Bill Williamson, who covers the AFC West for ESPN, seems to think so.

I originally thought after the NFL trading deadline passed with him remaining in Kansas City, where he has been since he was the Chiefs' first-round pick in 1997, there was a chance that Gonzalez and the team could agree to march on together next season if he thought the team was committed to winning in 2009.

But from reading his comments after the trade deadline, it's clear that Gonzalez is angry at the team -- and particularly general manager Carl Peterson -- and wants to leave.

And that spells trouble for the Chiefs after this season unless something changes.

I'm firmly in the camp that it wasn't worth it to us to trade away Tony Gonzalez for a third round pick...the chances that we'd snag a player close to the caliber of player Gonzalez will be the next two and a half years with a choice that low are extremely slim (the only ones I can think of during Peterson's reign, off the top of my head, are Jared Allen, Dave Szott, Donnie Edwards and Will Shields...and Szott, Edwards and Shields were grabbed back in the Marty Schottenheimer era).  That said, if Gonzalez makes an issue of this and decides that he wants to force the Chiefs to make a trade this offseason (or if he decides to retire, which is less likely because he'd have to pay back a very large amount of money) not trading Gonzalez now becomes a major problem for us after 2008 if something's not done to mend fences.

And you can't really blame Gonzalez for being upset either...all he wanted was a straight response.  If the Chiefs had told him that a trade wasn't viable, he says he'd have accepted it.  He might not have liked it, but he'd have accepted it.  If the Chiefs hadn't gotten the offers they'd told Gonzalez they were looking for, he'd have understood.  The man's been a professional his entire career.  But from what Gonzalez claimed was said to him, Carl Peterson lied about trying to trade Gonzalez, and he turned down the offers he said he was looking for, and that's a slight that very few football players are going to be willing to overlook...and it's a pretty safe bet that the free agents looking for new homes after the 2008 season are going to notice as well, and that it'll make the Kansas City Chiefs a much less attractive destination (since nobody wants to deal with somebody who'll flat-out lie to them unless they have to).

Something's got to change if the Chiefs want to keep the Gonzalez situation from becoming a problem...and right now the first place that fingers should be pointing is at the the man who started this entire mess to begin with...Carl Peterson.

The Detroit Lions have a GM that can...a guy that we've discussed here before.

On Monday, the Lions were in a grim situation.  After years of mismanagement by former GM Matt Millen, the last wobbly wheel was finally coming off the franchise.  The Lions hadn't won a game this season, their quarterback had a back injury that had him heading to injured reserve, their offense and defense had bottomed out, and one of their best players (a former Pro Bowler whose numbers had dropped the last couple of years who was schedule to become an unrestricted free agent) was allegedly making waves about wanting to be traded to a contender...but only to one in Texas.  In essence, a very similar (albeit certainly not identical) situation to what the Chiefs have been facing.

Then, after a week of publicly denying that his player was on the block or that he was shopping him around (despite numerous stories and rumors to the contrary), and after claiming that he'd only take a trade for the player if other teams started by offering a first-round draft pick, the new Lions' GM was able to unload his disgruntled, underachieving wide receiver for three draft picks, including a first rounder.  In one swift move, by exercising tact and savvy, the general manager of the Lions was able to squeeze an absolutely brilliant return out of a player that most questioned to be worthy of even a first round pick.  Whereas in Kansas City, the player who asked to be traded, who most people thought wasn't worthy of the second round pick the Kansas City GM asked for, went nowhere at the trade deadline and is now helping to cause an uncomfortable situation for his head coach.

Which leaves open the question...why can't our GM get the value he assesses a player at in trade like the Detroit Lions' GM can?

In what could be described (depending on how you view the Chiefs' management) as either a foreshadowing of Gonzalez's future after Tuesday, an unbelieveably late gesture of appreciation towards one of the club's greatest players, or a really sick joke, the Chiefs announced that they'll be honoring Tony Gonzalez during Sunday's game for his accomplishment during the Panthers game of becoming the greatest tight end in NFL history.

The club today announced plans to honor Gonzalez with a pre-game tribute before Sunday's game against Tennessee in recognition of his setting the NFL record for most career receiving yards by a tight end.

Which begs the question, if Tony Gonzalez is about to be traded, how will he be expected to show up for Sunday's game unless we're trading him to the Titans?  Buffalo and New York will both be playing at the same time the Chiefs game against Tennessee will be going on, and it's unlikely that either team will want their newest acquisition skipping a game in the midst of the playoff hunt, so if he's traded the Chiefs will be having a celebration of Tony Gonzalez's accomplishments without Tony Gonzalez.

