hear you on the lack of development of our 2nd and 3rd year players, I think that has something to do with them overcompensating for other areas of the team that are worse…I don’t know…But this is nothing unusual for rebuilding teams, but I think you will be much more relieved once it clicks

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Youth And Injuries Are A Part Of Football

Every team’s got rookies. Every team has injuries. Good coaches work around it.

Case in point, the Green Bay Packers last year. Youngest team in the league…went 13-3. Second youngest team in the league this year, tons of injuries, lost their franchise QB, still competitive in every game.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

....

Not this many rookies and not this many injuries, come on man…thats just not true…Good coaches work around injury (singular) not injuries to every player in a unit and 2/3 of the backups at the same…thats foolish to suggest….

Packers were only young at positions with small learning curves, WR, LB and OL…And they were only good due to Favre…I believe WE have been competitive this year, but you will only use that in defense of Packers, not Herm…You dismissed that yourself in an earlier post…something about “almost” winning isnt good enough and thats what the Packers have done is almost win alot…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He said competitive

He said the Packers have been competitive in all their games this season which is exactly what Clark Hunt said the Chiefs should be this year.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know...

i am referencing an earlier post by him…is all…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which One?

This thread’s getting long. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i dont even know...

…it may even have been in the Herm Safe one…or not you….

But, someone made the point that just being competitive wasn’t good enough in response to someone saying we have been competitive the past four games (minus Buff)….and the Packers have only 3 more wins…we COULD end up even…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Think That Was "Truth"

He was saying that “competitive” is too vague of a goal and was asking what people who back this team actually want to achieve.

And I agree with him…Chiefs management has definitely twisted “competitive” into a weasel word this year.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Competitive in my terms means:

a team that has the talent and coaching competence that give the franchise an equal opportunity (with the other 32 teams) to reach the highest goal achievable (Super Bowl) each and every year with a solid but manageable game plan.

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And whose fault are the injuries

bad luck? No such thing. There are plenty of unlucky teams with injuries….Brady for one and they have still been competitive. The injury excuse gets old real quick when you have teams such as Atlanta that can take a rookie and replace a starting QB. How about Warner coming into St. Louis after stocking shelves? We all know what he did.

Injuries is excusism at it’s worst. There are 11 men on the field playing O,D and ST. That’s 33 if they only play one position. What about the other 20? Not to mention the practice squad, FA and signings during the season. THat’s too many options to blame everything on injuries….unless of course someone is pushing them too hard during practices…but then again that wouldn’t be Herm’s call anyways…lol

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I will take this as an attempt at humor...i guess...

Injuries are no excuse….they are a reality….and they are a real reason that teams lose games…This is not indicative of bad coaching because coaches can only coach the talent and depth that the GM has provided…We have no depth whatsoever but that is not Herm’s fault at all…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a joke

It’s a fact that injuries are blamed albeit sometimes they are understandable, but using them as a constant excuse is laborious and tiresome.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

there's not any evidence

to say that Herm is pushing them too hard in practice. At least none that I’ve heard.

I could be wrong about this one though.

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've Always Heard The Opposite

That his practices are generally lighter than the league norm.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or If They're Not Pushing Them Hard Enough

This many injuries combined with our tendency to fade in the second half of games makes me question just how good the strength and conditioning program Herm’s got in place really is. Our S & C coach’s resume doesn’t do a lot to inspire confidence.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

EXACTLY

Injuries are part of the game but using them as a consistent excuse only perpetuates the problem and doesn’t resolve anything.
Their S&C needs to be reevaluated. How long do we keep blaming injuries? Wasn’t it recently that Herm was asked why his QB’s are soooo often injured inlucding the Jets days?
He didn’t have an answer. THAT is not an answer. There is a reason and noone can put a finger on WHY Herm’s teams are hurt as much as they are.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Please don't use the defending AFC

representative in the Super Bowl as a sign of teams overcoming injuries.

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHA....

yea…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why Not?

That Brady injury was catastrophic. He was the MVP and the focal point of that team. Herm lost his QB in the first game and his team’s gone 2-10 ever since.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

uhhh

supporting cast

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

uhhh

All went down too.

by ROC 27 on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, supporting cast...

One of the oldest linebacker corps (and then losing the best one to injury), losing both starting corners, losing the top two running backs and possibly the biggest injury in the history of the NFL – Brady.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah we already talked about Brady

Since when does age=poor performance?
They still have imo the best o-line in the league and the 2nd best corps of WR’s.

Broncos have proven you don’t have to have a great RB to run the ball just a great line

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said it did

But the Patriots sure thought it did when they signed one LB and drafted another in the 1st round last year.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dont forget Safety - Harrison

by DThomasReigns on Dec 2, 2008 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

DEPTH is why not...

Also a backup that has been in the same system longer than 4 months…

That and a supporting cast that consists of the best WR tandem arguably ever…

really?!

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You Mean Like Damon Huard?

Who, by the way, outperformed Brodie Croyle all through Croyle’s career.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea....

…cuz Huard had been in that system for…oh…wait…4 MONTHS….thank you….lol

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Depth means nothing...

If you can’t coach them.

by ROC 27 on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

That shows the substance of that team by doing as well as they have. We couldn’t overcome a hang nail. Excusism is abound by some.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was at UC

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I bet I've watched more Chiefs football this year and last year then Collinsworth

…those guys admittedly watch highlights but I’ll argue watchign an entire games play calling is much more informative then watching a handful of plays in roder to make an educated opinion.
Although I respect Collinsworth I have to disagree.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Collinsworth’s comments didn’t appear to be much more than a throwaway remark. He’s a great analyst, but I seriously doubt he put that much thought into his comments. Even the great analysts sometimes mail it in.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Collinsworth...

…watches more film than anyone in the commentator/analyst business…But I would not argue that you and I both have watched more Chiefs football than he has (every snap for myself and probably you as well) But, he knows football and he knows how teams are rebuilt…is all…You are allowed to disagree, naturally…lol…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So that makes him an expert of the Chiefs?

He “supposedly” knows how the Chiefs are built? Does he have a hard hat with the Chiefs logo on it…lol

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

never trust an “expert”

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey watch it

I claim to be an expert at nothing! :)

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh What Do You Know Anyway

You’re like an empty room with a large echo. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew a girl with a large echo once...a long time ago in a galaxy far far awaaaaaaaay ;)

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

But I would argue that Collingsworth watches a lot more NFL football with various teams than any of us.

We have the Chiefs under a microscope so things get blown out of preportion. But people that are in the league and watch all the teams a LOT are not nearly as down on the Chiefs as most Chiefs fans are. Most of them see it for what it is: A rebuilding team that stinks because it has almost no veterans, but a team that will be worth watching down the road.

by ChiefDJ on Dec 2, 2008 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the post's intentions are right on.

