I find it hard to believe that the Kansas City Chiefs have faced more scrutiny from the national media in my lifetime as they are now. Being a relatively small midwest city, Kansas City isn't usually a focus for the MSM. Then Tony Gonzalez asked to be traded. And then the Larry Johnson allegations came to light.
Many say that they predicted the Chiefs fall in 2007. The team was veteran laden, without viable talent on the offensive line and lacking any passing game. And, oh yeah, that quarterback thing....
But somehow, someway we made it through. The 2008 draft brought hope. Tony Gonzalez was still in town and we knew what Larry Johnson could do at his peak. Things weren't good but we could see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Over the past six weeks it seems as if the fanbase, or the foundation of the organization if you will, was cracking. The calls for Peterson's head began to increase. All of Herm's negative attributes were being focused on.
What happened?
Our two most visible players, Gonzalez and Johnson, were thrust into the national spotlight. No longer was he Tony Gonzalez, Kansas City's home-grown hero. He was a commodity. A final piece to the puzzle for someone. Larry Johnson was accused of doing something that carries with it a barrage of criticism. The facts haven't been reviewed but it doesn't matter. That's the power an accusation like this has on someone in the media.
I constantly struggle with the national media's focus on the New York's and Boston's of the world, sometimes justifiably so but usually not. I wanted the national media to see our team. Now they have. As a dysfunctional organization.
As they say, be careful what you wish for.
0 recs | 40 comments
Unfortunately and painfully so
I cannot offer any rebuttal to your sentiments…
Lanier63 - October 16, 2008
What I want to know is
Why Herm would have a sit-down talk with LJ about his situation, but has no intention to speak with TG. LJ is a crybaby, always has, always will be. Then to not show at team meetings, give me that kind of money I will stand on my head in team meetings.
Eric Allen - October 16, 2008
Because
Tony’s situation is a matter of a great player at the end of his career wanting to go out on a winning team. It’s nothing personal with him and he has repeatedly said he thinks the team is on the right track, just that he will be done before they get to the point of being a contender again. Not much a head coach can disagree with about that. If theres nothing personal going on there really is no need to have a talk.
LJs situation is a case of a 28 year old professional athlete acting like a spoiled brat having a bad impact on a very young and impressionable team. That’s something the coach definately has to address.
ChiefDJ - October 16, 2008
Agreed
Gonzalez went to lengths to smooth over relations with the team after the trade didn’t happen so that he wouldn’t be a problem in the locker room.
LJ’s just undermining the team because he’s got a rotten attitude and winning’s always come second to being the center of attention with him.
UCrawford - October 16, 2008
With Gonzalez rejecting trades to Buffalo and Atlanta, any claim that TG has made about wanting to go out on a winning team simply can’t be taken seriously anymore. He did not want to play with a winner. He proved that. He wanted to play where he could get national media attention, as Brett Favre did when he went to the pathetic Jets. You simply can’t lay all the blame on Peterson anymore. TG has to take responsibility as well for refusing to play for teams that are 4-1 and 4-2 with dynamic young quarterbacks that are well suited to take advantage of his particular abilities but are often far from national attention.
Calvert - October 16, 2008
Not Entirely
Atlanta’s not a winning team, per se…they’re competitive but unlikely to compete for a championship in the next year or two. I think he probably figured Buffalo was about the same (although I think he was wrong).
UCrawford - October 16, 2008
His whole reason
for leaving was to go after a ring. Buffalo’s a fun team, a neat team, a good team.
They’re not a Super Bowl contender. Why leave the place where he knows he has a legacy he’s attached to to get knocked out in the first round? I think he’s probably familiar with that script here.
Ridiculous Matt - October 17, 2008
Exactly my point. Gonzo’s being a lazy, attention-seeking media whore. He’s just a midwestern version of Randy Moss or T.O. He doesn’t want to work. He wants to ride the coattails of other players who can make him look good.
Good players want to play for a winner. Great players want to make their teams winners. Gonzalez has proven that he is merely a good player…but will never be truly great.