Unless this is the Chiefs' way of saying that it's not likely that Gonzalez is going anywhere at the trading deadline.  Which I hope is the case, because if not it's just unbelieveable how screwed up this franchise has become.

I'm going to be optimistic though, and say that the timing of this announcement is the Chiefs saying that Tony Gonzalez isn't getting traded.

(Author's note:  Sir Eccles beat me to it in the FanShots)

I'm going to preface this by saying that Jared Allen was an excellent player for us.  He worked hard, produced on the field, and was only partly to blame for the situation that resulted in his trade to the Vikings.  I liked having him on our team.

That said, Jared Allen also always struck me as a colossal dumbass who was prone to exercising extremely poor judgment in regards to his actions and comments.  And now he's validated that opinion by attempting to recruit Tony Gonzalez to Minnesota.

Former Chief Jared Allen sent a text message Saturday night to his old friend Tony G after hearing that Tony G is looking to be traded.

Allen told the St. Paul Pioneer Press, "I said, 'You want to get traded, man?' I was joking with him. Then I said, 'Why don't you come join me in Minnesota?' "

Which, of course could constitute a violation of the NFL rules against player tampering, as explained by the league's senior VP of public relations Greg Aiello to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

"Out of our anti-tampering policy, the term tampering as used within the NFL refers to any interference by a member club with the employer/employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce the person to seek employment with that club or with the NFL."

The comment from Aiello was, of course, made in response to the Brett Favre saga from this offseason, in which Minnesota offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell was accused of inducing Favre to come out of retirement, thereby putting the Packers in the unenviable position of having to trade away their franchise QB after an acrimonious war of words. 

The NFL found that the Vikings had not tampered in that case by attempting to induce Favre to come play for the Vikings, but that appeared to be based on a lack of evidence that Bevell had made such an overture to Favre.  Allen's case would seem to be a little more clear cut since he openly admitted asking Tony Gonzalez to come to Minnesota.  Based on Roger Goodell's track record with rules violations, I think it's safe to say that should the Chiefs decide to file a complaint Goodell will be none too pleased with having to have this discussion with the same team twice in one year. 

You'd think that the Vikings would have been smart enough to educate their employees about the pitfalls of this sort of thing after narrowly avoiding the axe the first time.  But apparently not, and if the NFL does investigate this and does decide that Allen's actions constitute a violation, this could very well end up benefiting the Chiefs by gaining us draft picks from the Vikings as compensation (as happened with the 49ers when they were forced to swap picks with the Bears for improperly contacting Lance Briggs' agent during the season).

I guess all you can really say is, well played Jared...well played.  Your team is definitely getting value out of signing you long-term.

Looks like Crazy Al has stepped in it with league commissioner Roger Goodell.  His ludicrous rantings at his press conference after firing his head coach for his own incompetence have finally drawn a response from the league office.

Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis has received a formal letter from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell informing him the franchise is subject to penalties for the public accusation of tampering against the New England Patriots, ESPN's Chris Mortensen confirmed.

The National Football Post first reported the letter on its Web site Tuesday.

The punishment could range from a substantial fine -- $250,000 or more -- to docking the Raiders one or more draft picks, or both, NFL sources told ESPN.

Apparently, as a team owner you can't just run your mouth and question the integrity of other teams without just cause.

In a June 5, 2008, memo distributed by Goodell to NFL clubs entitled "Policy on Integrity of the Game and Enforcement of Competitive Rules," the commissioner informed NFL team officials that competitive rules violations must be made in a timely manner. Davis' accusations against the Patriots came 18 months after the transaction occurred.

The memo also warns team owners and officials that making false claims leaves them open to NFL-imposed sanctions.

If I were Lane Kiffin, I'd like my chances of getting the remaining $3.5 million on my contract a whole lot better.  And maybe, just maybe the owner of our rivals will be stupid enough to respond to this publicly, try to buck the commish and earn himself a ban (ala George Steinbrenner).  Then maybe we'd actually have a rivalry against the Raiders that would challenge the Chiefs to improve consistently instead of once every decade whenever the Raiders just happen to have a good coach.

This definitely improves my already high opinion of the league commissioner...the NFL is on the right track under his guidance, maybe some of that will trickle down to our team.  Accountability is a good thing.