A couple bullet points might be a little off IMO but I like the overall message.

I’ve said it here before, I just don’t buy into coaching being the big deal that a lot of you seem to. It is important, but can we come up with a hypothetical number of what it means to an overall team? I’d say coaching is 25% and players are 75% of what matters on a football team. On any given Sunday, this can change in small portions.

Front office work, especially in talent evaluation is very important and I put it into the 75% that involves the players. The Chiefs talent evaluation seems to be off in recent years, especially in the early years.

Underachieved: Derrick Johnson (still has a chance, though)
                             Tamba Hali (apparently is a 2nd type DE)
                             All Lineback signings (those have been terrible)
                            Brodie Croyle (3rd rounder isn’t a killer but bad move to make him “the guy”)
                            Bernard Pollard (only on here because I think a 3rd rounder was too early)

Good Picks: Dwayne Bowe (man is a beast and a budding star)
                      Jared Allen (enough said, 4th rounder turned into best DE in league)
                         -Instead of overpaying, got more draft picks acquiring a very interesting Jammal Charles
                      Jared Page (pretty damn good 7th round pick)
                      Brandon Flowers (our secondary could be set for years)
                      Brandon Carr

Too early to tell but optimistic: Glenn Dorsey
Brandon Albert

I might be missing some in all the categories, I’m sure I’m missing a couple in the bad picks section. I think the future is bright, though. I want a close to .500 mark next season and I will start believing.

One other thing, Herm Edwards might not have a great overall record, but think about the QB’s he has had as a Coach. Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Damon Huard, Trent Green (injured and declining), and Brodie Croyle.
The fact that I’d take Tyler Thigpen over all of those guys has to tell you something about what Herm has had to work with when it comes to the most important position in football. (Not a diss on Thiggy, I love the kid)

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

+1

You hear it all the time you that you need a franchise QB to be habitually successful and Herm’s never had that guy. Like Dungy with Manning, or Bellicheck with Brady. Great players make coaches look good. Last year’s Patriots were good enough that you could give me a headset and a clipboard and they’d still win.

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

But Herm Did Have That Guy

Brodie Croyle. He spent the entire offseason singing his praises and handed him the job, despite Croyle doing nothing to earn it other than not being as old as Damon Huard.

Herm’s never had a franchise QB because Herm doesn’t know how to develop one.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nothing to argue with there, lol...

….don’t remind us, I have been happy forgetting all about Brodie…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah and we aren't much better IMHO

Until there are wins against winning teams then it’s just a band-aid.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And That Sums Up Why I Don't Trust Herm To Lead This Team

He can’t even identify the best QB on his roster to lead this squad. Huard was better than Croyle and apparently so was Thigpen (given a decent offense to run). Why on earth should we trust him to evaluate the rest of the roster effectively?

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactomondo

Give Herm a QB and he’ll develop and keep from injury…once he goes to Miami.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ehhhh

I don’t think it was so much that he thought Croyle was better…I think he just believed Croyle would develop through playing time, which he did not…obviously lol

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BS woody

We’ve read and discussed Herm’s comments before and after games with Croyle and Huard….he NEVER supported Huard as vocally as he supported Huard….Thigpen even less.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction...He never supported Huard like he did Croyle

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol, i figured...

I think you have to cut through the Hermism crap…he was lobbying for the guy he wanted with the direction we were going…And the little queen couldnt stay healthy and when he did he didnt play well…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well then at least you realize the BS Hermism's

I can’t trust a used car salesman in a bad suit (used car = Chiefs, bad suit = HC position)

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But It's Usually All Crap With Herm

And that’s why so many people are fed up with him…because he never sets a standard for what he expects this team to achieve and he never takes responsibility for his own bad calls. Always an excuse and he fudges his way through the interviews so nobody can ever tell what he’s saying or hold him responsible.

He’s a bullshit artist and the job he’s doing is a con.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or As "The Wire" So Eloquently Put It

“He rain-made you. A guy says if you pay him, he can make it rain. You pay him. If and when it rains, he takes the credit. If and when it doesn’t, he finds reasons for you to pay him more.”

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly UC

and there are so many that accept it that it looks like Jonestown all over again

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can we just agree to a ban

on all Jonestown, kool-aid, etc. references? Getting very, very old. It’s also tacky, lest we continually compare the loss of human life by a psychopath with coaching a football team. When a team has a “meltdown” do we bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

by KCScuba on Dec 2, 2008 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, But

We can agree to use the more politically correct reference to Chernobyl instead of Japan when using the term “meltdown”, especially since Chernobyl was actually a meltdown. And after all, they were just a bunch of godless commies who got what they deserved* and it’s a widely proven fact that communists don’t have feelings anyway. :)

*(Although technically, so did the Japanese)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

~facepalm~

You think it's coincidence that I bleed red?

by Mully on Dec 2, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On the topic of ignoring valid points and being a dick about word accuracy

Chernobyl would be no more “politically correct” than Japan, it would just be a more accurate word usage.

Which brings me back to the fact that koolaid and jonestown have been beaten to death and are annoying, just like pointing out that expanding the definition of meltdown to include any nuclear related disaster is technically inaccurate. (run on sentence, here we go again).

by KCScuba on Dec 2, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just To Be Clear

I’m not a particularly frequent user of the Kool-Aid/Jonestown reference. Mainly because it is a little played out. But if others feel it’s an accurate assessment of a discussion then I’m not really that offended by it and don’t think it’s something to be chastised for. Hyperbole is also part of debate.

And technically I was narrowing the definition of “meltdown” by excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and restricting it to Chernobyl. :) Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be more akin to going “nuclear option” on someone…sort of like what the Raiders and Bills did to us at Arrowhead. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Although

My comment was a little vague so I can understand the confusion about my intent. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Apologies for overusing the word “technically” in my replies…man, that comes off as pretentious.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I will say

I’ve found you much less pretentious since the switch from that vigilante (or whatever that was) to dogbert. ;)

by KCScuba on Dec 2, 2008 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Just Needed Something To Put Up

The “V” thing worked a little better on my old political blog…not so much on the sports. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Dogbert Rules

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know

And technically I was narrowing the definition of "meltdown" by excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and restricting it to Chernobyl.

I broadened it, you pointed out that was inaccurate.

Hyperbole is also part of debate.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not annoying. I was proposing a ban on grounds of annoyance and sensationalism.

I’m not a particularly frequent user of the Kool-Aid/Jonestown reference.

I realize that, which makes this little nitpicking session even more pointless – although I am still killing time on my last week at this job. :)

by KCScuba on Dec 2, 2008 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Annoyance Is Part Of Debate Too

Just the way it goes…best way to get rid of the annoyance is just to ignore the things you find annoying. And I don’t have a problem with sensationalism either as long as it’s meant as an absurdist comment and not a serious one.