Calvert - October 17, 2008
I couldn't agree less
Lanier63 - October 17, 2008
I award you no points
and may God have mercy on your soul
Ridiculous Matt - October 17, 2008
No Way
If Tony is lazy then this whole team is a bunch of loser bums, because by all accounts Tony still works out and practices harder and longer than almost all the other guys on the team.
I don’t think I have seen a more false statement on this site. Of all the top TEs in NFL history Tony is the only one that did NOT play with a Hall of Fame QB, so he has been putting up those numbers with below average passers. And all his career He has done nothing but try to make his team great, he just now is on a team that needs more help than a TE can give by himself.
tevans96 - October 17, 2008
Calvert
Wfat hole have you been hiding in. Obviously you have not seen some of the shots TG has taken to help this team win! He does whatever he can to help block, catch passes over the middle when he knows he is going to get clobbered. I cannot count the times he has drug multiple defenders down field to get the needed yardage.
Eric Allen - October 17, 2008
Is it bad....?
Is it bad that when I first read your headline I smiled a little bit…
It wasnt the actual content that I had expected it to be. I expected more about even Florio recognizing that Carl Peterson needs to go….Herm showing cracks in his preacher-ness the other day and so on…
Then I wondered why it intrigued me, and the answer was obvious…Cuz I know that for this team to get better I think some changes have to take place…and for that to happen Carl and Herm are gonna crack…and be fired…
Does that make me a bad fan?
woodman212 - October 16, 2008
No, It Doesn't Make You A Bad Fan
I’ve argued before that you can be a fan of the players or a fan of the team, but that doesn’t mean that Carl and Herm are the team…they’re just guys who happen to work for the team, the same as the players.
I want the Chiefs to win. And if losing a lot of games this year will enable us to get rid of Carl and Herm so the team can hire a better GM and head coach so we can win more games in the future than we would with Carl and Herm still in charge, I think it’s understandable for some fans of the team to wish for that to happen. I’ll still root for the Chiefs to win every Sunday when I’m watching the game…but if they lose every game for the rest of the season in the same ugly manner they’ve lost most of their games I’ll be fine with that so long as it forces changes and helps the team get back on track.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Or
You know. You can just understand that we are in year one of the rebuild and its going to be ugly as it has been for almost every team in the history of the NFL. Yes, I know Atlanta and Miami are doing much better than we are in their rebuilds, at least through 5 games of it, but they are by far the exception rather than the rule.
Isn’t it just possible that in the normal progression of time for rebuilding teams (2-3 years with improvment every year) that the Chiefs will get better even WITH Peterson and Herm and that even if you ditch them, you’re still going to have to go through the same process? And that by ditching them in the middle of the rebuild, you’re actually going to extend the process out EVEN LONGER?
Isn’t that possible?
ChiefDJ - October 17, 2008
Actually
Wouldn’t the Chiefs be the exception that proves the rule, since Miami and Atlanta would mean that two out of three rebuilding teams this year are getting better?
There’s a critical difference between Atlanta/Miami and the Chiefs. The Falcons and Dolphins didn’t keep the same people in charge of rebuilding who were responsible for running the team into the ground to begin with. The Chiefs may have had a lot of turnover on their roster, but that’s not really a change when the guy stocking the roster with new players also picked the old players people wanted to get rid of.
I’m willing to give a rebuilding team 2-3 years as long as something’s actually changed with how the team’s being run. I’m not willing to give the Chiefs 2-3 more years when Carl Peterson is just trying to tag another year onto his 20 year career of underachievement.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
To Answer Your Question
It’s possible that the Chiefs need 2-3 years. It’s also possible that I’ll wake up in the morning and I’ll have grown another 6 inches overnight. It’s just not very probable…same as it’s not very probable that Carl Peterson has suddenly found the formula for building a championship-winning football team over the last year when he hadn’t done it for the previous 19.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
UCRAWFORD
I have not agreed with some of the things CP has done. To infer that he has been a failure for the last 19 years is a cheap shot. While we are at it let’s lay off HE for at least through 2010. Can you not admit that this is really the first year of a massive rebuild?
