Jason Miller-USA TODAY Sports
Four years ago, I never envisioned this being a question.
December 15, 2008. The day the Kansas City Chiefs franchise changed forever.
On that day, Clark Hunt issued a statement to the public announcing Carl Peterson was stepping down (voluntarily?) from the job of general manager of the Chiefs.
The Chiefs had just lost to the Chargers to move their record to ... 2-12. (Hey! What's the Chiefs current record?)
One year later: Are the Chiefs better off without Todd Haley?
This was the first time in the era of my Chiefs fandom that someone not named Carl Peterson would be leading the team. The Chiefs are in Kansas City, a fly-over state, so I did not expect Hunt to actually get the big fish when they went hunting in the GM pond.
But, you know what, they did. Hunt pulled out a big one and signed GM Scott Pioli, the No. 1 candidate for everyone, as his GM.
Pioli, as he promised, went on to win multiple Super Bowls and Hunt was proven correct when Pioli became the greatest GM in the history of the NFL.
Wait. What's that? The Chiefs actually haven't won any Super Bowls under Pioli?
It was four years and two days ago that Hunt made that announcement. That move was what really launched Arrowhead Pride because Chiefs fans who had been angry with Peterson's tenure came flocking back, leading to lots of internet traffic for us. Hope was restored. The excitement was back. In just one year, Pioli's Chiefs were in the playoffs. It was all coming together.
Then the 2011 season happened. 2012, too. Two straight years of getting worse. And we now know that this is not a new era of Chiefs football.
So I ask you: Four years (and two days) later, are the Chiefs better off?
Carl Peterson stepped down four years (and two days) ago. Are the Chiefs better off now than they were then?
Yes, they are better off. (239 votes)
No, they are not better off. (1171 votes)
1410 total votes