For example, that clip from “Der Untergang” with Hitler as Carl Peterson was hilarious, mainly because we recognized it as absurd. But if someone were trying to seriously make a case that Carl Peterson were worse than Adolph Hitler and we should actually treat him as a criminal then it would be a ridiculous argument that lacks all ties with reality and probably deserves to be shouted down.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep to UC

What about Arrowhead field looking like “west beirut” this past weekend?
-Hah, we’ll go from Jonestown to Beirut.

My god some people take things too seriously around here.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 3, 2008 7:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you had me going on that one

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Herm needs to get the right people in place to develpe one….Dick curl = not the right people.

by Shawn on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dick Curl....

…horrible STD….horrible QB coach…

by woodman212 on Dec 2, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

HAHAHA!!!

Good one. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol...good one

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dick Curl's coaching career:

Real evidence that chicken salad can be turned into chicken shit.

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Catchy :)

Has any quote in Chiefs history been more cited than Casey Printers’ remark? Except maybe Hank Stram’s matriculation? :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasnt it Ernie Ladd who coined the phrase

I think I knocked his F…ing head off? Later used in “The Longest Yard” original?

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It Was

“I think I broke his f***ing neck”

And yes, it was “The Longest Yard” (Burt Reynolds as Paul Crewe version).

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What was Printers' remark?

I remember he said something like that. I thought it was to Ray Farmer?

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Printers' Quote

“Hell, I had to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.”

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's right

From Hard Knocks.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't Much Of A QB

But he didn’t sugar coat his opinion.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Especially

After you find out you’re getting cut.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Guess He Figured

If this was the end of the road anyway, why not napalm the bridge instead of merely burning it. :)

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, and I can't believe I have UC on this one

I believe it was Ray Farmer when asked by Casey Printers what else he would have had to do to make the team, Ray paused and said, “Well you would have had to make chicken salad out of chicken shit”

j/k UC

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

It was Printers who said it, not Farmer.

But he did say it to Ray Farmer as he was being told he was getting cut.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to have to check my Tivo

I think it was episode 4.

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Think So

Printers lasted until the final week.

Farmer’s response as I recall was an “I don’t know” when Printers asked him what more he could have done.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah I can almost see that now

I may have to bow a beaten man to you my sir…

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Printers, “What else would I have had to do Ray, make Dick Curl into a competent coach?” oopps, “chicken salad out of chicken shit”

Farmer, “I dont know”

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

franchise QB’s are developed…

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Len Dawson

developed into a stud QB

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But why?

That’s my point…can we say outside influences developed the great QB’s? Or did they just start playing up to their potential?

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We still don't know that Croyle couldn't have been a franchise QB

He is out because of injuries, not because of his play. He played a whole 3 quarters this season. We know nothing more about him than we did last year except that he absolutely cannot stay healthy.

So you can argue that Herm took an unnecessary risk with an injury prone QB (though Montana missed 35% of the games in his career and Troy Aikman only played a full season three times in 12 seasons), but you still cannot say for a fact that sans injuries Croyle could not have been succesful because we still do not know that and now never will.

by ChiefDJ on Dec 2, 2008 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes We Do

Because he could never stay healthy and he was never able to outperform his backup…going into this season. He was a horrible gamble (which is exactly what I said before the season started).

Building the team with Croyle designated as the franchise QB (without ever doing anything to earn it) was an unforgiveably stupid move and if they hadn’t lucked out with Thigpen being able to work out of the spread this season would have been utterly unwatchable for the last month and a half.

but you still cannot say for a fact that sans injuries Croyle could not have been succesful because we still do not know that and now never will.

I can say with absolute certainty that he’ll never be our franchise QB because he can’t stay healthy and he’s never done anything to prove he can play at that level. That fact will be in evidence once his career concludes. If you want to claim that he had the talent to be a franchise QB then the burden of proof is on you.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Building the team with Croyle designated as the franchise QB (without ever doing anything to earn it) was an unforgiveably stupid move

Which is what you said about playing Thigpen at Atlanta and it turns out that you were wrong about him. I know Croyle isn’t coming back and I don’t want him to because of his being injury prone. But you cannot prove that a guy that hasn’t played a full game all season could not have done better than his backup. You do not have supernatural powers as you profess.

by ChiefDJ on Dec 2, 2008 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And I Admitted I Was Wrong About Thigpen

Because Thigpen demonstrated he had the ability to succeed. Croyle never did…yet for some reason you keep harping on how he “could have been” a great QB as if that means anything. He’s not a great NFL QB, he’s never been a great NFL QB, and I’m willing to bet any sum of money that he’ll never be a great NFL QB. And you’ve got no grounds to say otherwise because he’s never done anything to prove that he’s great (or even good).

I don’t have to have supernatural powers…all I have to do is point at what he’s produced (or more accurately, what he hasn’t produced) and my case is made.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The point is you CAN be wrong

I’m not harping on Croyle “could have been”. I’m harping on that you assume you know everything even when there is no possible way of knowing.

Croyle didn’t play 3 quarters this year and yet you act as though he had somehow proven in that short amount of time that he did not progress from last year and have what it takes. I don’t know if he did or not, we never got to see.

I couldn’t care less about Croyle at this point, we’re likely to never see him again. I am just pointing out that you don’t know what you can’t possibly know because it never happened. The fact that you insist that just because you say something it should be considered as fact is really irritating.

by ChiefDJ on Dec 2, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, Duh

I’ve never disputed that I’m sometimes wrong and I’ve admitted when I was on several occasions.

I’m harping on that you assume you know everything even when there is no possible way of knowing.

I’m making predictions…same as a hundred other people on this site. Some will be right, some will be wrong. I suspect more will be right than will be wrong. I argue for them strongly. Is this really what bugs you so much about my positions on this team? (Seriously, I’m asking).

Croyle didn’t play 3 quarters this year and yet you act as though he had somehow proven in that short amount of time that he did not progress from last year and have what it takes.

He didn’t progress…because he played less than 3 quarters this year and never performed as well as Thigpen has since he took over as the full-time starter. The injuries and the stats aren’t separate arguments in this case, they’re both parts of the same argument. If he can’t post better stats or get better results than Huard or Thigpen he’s not better than Huard or Thigpen. If he can’t stay on the field as much as Huard or Thigpen he’s not better than Huard or Thigpen. And if he’s not currently better than his backups and he can’t be counted on to stay healthy enough to play then he’s never going to be a better QB than Huard or Thigpen…that’s always been my point about Croyle.

Any “what if” arguments about how good Croyle could have been if he stayed healthy are fruitless mental masturbation.