Need I remind you of the early 90’s Cowboys? Or how about the ridiculous coaching carousel of the 70’s and 80’s chiefs? Is HE and his staff the right one? Only time will tell.
I have been as guilty as anyone questioning on field personnel decisions but, the truth is I’m not there evaluating every day these players performance. I also have not been the coach of a team that won at least one game in the playoffs.
dklogue1 - October 17, 2008
I'll Give Him Credit For Doing A Good Job While Schottenheimer Was Here
But since Marty left his teams have had a losing record. And every coach he’s hired has had fewer winning seasons than the coach before. And now we’re watching quite possibly the worst team in franchise history. So he’s been a failure for quite awhile as a GM, assuming his goal was to build teams capable of competing for championships.
No, I don’t concede that…because in massive rebuilds teams are trying something different. This team is merely letting Carl Peterson turn over the roster, the same as they’ve let him do for almost 20 years. The rebuild will actually begin once Peterson is no longer employed as the GM.
Their rebuilding started when Jerry Jones bought the team in 1989 and fired Tom Landry and Tex Schramm. He didn’t keep them around to continue running the show when they’d already demonstrated the game had passed them by. And after that the team showed progress every year under Jimmy Johnson. So I’ll believe that the Chiefs will start improving once Herm and Carl no longer running things. The Chiefs have regressed every year since Herm Edwards showed up, they haven’t won a playoff game for 14 years with the teams Carl Peterson has built and I’ve seen no indication that’s going to change.
You mean the coaching carousel that was orchestrated by the same GM, Jack Steadman? Carl Peterson’s gone through four coaches since he’s been here and each one’s had less success than the one before. I see no meaningful difference between the Kansas City Chiefs today and the Kansas City Chiefs of the 70s and 80s.
And the Chiefs back then weren’t unsuccessful because they fired coaches. They were unsuccessful because they kept replacing the coaches they fired with other bad coaches.
None of the Chiefs’ coaches have won a playoff game for the last 14 years, so your opinion is not automatically less valid than theirs because they happened to be employed as coaches and you aren’t. Nor are the critics’ opinions automatically less valid than Peterson’s, because he hasn’t hired a coach who’s been able to win a playoff game in 14 years either.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Which brings up a good question
We all know how Carl has “let players go” in the past. Most of us remember how Tom Landry and Tex Schramm were “let go”, none of which I agreed with, but my opinion wasn’t asked for.
If Carl is to be “let go” by the Hunt family, what way do you think they should go about it?
Lanier63 - October 17, 2008
I would vote for 1 of two ways...
1) What he did with Gun: Just hold a press conference, don’t invite or tell Carl so he can find out by watching it on TV.
2) What he did to Weigman: Tell Carl he’s still a part of next years org., then leave a message on Carl’s cell phone telling him he’s gone.
-Lastly on either of the two above….pack his stuff in cardboard boxes and leave it at the security gate OR have two guys sitting with all his stuff in a Vegas Hotel room and have Carl get it with his “posse”.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
If I Were Clark Hunt
And I wanted Peterson out, I’d probably tell him privately that I’m making the change and then give him the option of retiring early so that he can save face publicly. No sense in humiliating the man…the point’s just to get him out of power. If he wouldn’t elect to retire early, then I’d fire him (paying him for the extra year, of course, because there’s no point in the acrimony of a contract dispute) and begin an immediate search for his replacement. All public pronouncements would be very complimentary of Peterson and the service he rendered, but I’d stress that I felt a change needed to be made, that the goal of this team is to win a championship, and that the franchise will not accept efforts that are not constantly working towards that goal.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
You Can Always Fire People With Class
In fact, I’d probably lose respect for Clark Hunt if he didn’t treat Carl Peterson with some class and compliment his service to the team (even if he did outstay his welcome). He’s been a pretty bad GM for the last decade, but I don’t believe it was malicious.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Horsehockey…he’s always been an egomaniac and having met the man I can confirm this. The poll I would like to see is how many people that have worked with him actually like the man.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
Even Egomaniacs And Difficult Bosses Have Their Good Points
And Peterson certainly wasn’t the worst GM ever for this club. He did some good things for the team…it’s just that most of those good things were a long time ago.