Noting that one poll might be giving us data that can be misinterpreted because of its limitations, I thought I'd try a second one to see if we can focus the results a bit.  The previous poll asked what we thought the root of the problem was, this one asks who you think is responsible for the poor performance by the Chiefs this season (or whether anyone's responsible at all).  As with the last poll please feel free to flesh out your answer in the comment threads or offer suggestions on how to improve the poll.

To get an impression of where everybody stands at the bye week, I'd like to toss out this poll for everyone's consideration.  Just list the option that, in your opinion, seems to be the most problematic for the team out of the ones named.  Granted, we can't submit multiple answers, but then again that's what the comment threads are for (and I'm sure people will have opinions on it that they'll want to flesh out or to put in context).

This week's Q & A with Herm on the mothership is just full of apparently unintentional nuggets of insight into what's going on with the Chiefs.

Q: Are you doing anything this week to prepare for Tennessee?

EDWARDS: “No. We can wait until next week because we have a long week again. We will probably look at them over the weekend, we’ll probably watch the Tennessee tape over the weekend.”

Granted, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here, but do most teams on a bye week take the entire week off from studying their upcoming opponent?  Especially when they got stomped as badly as the Chiefs did by their last opponent?  Seriously, I'm not sure about this so if anyone could set me straight on it, I'd appreciate it.

It's been mentioned by a few commenters here and elsewhere about how the Chiefs show up looking like they had no clue of who they were playing each week...which has obviously resulted in the season we see before us.  Herm's also made comments before about how little research he does regarding football (doesn't watch the Super Bowl, doesn't have the Internet).  And it's been brought up recently by an alleged former colleague of Herm's (via ProFootballWeekly) that he's not exactly the best study on film.  To be honest, I'm starting to wonder whether he does much film study at all on the Chiefs' opponents or if he spends most of his time just running his mouth about all the great things he'd like to see his team do.  Because right now the Chiefs certainly play like a team whose head coach doesn't put in a lot of work preparing for the games. 

And if you read through the entire Q & A he mentions Tennessee exactly once...in passing.  Does Herm actually know anything about the Titans this year?  Can he actually name all of the members of their defensive line?  Or their top rusher?  Or who their QB is right now?  I guess what I'm wondering is how much work, exactly, is Herm Edwards putting into this season?

So much for the hope that Herb Taylor will get a shot on the right side against Tennessee.  According to the Q & A with Herm Edwards from the mothership, Damion McIntosh isn't going anywhere.

Q: When Branden comes back are you guys going to move T Herb Taylor to the right side?

EDWARDS: “Herb is a swing tackle, he can play both sides. We’d like to keep those guys together. (T) Damion (McIntosh) has been moved from left tackle to right tackle so he’s kind of learning his way. As well as our right guard (Adrian Jones), he was a tackle before. So that’s something we’ve got to shore up, we’ve got to do a better job over there. Herbie (Taylor) can play both sides and obviously he did a good job last week. He’s come in and played pretty well. We’ll just take a look at all those kinds of situations and see what we need to hit.”

Here's a question...what exactly is it that McIntosh does that has Herm convinced there's any potential?  He's given up a sack a game.  He got toasted last week by a second year defensive end who had half a sack for his career before playing the Chiefs.  He's so slow in pass-blocking that we can probably count on seeing our opponents' best pass-rushers going up against him for the most of the season even if Branden Albert doesn't turn into a franchise left tackle this year.  He can't open holes in the run game against capable defenses.  And he's 31, so this is likely as good as he's ever going to get.

Seriously, what in the hell is Herm doing during the week when he's supposed to be watching film of the games?  Does he even watch film of the games?  Hell, does he even pay attention to the games when he's sitting on the sidelines?

H/T: KCFanatic

The Chiefs rookie left tackle returned to practice on Tuesday morning, according to the Star.  No word on whether he was limited or not, but the fact that he's back in full gear this early is a good sign for him playing in the Tennessee game and hopefully a good indication that his elbow dislocation was relatively minor.

This also opens the question, who will be starting at right tackle for the Chiefs in that game?  The Titans have a very solid pass rush on their defensive line with Albert Haynesworth (5 sacks), Kyle Vanden Bosch (3 sacks), Tony Brown (3.5 sacks), and old vet Jevon Kearse (1.5 sacks).  So I think it's safe to say that Damion McIntosh going up against this line could prove disastrous for both the short and long-term health of Brodie Croyle. 

Question is, will the Chiefs decide that it's time to give Herb Taylor or Barry Richardson some playing time on the right to see what they're capable of, or will they stick with McIntosh for the sake of more "continuity"?