I couldn’t care less about Croyle at this point, we’re likely to never see him again.

Then why do you feel a need to keep defending his abilities? He’s irrelevant. His potential and abilities don’t matter anymore. Nobody here hates him or wishes him ill, he was just a terrible gamble and a bust and his critics are irritated that Carl and Herm couldn’t realize what a horrible gamble he was.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And

But you cannot prove that a guy that hasn’t played a full game all season could not have done better than his backup.

Sure I can…because Croyle’s backups stayed healthy enough to play in more games than Croyle did. They played, he didn’t, ergo he couldn’t outperform them because he’s unable to stay healthy…and that’s ignoring the fact that he’s been statistically inferior to them as well and the team won zero games with Croyle at QB.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We weren't talking about being healthy

We were talking about skill in playing the game.

by ChiefDJ on Dec 2, 2008 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They're The Same Argument

There’s not a “injury-risk” argument and a “skills” argument because it all factors into whether Croyle can play. The facts are (and these are facts) that Croyle never outperformed his backups and he couldn’t stay healthy. The numbers back this up and the team performances back this up.

What’s speculation is what Croyle might have done if he was able to stay healthy and if he was able to improve significantly and my point’s always been that it doesn’t really matter because he’s never been able to stay healthy and he didn’t improve. What you “could have done” doesn’t matter in the NFL.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Coaches 25% and Players 75%

I have no clue what the importance is, or how you would/could even quantify that but let’s go with your numbers.

The NFL has an outrageous amount of parity. The playoff field turnover rate is annually around 50%. The talent level on teams is very close. Wouldn’t this then suggest that something “as little” as coaching could be catastrophically bad to a team’s success?

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LIke I said

You can’t truly quantify it, it’s purely hypothetical. That is my opinion if you could.

Talent is close but in many ways it isn’t. What do most every good NFL team have in common? Good QB, good defenses, or both. Tom Coughlin could never get the job done in his career but was always a respected coach, now he has gained that next level of reputability because his defense is damn good and really tough, and his QB is really developing into a good QB.

Coaching staff matters, but my whole point is that I want to see us really produce some guys that are making plays, not missing tackles, and busting big plays through an offensive line before I start blaming the coach and wanting to blow this whole thing up ONCE AGAIN.

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Tom Coughlin

Had a winning record as a head coach before he won his Super Bowl last year. That’s why Coughlin was respected. Herm had a losing record in New York and he’s had a losing record here…that’s why this will probably be his final head coaching gig in the NFL.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

Coughlin was 68-60 with the Jags before taking over with the Giants. So maybe it isn’t the best of comparisons, It’s not like 8 games over .500 is anything to get hyper-excited about. We all know that getting to Super Bowls is what really matters in the NFL. You made your point, though.

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Winning Is Winning

Coughlin had success as a head coach before he won the Super Bowl, including 5 division championships in 11 years. Herm’s been in his eighth season and he hasn’t won a single division title yet. Guys like that don’t win Super Bowls.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but, but...like the monkey and the typewriter

if we give Herm enough years (chances) eventually the odds will play into his favor and he will win a Division Championship…of course you guys’ grandchildren will be blogging here instead of us…

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 2, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, how about Belichick then?

he was 36-44 in Cleveland with 1 playoff appearance.

He comes to New England, goes 5-11 and then it’s a dynasty from there.

My point is not that Herm will turn into Belichik
My point is not that Belichick’s and Herm’s situations are similar (because they are very different)

My point is that looking at past records from the Jets and even the first couple of years here are pointless. Focusing on the now is what is. Have we been getting the right players? Are they improving? Are the players playing hard and tough, and showing signs of life? Is this team going to be better next season?

In my eyes, all those questions have been up and down on yes and no answers throughout this season. So what then in my eyes do we do? Well it’s not bring in another coach who will just start this horrible process all over again, it’s let Herm have one more year with these young guys and hopefully another superstar type talent added to the team, and see if we can turn the corner.

Note: (I am a lifelong Royals fan so I guess the rebuilding process has become easier to me…..terrible.)

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Herm Had Gone 5-11 His First Year Then Won A Super Bowl

I guarantee I would not be calling for him to be fired this year.

But he didn’t. His teams have gotten worse every year he’s been here.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cheater

you completely ignored Belichik’s Browns years… =)

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually I Didn't

I’m saying that if after Herm had finished out in New York with a losing record, if he’d come here and gone 5-11 his first season then gone on to win a Super Bowl (like Belichick did) I wouldn’t be saying he should be gone. INME made a comparison between Belichick and Herm and I pointed out that Belichick produced results and Herm hasn’t.

Heck, if Herm’s record was reversed…2-14 his first year, 4-12 his second, 9-7 his third I’d say he was doing a pretty decent job. But it wasn’t reversed…he came here and inherited a playoff caliber team, the bottom fell out his second year, then he made it worse his third year and few of the promised improvements are apparent (while he’s also been catastrophically wrong on many of his predictions…such as Croyle). He’s just a bad coach in charge of a bad team and after three years I’m out of patience with him.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

INME made a comparison between Belichick and Herm and I pointed out that Belichick produced results in his second gig and Herm hasn’t.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heck, if Herm’s record was reversed…2-14 his first year, 4-12 his second, 9-7 his third I’d say he was doing a pretty decent job.

Doesn’t that assume that we could rebuild “pain-free” so to speak?

he came here and inherited a playoff caliber team

No way…I love the Chiefs as much as anyone, but we flat out lucked into the playoffs that year. The odds were so against that, I could have bet $100 and won $3000

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 2, 2008 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That Assumes

That you can rebuild a team without bottoming that team out.

No way…I love the Chiefs as much as anyone, but we flat out lucked into the playoffs that year.

We did…but nonetheless we made it into the playoffs. So we were a playoff-caliber team.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What We Weren't

Was a championship-caliber team in 2006 or a playoff-caliber team in 2007. And based on what the team showed us during “Hard Knocks” (a series the Chiefs had final editing authority on) the front office and coaching staff thought they were a playoff-caliber team in 2007. They only started to talk about “the need to rebuild (aka gut and cut salary)” after the bottom fell out.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So you obviously aren't reading everything I say

My point is not that Herm will turn into Belichik
My point is not that Belichick’s and Herm’s situations are similar (because they are very different)

The situations are so different that of course that point was not where I was going with it. Herm took over a team that was very old on offense and terrible on defense and wanted to rebuild the thing from the start. FO wouldn’t allow it so now we are suffering because this is taking much longer. I will say one thing, this defense should be much better than this with the time he’s had to build a D.

