Every Monday as Bob Dole is visited by a 3 hour stream of Dallas fans, Bob Dole asks the same question...

What matters is how often you go to the playoffs and what you do when you get there. On those accounts, the resumes are similar. And Belichick has been blown out multiple times in his career. Including with the Pats.

If the Chiefs are an uncompetitive 3 or 4 win team by December, he'll be fired and deservedly so. If they look better and get 6 wins - he'll stay and we'll see what he can do next year.

I'm consistent with what I say - I don't flip back and forth and overreact like you.

Irony.

I'm not talking about individual games. I'm talking about fielding a team so embarrassingly bad that it's bottom of the barrel on both offense AND defense. Neither Belichick nor Dungy came CLOSE to fielding that kind of team.

We have no reason to believe anything will get better. The schedule only gets tougher from here on out.

Who's overreacting? I've been extremely patient and defended Herm for a long time. We're showing no progress in any facet of the game, except perhaps special teams. At some point enough is enough. I wonder when that point will come for you. When we're 1-8?

I don't know a lot about Belichick in Cleveland, and I heard he made some bad decisions, but the Browns weren't ever all that good... he also served under Parcells for 4 years before getting the head coaching position in New England, so it's not all that similar to Herm. He went to a SB with Parcells in NE and then to the AFC Championship game a couple of years later. It's not like some moron saw his resume and thought he was good enough to go straight into another head coaching position.

And like FenceJumper said, Dungy had some really good teams in Tampa...

No - not at 1-8. At the end of the year. If we're 1-8, and finish 6-10 I think that's success.

4 wins or less is failure and he'll be fired. 6 wins or more is success and he stays. 5 wins is amiguous. But I want to see the whole movie.

I've heard this said many times now. And I have to ask. Did you expect improvement every week? Because I thought we improved a lot between the Atlanta game and the Denver game. Then they followed it up with a historical stinker. But should we have expected them to improve or even maintain that Denver game level of play? Rebuilding teams are known to be unpredictable. How much weekly improvement should we expect with a young rebuilding team that still has some holes? You've got to expect a step back somewhere in the process. Granted it was a huge step back.

I think we'll have a better idea as the season goes on.

The thought of that is absolutely disgusting. All of the evidence shows, if we get better, it'll be despite Herm. And what if we get better? He's going to start playing to win? Fire him now.



Well, it's not like you've just jumped the fence... you loved the hire, 'soured on him', 'saw the light', and you were even defending him after the Panthers game a little before jumping back over this week. I wonder when you'll jump back.

it's hard not to quarterback from our keyboards here, but things don't look like they are improving.

however i will grant that a good 3 or 4 game stretch will make the landscape look a lot different.

some significant improvement over last year's 4-12 team would be 6 or 7 wins. i think we can all agree that won't happen. indeed it might be difficult to get back to 4.

maybe if they win 3 of the last 4, you could say there was improvement even though the record wasn't better but I don't know.

Not to Clark Hunt. He wanted to compete for the playoffs.

That's pretty fair of you. I just don't see a reason why anything is going to get better.

Maybe we can go 6-10. :D

I am thinking Herm is a player's coach like Vermeil was, and like Vermeil during his time here, is better at being liked by his employees than accomplishing things.

Nothing about this guy excited me. I felt he could probably draft well but that was about it.

|Zach| had a very good question a while back... if the Chiefs were improving every week, but not winning, could you see it? My answer would be no, because there are so many variables that go into each game that it's nearly impossible to see significant improvement game-to-game. IMO, on-the-field improvement takes at least a quarterly view.

You're right, with a team that's rebuilding, it's even harder... and it's obviously not as easy as asking "have we improved since week 1?", because you would have two completely different answers if you chose weeks 1-4 or 1-5. We're giving up 180 yards rushing per game, which has been pretty consistent. Our best rushing performances are against the bottom half of the league in rush defense, and the one game where we weren't pathetic on offense, 5 of our 7 drives were under 50 yards against one of the worst defenses in the league. I was afraid the Broncos game was an anomaly... no one thought it would last, but I figured it might give us a little momentum.

Overall, I don't think we've improved at all, and we may have even taken a step back since the preseason. I was really looking forward to seeing if Croyle could learn Gailey's offense and see if he was the QBotF, but he'll be once again plugged into Herm's offense with no chance to succeed as a quarterback.

Well, that leads into coaching, which is what I was really talking about when I said we need to see an improvement. There's zero improvement. We had that QB-option experiment thing, but besides that monstrosity, Herm's too oblivious to see that he's the problem. We didn't bring in Chan Gailey so he could run the RRPP with quick screens. Why the hell would you go through a coaching change and then NOT CHANGE!??! It baffles the mind, and it's completely f***ing unacceptable.

The only explanation for someone defending Edwards at this point is wishful thinking. You have to be a blind homer to think that he has the capacity to lead a team.

His entire persona is bull. 1st he comes off with "you play to win the game" like it's actually his philosophy. Then you hear him consistantly in his press conferences saying "if you can keep it to a one score game you always have a chance to win"

The two are a contradiction in terms. The latter is the one he subscribes to. Which means he doesn't have the mentality to build a team to win, but instead one not to lose. Herm definately plays "not to lose the game". It's a defensive mentality.

Personally, I would coach a team like we were 2 scores down from the kickoff and not let my foot off the throttle until the game was over. I would play to win the game.

Not many have faith in Edwards. It could be better described as hope. Either way, the feeling is pretty empty on Sundays.

I have zero faith in him.