Comments on: Behind Enemy Lines: Us On Them

By: Crane

Crane — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:37:37 +0000

One good draft and everyone loves you.

This show of Carl Love must be a morning requirement in the KC Chiefs offices to log on and support Darth Peterson.
I love this “He gets results and operates the team at a profit.”

You forgot to add, “at the expense of our fans and their emotions” at the end.

PV – Are you still saying there was no five year plan? Seriously?

That’s my last word on it.
I do agree that the playoff losses are mostly laid at Marty’s feet, however.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:57:24 +0000

I would actually like him to move over to the business side permanently and hand things over to Kuharich, which I’ve said before.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:56:20 +0000

I have no problem with Carl staying as long as he continues to focus more on the business side, and lets Kurarich, Farmer and Herm continue to call a lot of the shots when it comes to player development. There is no doubt that he’s a shrewd, competent business man, maybe too shrewd from a fan’s POV.

It’s not just that he hasn’t won a ring. He hasn’t won a playoff game in 15 years! I’m fine with him staying for now, especially with what I said above but eventually someone has to pay the price for not winning in the playoffs. It won’t be us and it certainly won’t be Clark Hunt. Carl and Herm have to make this rebuilding plan work in the next two or three years. End of story. You can’t blame Marty for Vermiel’s and Herm’s playoff losses, when they even got there.

By: Double D

Double D — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:54:10 +0000

I don’t think I said it, but I do tend to agree with it. Marty’s greatest weakness was his tendency to become an uberconservative ubercoach in the playoffs. The real reason Marty could no longer be HC of the Chiefs is because he lost the respect of his key players, and when you do that, you lose control of the team.

By: CurtMerzFan

CurtMerzFan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:39:10 +0000

Adam, your position he should go just because they havent won a ring is lame. There’s a LOT more things you have to judge in order to evaluate a GM than just the ring. To run King Carl off just for that one reason is short-sighted and juvenile.

He’s a great GM, and there’s a reason he’s the longest tenured GM in the game today. He gets results and operates the team at a profit. As long as he continues to field a team that makes money, and he wants the job – he will be the GM in KC, and I for one am glad to know he’s there.

DD is right to lay the playoff failures of the 90’s at Marty’s feet. That’s where they belong, and his playoff records in SD and Cleveland prove it.

By: Double D

Double D — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:15:38 +0000

Chiefs were also a wildcard when they won the Superbowl (way back in the first ice age).

As far as King Carl goes, the guy probably infuriates me more than not but in all fairness I do have to give him much of the credit for the reclamation and redefinition of Chiefs Nation. I also agree that the time for the winding down of his tenure is past due. A fresh approach seems in order.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:47:20 +0000

King Carl won’t be going anywhere with this kind of support. All I’m saying is that after a while, if you don’t have that ring it’s time to pack your bags. No other GM has gotten as fair of a shake as King Carl has. Period. He’s had a lot of success, but at some point if things don’t work out you go another way. That time may not be here yet, but it’s approaching.

By: PVChiefsfan

PVChiefsfan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:31:53 +0000

“So the last quote PV…when he specifically says “my five year plan”…”

Carl was talking about people like YOU razzing him for this supposed “five-year plan”…my word, the Chiefs had the best record in football in the decade of the 1990’s. Do you think that maybe the reason we had little success in the playoffs might have had something to do with that guy who was coaching basically the San Diego All-Stars, and STILL couldn’t win the big one?

By: SEANBCOOL

SEANBCOOL — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:12:41 +0000

I’d actually prefer the 9-7 two seasons in a row, but that might just be me. At least then we’re a winning football team, and could pull something out of our asses in the playoffs. Wildcards do win Super Bowls (Steelers, Giants) and just because you dominate in the regular season doesn’t mean yu’ll come away with a championship (Chargers, Patriots).

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:30:04 +0000

I know, Double D. I think we are closer in our POV on this than it originally seemed. It’s just that there was no earthly reason for us to win that Jets game last year, when it was essentially a playoff game where the loser got the better draft pick. Had we have been more fortunate in the coin flip contest, we might have even picked a spot higher.

Two years ago when we were all but eliminated from the playoffs, I was as positive as could be about our chances, pom-poms in hand. It’s just that when you are officially out, sometimes practicality needs to enter the equation.

Also, if someone hypothetically asked me this question:

Would you rather: A.) Go 9-7 two seasons in a row; or B.) Go 4-12 again followed by an 11- or 12-win season?

I’m sorry, but I’m going with option B. I’d rather wait and be a contender than get the instant, yet unsatisfying, gratification of being a pretender who backs into the playoffs. In the heat of the moment, however, it’s not really like that and who knows how things would turn out.

Personally, I’m just sick of sneaking into the playoffs and losing every time. I’m willing to go through whatever it takes to win in the playoffs, basically.