We obviously won’t agree on this and we don’t have to. I just think a true “rebuild” takes some time and it takes some heartache. The fact that you have already given up on Dayton Moore, as well, when he’s only had 2 real drafts shows me that you aren’t very patient with this stuff.

by I need more Esteban on Dec 2, 2008 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Reading It

I was making general replies and wasn’t fisking your remarks.

Herm took over a team that was very old on offense and terrible on defense and wanted to rebuild the thing from the start.

Then I guess Herm shouldn’t have taken the job if he felt that a rebuild was necessary and he wasn’t going to be allowed to run the team as he saw fit. That’s what good coaches do. But he did take the job, so apparently he didn’t think a rebuild was that necessary.

I’ve never really bought the story about Herm believing this team was rotting out and being held back by Carl Peterson. If he thought the team was that close to collapse then he wouldn’t have taken the position to begin with.

I will say one thing, this defense should be much better than this with the time he’s had to build a D.

You’re right, they should have. The Chiefs have drafted ten defensive players since Herm got here (Hali, Pollard, Page, McBride, Tyler, Dorsey, Carr, Flowers, Morgan, Johnston). Seven of them were taken with first-day draft picks. Only three of the first day draft picks (Pollard, Dorsey, Flowers) look like legitimate NFL starters. We hit on good DBs on two late round picks (Carr, Page) but only one of the five linemen we’ve drafted (four of them with first day picks) appear to be good, and he’s a rookie (so he may not develop either). This renders the value of the DBs we’ve found somewhat questionable because a DB is of limited value if the front seven can’t stop the run or rush the passer.

In addition, the Chiefs have a supposed star-in-waiting playing linebacker for us (Derrick Johnson) who has yet to reach his supposed potential after four years in the league, which contributes mightily to the struggles of the front seven. So after three years of Herm in charge all we’ve seen defensively is that he seems to have an ability to find and develop DB talent but can’t do the same for linebackers or linemen. That’s a major problem when the linebackers and linemen make up the brunt of your defensive squad.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Royals

I finally gave up on the Royals about 2005. I held out some brief hope for them when Dayton Moore was hired, but that’s disappeared this year when Moore added both Jose Guillen and Mike Jacobs to this team. Both were rotten moves.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My post earlier in the thread competley agrees with what your saying so I'm going to post it again here, I pretty much missed the conversation up there^

I do ignore the last two years on Herm’s record. For one, the team Herm inherited was OLD, not just and average old team in the NFL, this team was filled with grandpas and great grandpas. Second, when Herm was hired he was told he was going to get a rebuilding deal immediately. Then his team "backed into the playoffs" This is when Clark and Carl tell him he has to compete. The old ass players on his team can’t compete and most of them retire withouth acceptable recplacements. (Not Herm’s fault). Now Herm gets to start from scratch in what we ALL KNOW will be a very very hard rebuilding process. This is like an expansion club starting without draft picks. The chiefs record and Herm’s record obviously suffer. 2 wins in the last 21 is called rebuilding. That’s what happens and Herm was chosen to do this because he was somewhat successfull in the past with New York. They weren’t a great team but they made the playoffs playing "Harm ball". Our team as young as it is is plagued with injuries. Some really hurt us and some have seemed to help us "Bones". However, I am not saying Herm is a wonderful coach and I certainly don’t always agree with his calls (This is why he is an NFL coach and you and I are not) but I certainly am saying he could be the right guy for us. His record has been diminished because of KC and hopefully this rebuilding project will bring it back up around 500 and if we turn out to be a great franchise I can see it rising above that.

by Shawn on Dec 2, 2008 10:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow that was supposed to be posted up about 8 posts. Sorry I screwed the pooch again.

by Shawn on Dec 2, 2008 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The comments are nested

There were 8 replies to the post you were trying to reply to. The nested comments should help you (kinda) tracking whose responding to what.

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 10:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Except

That it’s not an expansion team, that we had draft picks, and that the coaching staff and front office aren’t starting from scratch. The front office has had 20 years to build a championship team and they haven’t been close. So they don’t deserve to be given the same leeway as an expansion team.

You posted the comment correctly, it just posts a lot further below the thread when a lot of people have already commented.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 11:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

You can’t underestimate the importance of good coaching. Ask the Patriots fans if they want to see Belichick leave.

by TheQ on Dec 2, 2008 6:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post

by Shawn on Dec 2, 2008 1:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Point is

that until next year none of us are going to be proven right or wrong. So why bring up the same talking points about the same thing over and over again? It’s getting old.

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Because paying attention to my job all day would be very painful so I really do enjoy stepping out of reality Monday morning QBing here :)

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

true

it’s not like I have finals for macroeconomics, sociology…

oh crap

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh crap too

My finals are next week :)

by primetime 07 on Dec 2, 2008 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I get done a week earlier than you!

I’m done on Friday. Bouyah!

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

add :) to previous post

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Dec 2, 2008 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I finished my finals 10 years ago! :P

by DThomasReigns on Dec 2, 2008 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's Tuesday prime....or did you sleep through Monday ;)

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 2, 2008 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 2, 2008 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post

Pretty much sums up a lot of my own thoughts on the subject.

by JayrodT on Dec 2, 2008 2:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

A couple of quick points

I find the argument that because the coaches hands were forced into changing their system they should not get credit for the offensive success to be disingenuous. Isn’t it the job of coaches to make adjustments to create better situations? Even granting that it was necessary for the coaches to change their offensive game plan, shouldn’t credit be given to them for adjusting it in a way that did win games?

Collinsworth is one of a handful of NFL analysts that watches a lot of tape. Even if he has only seen 80% of Chiefs snaps (arbitrary number) these past two years and you have seen 100%, he has two advantages. First, his analysis is better than yours. I am sorry if that hurts your feelings because you are a passionate fan that tries to be educated, but IT IS HIS JOB. Second, he has access to NFL films footage which provides better angles than the ones you see, so he sees more of the plays.

Finally, you have to evaluate rebuilding years differently from years in which you are trying to make a push for the playoffs. The Chiefs haven’t undergone a true rebuilding phase since I have been a fan (early 90s) so it is perhaps difficult for some fans to accept that this isn’t the same team as the early 90s, late 90s or early 00s. The fact of the matter is that they have looked better and better week in and week out (with obvious exceptions) and they are improving.

by ericchiefs on Dec 2, 2008 4:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

On The Disingenuous Argument

As one who has blasted Herm repeatedly, I think he should get credit for installing the new offense. But I think it’s a valid criticism to point out that he did so largely out of desperation and that it calls into question his ability to rebuild this team because the personnel brought in during his tenure have been unable to execute the offense he claimed to be building towards.

So your point is valid about giving credit where credit is due but it does not excuse him from criticism.

First, his analysis is better than yours. I am sorry if that hurts your feelings because you are a passionate fan that tries to be educated, but IT IS HIS JOB.

