It's Been Worse For The Kansas City Chiefs
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 6:23 AM CDT
22 comments
Many might argue that mediocrity has defined the Kansas City Chiefs, particularly during the Carl Peterson era, and, well, you're right. However, we are entering our second expected losing season.
Something many of us can agree upon is that we've acquired several key players, building blocks if you will, that shines a glimmer of hope for the future. Whether or not we've currently got the staff that can properly develop them is another question.
However, this chat below is to help us gain a bit of perspective. Like I said earlier, we're entering year two of the rebuilding plan but if we are ever going to reach mediocrity, ala the Chiefs of the 70s and 80s, then we've got a long way to go.
Take a look at the chart below.
| Year | Record | Offense | Defense | Overall |
| 1979 | 7-9 | 26 | 5 | 18 |
| 1978 | 4-12 | 24 | 22 | 26 |
| 1977 | 2-12 | 17 | 27 | 27 |
| 1976 | 5-9 | 12 | 25 | 21 |
| 1975 | 5-9 | 13 | 19 | 17 |
| 1974 | 5-9 | 18 | 21 | 19 |
This particular era spans three head coaches as Hank Stram was before Paul Wiggins who was fired and replaced by Tom Bettis at which point we hired Marv Levy. 4 head coaches in 6 years.
It also included three starting quarterbacks as Len Dawson ended his career, Mike Livingston got a shot but failed which led to the two year Steve Fuller era.
These offenses consisted of one 1,000 yard rusher which was Tony Reed in 1979. The 1,000 yard rusher was rare at the time but to drive home the point of our mediocrity, we never rushed for more than 611 yards in these 6 years.
There are several ways to interpret these facts.
- Our head coach might be in danger of being replaced at seasons end, we still haven't found a quarterback and our run game seems to have lost its luster. We are just like these Chiefs of yesteryear.
- These teams didn't have the tools (see: players) in order to properly be competitive. Our defense is showing some potential so they'll be good enough to keep us out of this level of mediocrity.
How do you interpret this?
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Cross-Era Comparisons
Always a tricky proposition. Yes, I think the Chiefs have problems and are a bad team, but I think the results right now are being skewed a bit by an inept management situation (both in the front office and on the field). The plus side is, the teams back then didn’t have free agency like they do now, so we have the ability to rebuild quicker once we get a GM and coach who know what they’re doing. Given competent management on the part of a team, it’s tougher for a team to stink as long as the Chiefs did during that era because there are more options for rebuilding your club to make it competitive.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Also
If you’re asking for interpretations, you probably need to offer a more specific question. Otherwise it’s the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach test.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 8:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
“written equivalent of a Rorschach test” :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I guess what I was getting at was that past history showed us that a change of coaching and a change of quarterback can have effects that last 5-6 years. Or is this group different for some reason.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Free Agency
That changes the entire equation. When all you’ve got to restock your team is the draft and waiver wire scrubs then rebuilding is a slow process. With free agency that changes completely because you’re able to add a player who fits your needs, who isn’t a reach in the draft, and who isn’t washed up. That’s why I tend to be so harsh on Peterson…it shouldn’t take five years for a team to become competitive and be able to win playoff games, it should take three or four. If a GM isn’t able to build a team that can win in the playoffs in five years, then the problem is the GM.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Millen was
relieved of his duties of GM, Team President. The Lions are actually doing something for the better of their franchise, could this catch on?
by Eric Allen on Sep 24, 2008 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Already Posted It
:)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep it up
You’ll get what you ask for. They’ll fire Carl and hire Millen to rebuild the team.
by ChiefDJ on Sep 24, 2008 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a valid comparison
With free agency, it makes it very difficult to compare today with 30+ years ago. I think Jack Steadman was more interested in running Worlds of Fun (opened in ’73 – coincidence?) than he was running the Chiefs. Although I will say the Zambezi Zinger was one hell of a roller coaster back in the day.
by mdough on Sep 24, 2008 9:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah it was
No seatbelts, right?
by Joel Thorman on Sep 24, 2008 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOF!!
WOF in the 80’s was a lot like a Chiefs game in the 80’s.
the food was a little overpriced and the day always ended with a bit of throw-up in your mouth.
but always worth the $.
by sad, sad, sad!!! on Sep 24, 2008 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, Worlds Of Fun
Always a good time when the folks took me and my sibs up to KC…I loved the Orient Express, even if you had to wait in line forever on it.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 24, 2008 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think without a doubt,
Herm Edwards has been the worst coach the team has ever had. Even as bad as some of the others were, most had strengths in addition to their weaknesses. The only strength I see in Herm is he may have the ability to coach the defensive backfield. He is certainly not up to being a head coach in the NFL.
by G.L. on Sep 24, 2008 11:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hard Knocks
I seem to remember from “Hard Knocks” Herm saying that he’d never really aspired to be a head coach…that he’d always wanted to work with about 8 or 9 guys and build something there. Personally, I agree that he seems more suited to be a secondary coach than a coordinator or head coach.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 25, 2008 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're giving Crash a lot of credit
Gansz was an absolute joke. The only reason he got the job was his ability to treat every special teams play as if it were the invasion of Normandy. He embellished stories of his days in the military and how he was a fighter pilot – the only plane he ever saw was a cargo plane. He sure fooled ol’ Nick Lowry, who held a team meeting at the end of the ‘86 season (Oh yeah, in ’86 we went 10-6 and into the playoffs, thank you Coach John Makovic) and then told Lamar Hunt that the players wanted “Crash” as their coach. Maybe the offense was abysmal in ’86, however, as Al Davis (a la the Raiders, not the Rockhurst coach) says, “Just win baby.” This was the guy who started Frank Seurer in 2 games. I actually have a VHS of one of Suerer’s games in ’87 (Ebay anyone?) . Thigpen is our 2008 version of Seurer. If Thigpen starts against Denver, then you may be right.
Note: I vividly remember Crash’s last home game (and last win) in Dec ’88. The Chiefs, who were 3-9-1, are down by 3 points and have a 1st and goal on the Jets one yard line. The Jets make 3 straight stops. Instead of sending in Lowry to kick the FG to tie, Crash goes for it on 4th and scores. With 2 ticks left on the clock the Chiefs squib kick and the Jets try the old Cal-Stanford marching band play. 11 laterals later the Jets are forced out of bounds and we win, eliminating the Jets from any wild card chances. If you were there, no doubt you remember as well. I think the game was played in a driving rain storm, unusual for December. Hey, at least Herm went for it on 4th and goal in the 4th quarter against the Falcons.
by mdough on Sep 25, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mackovic
Ah, there was a unique one. Got the Chiefs to their first postseason game in forever and then had a player revolt. And it wasn’t the only time…he had a player revolt when he was the head coach at Arizona and (if I recall correctly) one while he was at Texas too.
Very talented X’s and O’s guy…which wasn’t enough to make up for his abysmal lack of people skills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackovic
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Sep 25, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 70s
Things were dire in the late 70s, no doubt. But it’s much easier to take a bad run of seasons if you have a world championship in recent memory. (Unfortunately for me, I was too young to remember Super Bowl IV and started following the Chiefs in 1971.) At least in the late 70s, the Chiefs had been the best in the world fairly recently, and had delivered a lot of historic performances from legendary players within the previous decade.
This current mess is much more disheartening because ten years ago from today, we weren’t coming off a legendary team winning the Super Bowl, we were a team that hadn’t won a single playoff game for five years. We don’t even have the relatively recent past to point to this time, like we could in the late 70s.
by Offense of the 70s on Sep 25, 2008 7:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