But I agree that a firing is way overdue…he never should have been allowed to make it to his third head coach.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Agreed...
…he did some good things for the organization however, his people skills are atrocious.
You would change your tune if you met the man mono e mono without cameras and microphones.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
I Very Well Might
But it wouldn’t change my opinion that if the Chiefs fire him they should still take the high road. There’s nothing good that will come out of Clark Hunt treating his employees badly in public.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Agreed....see my post below.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
Agree With Your Points Entirely
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Wow...you have a soft side
you’re full of sh!t but nonetheless it’s a soft side. :-)
I live by the golden rule:
“Treat those the way you would want to be treated”
None of this:
“Why can’t we all get along”
-pansy ;-)
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
Just Because Peterson Crapped On Some People
Is no reason to crap on him. I honestly believe that. Plus, it’s a lot easier to attract quality candidates to a job if they don’t get the impression that the owner’s going to treat them like crap…so there’s definitely a self-serving angle in there. :)
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Crapped On Some People?
Oh no mon friar…crapped on a majority of people. Front office, back office, inter-office.
I think the majority of candidates “know” or could easily find out throughout the league what people think about him behind closed doors.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
Maybe
But is there really an upside to the team if Clark Hunt acts as badly as Carl Peterson?
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
No
It was a hypothetical question and I was answering it initially using the same overt tactics that Peterson himself has applied.
Clark would never act that way. Matter of fact only one owner in the league would act in an unproferssional manner-Al Davis. But, we’re not the Raiders and Clark isn’t Al Davis so there isn’t a chance that would happen.
HOWEVER, having spoken to people in the NFL I can safely assume that he will no longer be a part of the NFL by another organization post his Chiefs days.
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
I Think That's Right
That’s why, if I were Clark Hunt, I’d release him from his contractual obligations to the team to seek other employment…because I seriously doubt anyone else is going to hire him. Nobody else hired Tex Schramm after all, and he built teams that went to several Super Bowls.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Funny...
….he wasn’t liked very much throughout the league. Koinkidink?
THE_TRUTH - October 17, 2008
Well
The losing for the years before he was fired probably played into that more than him being abrasive. :)
After all, Bill Parcells isn’t all warm and fuzzy and he sometimes jerks teams around in the hiring process, but people go after him because they believe he wins.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
In reply to those answers you have to ask yourself one question
When dealing with someone who may have wronged you, exactly what does it do for you to treat them like crap in return? How would that benefit you or anyone else, seriously? I know what I have read Carl has done in letting people go and I don’t agree with it, but it’s very true, you have no other choice but to take the high road or you then become that person yourself.
Lanier63 - October 17, 2008
+1
Agreed. And like I’ve said before, I don’t actually hate Carl Peterson. I hate the poor job that he does, I hate how the Chiefs ownership keeps him around, I hate how he’s wrecked the team. But those are all factors of him just being bad at his job. His decisions aren’t getting people killed. They aren’t bringing down the economy. They’re just ruining our football team. And I doubt that was his goal…I think he wants the Chiefs to be successful, I think he’s just not good at it and it’s just not as important to him as them being profitable or him keeping his job. But once he’s gone there really aren’t going to be any hard feelings towards him on my part.
UCrawford - October 17, 2008
Carl Peterson is not evil…..
Even though we have portrayed him with the Third Reich! Still LMAO over that clip. Carl has been the "good soldier" for the business. In order to begin Phase II of the rebuilding process, Clark Hunt must restore hope and optimism in the Chief players and to the fans.
People are no longer giving away their Rams tickets now; they actually want to go to the game…ummmmm.
TouchdownKansasCity - October 20, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Arrowhead Pride to post a comment.