It’s Emmit Smith’s job too, and I wouldn’t argue that he’s a better analyst than anyone on this site…not even DJ. :) And that’s mainly because Emmitt Smith is a moron (so was Michael Irvin). Just because somebody gets a paycheck for doing a job doesn’t automatically make them better at that job than someone doing it as a labor of love.

In fact, here’s a site that exposed just how many people who cover sports for a living are actually really terrible at what they do. Here’s another. Or go read Stephen A. Smith’s blog for awhile…he covers sports and his analysis sucks.

Collinsworth is generally an excellent analyst (probably the best on television). That doesn’t mean that every comment he’s ever made about football is beyond question. Nor should it be accepted as such no matter who’s paying him or how much football he watches.

Second, he has access to NFL films footage which provides better angles than the ones you see, so he sees more of the plays.

Valid point…but as I noted earlier his comments didn’t appear to predicated on anything more than an off-the-cuff remark without a lot of research behind it. So I don’t think he’s deriving that opinion from watching tons of tape on Chiefs games…he just made a basic observation that doesn’t appear to have much meat to it and that’s disputed by a great many Chiefs fans who probably pay more attention to the Chiefs week in and week out than he does. That doesn’t make him a bad analyst…that makes him an analyst who divides his attention between 32 teams.

The fact of the matter is that they have looked better and better week in and week out (with obvious exceptions) and they are improving.

They looked competitive in week one, got blown out in weeks 2 and 3, won a game in week 4, got blown out in weeks 5-7, looked competitive in weeks 8-10 but lost every game, had their coach completely screw up week 11, got a franchise record beat down in week 12, and barely edged out an incompetent Raiders team in week 13. They’ve gotten destroyed in half their games this year and they’ve got one of the worst defenses in the NFL, which hasn’t shown any serious improvement in either rushing the passer or stuffing the run. So where is this consistent improvement of which you speak?

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is so much better than writing term papers

I think we are not going to come to a point of agreement with respect to the offensive scheme changes. It is simply a matter of perspective. It is possible to look at their desperation and only see their incompetence. It is just as easy to look at their shifts as evidence that they are willing to make significant adjustments in order to become more productive. I would rather have a coaching staff that makes the adjustments than one that rigidly refuses to alter their scheme.

The Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin comments are red herrings. Collinsworth spends a significant amount of time breaking down film, he has access to better resources than the casual or even diehard fan and he has very good analysis. Given that we do not know exactly how the Chiefs organization is run on a day-to-day basis and that guys like Collinsworth are generally positive about the situation in Kansas City it is hard to make the case that we are significantly worse off than other teams. Collinsworth may not know the entire 53 man roster of the Chiefs, but is that depth of knowledge necessary to make an evaluation about the general direction of the organization? I don’t think so.

The improvement I have seen is mostly on the offense. The other significant statistic that I think of when thinking about consistent improvement is the turnover ratio. We have more takeaways then giveaways. That is how teams win football games. There have been many unfortunate bad breaks, unnecessary penalties and other minor errors that have stopped the Chiefs from racking up Ws, but if you are less comfortable with this team now than you are after the first three weeks, I can’t imagine why.

by ericchiefs on Dec 2, 2008 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Addressing A Couple Of Your Points

is just as easy to look at their shifts as evidence that they are willing to make significant adjustments in order to become more productive. I would rather have a coaching staff that makes the adjustments than one that rigidly refuses to alter their scheme.

I’ll concede that point with the offense (because I think Gailey is a good coordinator)…what’s the defense’s excuse? They were horrible to start the year and they’re just as horrible now.

Collinsworth spends a significant amount of time breaking down film, he has access to better resources than the casual or even diehard fan and he has very good analysis.

That wasn’t how you stated your remark. You dismissed any contradiction of Collinsworth’s opinion by posters because you insinuated that his job rendered any analysis he did on the Chiefs automatically beyond question because “IT IS HIS JOB” (your direct comment). That is an incorrect assessment. I agree Collinsworth is an excellent analyst. In fact, I think he’s the best analyst on television. But he’s not infallible, he would probably be one of the first to admit that, and every remark he makes is open to question and none should be accepted unconditionally just because he’s a professional football analyst…even the best analysts make inaccurate assessments.

Collinsworth may not know the entire 53 man roster of the Chiefs, but is that depth of knowledge necessary to make an evaluation about the general direction of the organization?

No, but it does means that his assessment may have been made with incomplete information. None of the quotes from that article gave indicated any more than a casual observation. I’d be curious to see him debate that topic with Whitlock to see how deeply-held his opinions on that topic are.

The other significant statistic that I think of when thinking about consistent improvement is the turnover ratio. We have more takeaways then giveaways. That is how teams win football games.

Sure…if that’s combined with the ability to rush the passer, stuff the run, and score more points than your opponent. We haven’t done any of those things effectively this season…that’s why that we’ve only won two games (and gotten blown out in half of our games). Minus all of those other things, success in turnover ratio is more of a curiousity than a sign of improvement.

There have been many unfortunate bad breaks, unnecessary penalties and other minor errors that have stopped the Chiefs from racking up Ws

Having the worst defense in the league for most of the season isn’t a bad break…it’s poor performance on the part of the team. Blaming the refs for the losses is rationalization, unless you can prove that the referees are somehow conspiring against the team. Bad calls happen to everyone (ask San Diego). And when the “minor errors” cost your teams ten games out of 12, they’re not minor errors…they’re systemic failures.

but if you are less comfortable with this team now than you are after the first three weeks, I can’t imagine why.

Because we gave up a historic number of points to a team that’s struggling to stay at .500 two weeks ago and because we struggled to beat a thoroughly dysfunctional Raiders team this week. These are teams we should be beating at this point in the season. But we’re not…because we’re not improving. We’re just keeping the games closer because the opposition is worse.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we beat the raiders

Alright, I will concede the entire Collinsworth argument because I am just not that interested in it.

w/r/t Defense – I think part of the problem on defense is the scheme. Most of the problem on defense stems from injuries and inexperience. The team is clearly not championship caliber with the current personnel. They are lacking a quality pass rushing defensive end. I would be surprised if they didn’t address that with FA signings or a very high draft pick. From what I have seen and read the problem with the run defense isn’t that it gives up significant yards each play. The problem is that they give up the big play far too often. I don’t know what the fix for that is. It leads me to believe that it isn’t as much the responsibility of the coaches as it is the inexperienced defensive line and 8th string linebackers they have out there. I turned off the Bills game because I had better things to do than watch that awfulness. I was unable to see the Raiders game because I was busy with the longest traveling day of my life (DC to Amherst, MA by bus in the rain on the Sunday after Thanksgiving—never again). So my analysis has been limited to the games prior to the last six quarters.

w/r/t Mistakes I am not blaming the losses on the referees. I am blaming the mistakes on the players out there. The responsibility that is on the coaching staff stops with the fact that they chose the personnel to put on the field. They purposely wanted inexperienced players so they would buy into Herm Edwards’ philosophy. The upside of that is we have a lot of high energy players that are looking to make impacts. The downside is that sometimes they make dumb mistakes that cost the team ball games.

w/r/t Improvement – It would be nice if the process of rebuilding was a solid trajectory. You start low and gradually improve without making any missteps. Unfortunately that is not the case. There will be some backsliding. However, the first three weeks the Chiefs looked like they could very well go the entire season without a win. The last six weeks (with the exception of Buffalo) they stayed competitive throughout the game. You keep mentioning the dysfunctional Raiders. The week before we beat them, on their home turf, they absolutely destroyed the AFC West leading Broncos. Also you have seemed to dismiss the win on Sunday because it was ugly. If, as you have quoted Parcells as saying, “you are what your record says you are,” it is incorrect to dismiss ugly wins because they weren’t dominant enough.

w/r/t Your last sentence

The Jets, Bucs will make the playoffs. The Saints and Chargers have lots of talent. The opposition wasn’t worse for that four game streak where we were “keeping the games closer” but not winning.

by ericchiefs on Dec 2, 2008 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Every Team In The NFL Has Talent

The Saints and Chargers aren’t good at using it. That’s why they’re not playoff caliber teams this year. We should be beating teams like that and we aren’t.

Defense – I think part of the problem on defense is the scheme.

I’d agree. I’d also posit that the coaching staff has done an incredibly poor job adapting that scheme to the talent they have or compensating for its weaknesses and that’s why we have one of the worst defenses in the NFL. That’s not bad luck, that’s poor performance on the part of the coaching staff (which is why so many of us have so little faith in them to turn it around…because they can’t seem to recognize the weaknesses or how to fix them, they just keep repeating the same failures). And the players’ inexperience is probably overstated a bit…especially since it’s vets like Derrick Johnson, DeMorrio Williams, Alfonso Boone and Tamba Hali who are underperforming along with the first and second year guys. I honestly believe it’s the coaching that’s destroying this defense.

I am not blaming the losses on the referees. I am blaming the mistakes on the players out there.

Point taken, apologies for misinterpreting your position. But again it’s not just the rookies and second year guys who are struggling and making mistakes…it’s the vets too. And it’s the coaching staff’s responsibility to address that and as far as I can tell they aren’t.

You keep mentioning the dysfunctional Raiders. The week before we beat them, on their home turf, they absolutely destroyed the AFC West leading Broncos.

So did we…destroying the Broncos seems to be a rather dubious accomplishment this year and it appears that the only reason their record is as good as it is is as a result of playing in a horrifically bad division. But they’re not a good team by any stretch. And we barely beat the Raiders after they appointed an incompetent coach and started overhauling their roster in-season. If we were facing the Raiders from the beginning of the year with Lane Kiffin in charge I have little doubt we suffer another loss.

Also you have seemed to dismiss the win on Sunday because it was ugly.

Ugly wins I’m okay with. Ugly wins over incredibly dysfunctional teams, not so much. As for Bill Parcells’ observation, your point about the ugly wins is valid but no more so than the Herm and Carl critics’ points about there being no good losses. And we’ve got a lot more losses than wins this year (ugly or otherwise). You can’t put the losses into the win column simply because they weren’t blowouts.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way.

by UCrawford on Dec 2, 2008 9:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We have a lot

More losses than wins during Herms tenure as a coach here. Our defense should be on the upswing, not the offense, we have a lot more picks in it. Not as much money, that is just because of LJ’s contract. You do not see how bad it is? Defense is supposedly Herm’s strongsuit, and it is worse than the offense that we have nothing but a high dollar runningback that does not produce, a veteran left guard, a rookie left tackle, center?, Our right side of our line is horrendus, see what I am getting at here?

by Eric Allen on Dec 2, 2008 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Slight Disagreement

First off, i love this post and page and this will be my first response although i’ve been reading all of your posting since training camp. Although Herm’s strongsuit is Defense that doesn’t always equate to sucess on that side of the ball, for example, Romeo Crennel strong suit was also defense and the Browns Defense has been terrible since he’s been there also Brian Billick strong suit was Offense and in Baltimore his Offense were although not terrible definitely not good and also Marvin Lewis strong is Defense his in Cinncinati well you get my point. But i will say that with the draft picks spent we should definitely be a helluva lot better than we are. My biggest disappointment this year is that Herm or whoever were willing to change the offense to suit the players but he’s not willing to do the same with the defense.

by madtheory on Dec 3, 2008 8:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good points, welcome!

by Eric Allen on Dec 3, 2008 8:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome

With a name like that you’ll fit in!

by primetime 07 on Dec 3, 2008 9:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's Why

Romeo Crennel is a terrible head coach who is deservedly getting fired after this season.

Billick got fired and Marvin Lewis is a strong candidate to be fired (although you never know with the Bengals front office). If Herm’s being lumped in with that group there’s no way he should consider his job safe for two more years.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because it's owned by the Hunt's

…they never let the HC out to dry. Gun will be the reasoning behind the poor play and will be blamed for the defensive inadequacies. Mark my words, this is his last season as a Chief. Herm will save face by getting another DC so that he saves face.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 3, 2008 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That may very well play out as you called it

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

by Lanier63 on Dec 3, 2008 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think only the Special Teams coach is in jeapordy.

Gun has had an improving D every year with this one being the exception. They’ll take into account the injuries and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I also believe we will see significant imrpovement over the last 4 weeks on the D. The injury bug is fading and our fill-ins are becoming familiar with our basic sets. With Carr and Flowers back and Leggett playing better, we will see more blitzes.

Of course, I’ve been wrong before.

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 3, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The D's Not Improving

And Gunther hated last year’s defense so much that the team’s got 7 new starters now. He’s not improving, he’s treading water and starting to sink.

I agree with Truth, if anyone’s going it’ll be Gun…he’ll be the sacrifice for Herm to save face. And frankly after watching his “defense” this season and listening to his lame excuses, he probably deserves it.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gun came back in 2004 if I'm correct...

Total D NFL Ranking
2007: 13
2006: 16
2005: 25
2004: 31

Scoring D NFL Ranking
2007: 14
2006: 11
2005: 16
2004: 29

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 3, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Then He Changed Out Seven Starters

One of whom was our leading tackler on last year’s defense…with nobody to replace him. Then he wasn’t able to utilize our big free agent signing. And his entire front seven, consisting of young veterans who were supposed to be our best talent, fell apart.

Gunther peaked at mediocrity and now the defense is back in the toilet. If he gets fired this offseason, he’s pretty much earned it.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Another way to look at is:

He got rid of 7 starters with young, inexperienced guys to replace them. Their growth has been hindered by injury and this (as was expected) is a speed bump on the road to greater success through rebuilding.

Gunther took a D that was in the basement and brought it as high as it could go with the aging talent it had. He will take the current roster as high as it is able.

If he get’s fired this offseason, it’s pretty premature.

by NJChiefsFan on Dec 3, 2008 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lewis

Mike Brown said last week he’s safe…

by primetime 07 on Dec 3, 2008 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Figures

The Bengals never hold anyone accountable either. Not that most of the problems there are Lewis’ fault, but he’s had one good season as a coach.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He has less room to speak than Herm IMO

Because he has a franchise quarterback. When you’ve got a franchise quarterback and talent around him, there’s really no excuse at that point.

by primetime 07 on Dec 3, 2008 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

i completely agree that Herm should be fired but only after next season if a significant improvement isnt made. And by that i mean wins not “competitively losing” or the usual blame session that has taken place because of injures etc. But in this rebuilding process namely this offseason drafting and signing young FAs are the key. But honestly with the state of this team currently we’ll have to overpay for anyone to even consider coming to play for us which is sad.

by madtheory on Dec 3, 2008 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

If You Want To Set A Standard For What You Think Herm Should Achieve

Some of us have been adding it to our signature block. It’s a lot easier to tell if your team is meeting your expectations when you set a specific goal and put it in writing. Otherwise it can be a lot easier to fall prey to coaches and GMs who define success down by backing up their goals.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You added to your sig. UC

I was wondering what your expectations are for next year? Now that it’s a given that Herm will be around.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 3, 2008 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

9 Wins

That’s the cutoff. If he can’t post a winning record in his fourth season in charge the man deserves to be called an incompetent fool. And I think a good coach could win 9 games with this team next year.

I’m not going to say playoffs though, mainly because we don’t know how the playoff picture is going to shake out.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

10-6 or 9-7

I’d say around 10-6 or 9-7 b/c either should be able to win us the division b/c IMHO Oakland isnt going anywhere soon, Denver is treading water this season and most likely will next season and San Diego is the only team in the division that should pose a challenge but with Norv Turner you never know.

by madtheory on Dec 3, 2008 10:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm more worried about Oakland than I am about San Diego

if this rebuilding thing works, and we are a contender in the next 3 years, I think Denver and Oakland will be better than SD…Gates and LT aren’t getting any younger, and it seems like their injuries are getting more frequent and they are taking longer to fully recover.

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 3, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, But Rivers Is Ascending

The Chargers will likely become more of a pass-first team with LDT getting older (and I think he’ll be pretty much done next year). Rivers looks like he’s capable of carrying the load. Gates might rebound, though…he had a foot problem that lingered into this season but if it isn’t chronic into next year he’ll probably be back.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 11:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"The Chargers will likely become more of a pass-first team"

1) I’m not sure that’s a great plan in the current AFC West

2) If they are a pass first, shoot out style team, I think they’ll get beat at their own game by Denver.

Cutler > Rivers.

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 3, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly

But they’ve got a GM who is an excellent evaluator of talent and if they get a good coach I think they’re a good team in fairly short order. The big question is whether AJ Smith can get along with a good coach…his handling of the Schottenheimer situation should call into question his ability to work with others effectively.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That last part sounded like a kindergarten grade card =)

“Does not work well with others”

by PVChiefsfan on Dec 3, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right...and that alone should disqualify him

getting rid of a 13-3 coach and becoming an “old” team without much prospect is a Carl move. Marty saw it and made an ultimatum.

I don’t agree with UC in this regard. I think the guy is a primadonna.

Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."

The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.

by THE_TRUTH on Dec 3, 2008 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I Think He's A Prima Donna Too

But he’s also a prima donna who does well at talent evaluation, which is tough to find (and he makes good trades…that trade of Eli was very lopsided in favor of the Chargers).

I only think he’s a middling GM though because of his inability to get along with the head coach. When the GM refuses to even speak to his coach, he’s behaving like a child. Although, in fairness to Smith, Schottenheimer had lost his entire staff when the Chargers reversed course and fired him so it wasn’t necessarily the worst possible decision…Schottenheimer wanted to bring in his brother Kurt to run the defense and I think we all recall how underwhelming he was when he was our DC. They looked at Schottenheimer and saw a coach who couldn’t get along with his GM (not necessarily his fault, of course), hadn’t won in the playoffs, and was going to have to rebuild his coaching staff from scratch and was doing so with a bunch of loyalists. They may have seen it as heading off more problems down the road.

But hiring Norv Turner was very ill-advised.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 3, 2008 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Phil Rivers or Eli

I would take Eli anyday.

At least 10-6 next year taking our division, or Herm goes.

by Eric Allen on Dec 3, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So would I

But how about you take Eli and I’ll take Rivers, Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding (the other players they got out of the Eli trade)? Deal.

by primetime 07 on Dec 3, 2008 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah! Merriman going

to be the same after the knee injury?

At least 10-6 next year taking our division, or Herm goes.

by Eric Allen on Dec 3, 2008 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He Was Great Before It, Though

The Chargers got the better end of that deal, talent wise. Can you imagine what the Giants would have been like if they’d had Merriman to go with Strahan in that defense? And since taking over as starter, Rivers has actually been a better QB than Manning…his TDs are about the same but he’s thrown a lot fewer interceptions to go with them. The Giants probably would have done better than a wild card berth in last year’s playoffs.

The Chiefs should win 5 to 6 games this year and no less than 4 for this season to be considered progress in any way. If he can't win at least 9 games next season, Herm's a joke.

by UCrawford on Dec 4, 2008 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Superbowl?

At least 10-6 next year taking our division, or Herm goes.

by Eric Allen on Dec 7, 2008 12:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland???

I’m not really too worried w/ Oakland b/c for the better part of this decade they’ve had really good draft position and Al Davis isnt cheap with FAs signing and they haven’t really done anything to impress. As far as SD going more pass oriented that definitely wouldn’t be good in our division just because against Denver like stated before Cutler vs Rivers and moreso Rivers vs Bailey and Bly and now with us Carr and Flowers might not win too many of those in coming years. And Denver is up and down and really hasnt had a good defense in awhile as far as my memory serves although i could be wrong.

When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.

I'd be fine with 9-7 or 10-6 and competiting for the divsion title

by madtheory on Dec 3, 2008 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Arrowhead Pride: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

An Unofficial Kansas City Chiefs blog

Why I Can Wait and What Success Will Look Like

Comments