So,to be clear, your solution is to bring in people who have not won Superbowls. Because those who have, never do it with another organization...so the idea is to bring in people who don't have any discernible success...that way they won't have the whole "impossible to win with another organization" monkey on their back. Awesome... :spock:

Winning more than 100 games in a decade is not a failure as a coach. I don't give two shits what you say. Esp Levy who took his team to 4 straight SB's. Just getting to a single SB is incredibly tough, getting to 4 is crazy. Even if they lost. It's even crazier for you to call head coaches who won 100+ games in a decade and one who went to 4 SB's a failure. you're a ****ing moron. Esp if you say that ultimately Levy was, but then that he wasn't. He wasn't. Period.

I'm not changing the criteria whatsoever. I have a nuanced argument and you're too stupid to understand it. That's not my problem.

Case in point: SB success replication.

Who do you offer for a rebuttal?

Andy Reid. Well, where else did he serve as HC and bring in all the guys he'd had elsewhere?

Marv Levy. Well, where else did he go to a SB other than Buffalo

Marty. How many SBs did he go to in Cleveland and KC combined?

By the way, the Marty example is particularly stupid, given that he was extremely flexible with the schemes (3-4 and 4-3, WCO, Air Coryell, Smashmouth) that he ran.

Maybe if you spent more time looking at NFL history rather than jamming a needle full of Deca into your ass you'd understand the argument that I'm making: you can't reinvent the wheel, especially when you are missing the key ingredients.

You know why Jimmy Johnson, Bill Walsh, Carmen Policy, Bill Parcells, etc. all failed when they left their area of initial success?

Because they didn't have Troy Aikman, Irvin, Emmitt Smith, Russell Maryland, Ken Norton, Joe Montana, Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, Ricky Watters, Steve Young, John Taylor, Phil Simms, Carl Banks, LT, or Mark Bavaro.

We're trying to make a Patriots cake without sugar and flour. Good luck.

The goal is still a championship, right? Or are we getting a participation trophy?

Marty can coach, but his time in KC produced one AFC title game appearance. This isn't and cannot be enough.

And the fact that you put Reid on that list was humorous.

Yes. Hamas and Mecca stand by the theory that you should think outside the box, and bring in guys who have not won championships and are "up n comers" because for some reason, these guys have all the answers. Hiring guys that worked with Belichik is stupid because BB was the mastermind. However they will also tell you that he's really not a mastermind, that he was just lucky because Brady fell into his lap. And nevermind that Pioli drafted Brady, that was luck too.

So I guess everyone in that Pats dynasty was lucky. I guess I will take a lucky dynasty if that is an option on the table.

Brady was Pioli's selection? Really?

No, my solution is that the guy that you last worked with may not axiomatically be the best guy for the job just because you worked with him.

Funny how history bears that out.

Hires should be based on a meritocracy, not cronyism, and history bears that out.

I used those guys as an example because you are saying the only "success" there is, is a SB win. If that's the card you want to play then there are a lot of guys out there that will end up in the hall that never won a SB.

I've already shot down your Bill Walsh/Policy bullshit. Not rehashing it.

Hmmmmm, the deca comment is funny. I know there is some poster on here that thinks I am a poster from another site (someone alerted me to this and told me that's where this is coming from) but I haven't lifted weights in a loooong time.

I do enjoy the fact that people on here think I am previous posters, a poster from another board (from some asshole who thinks he is smarter than he is that I have been playing with the help of another poster), and I also was a backup at a JUCO school in a part of the country I never played football in.

You can't make this shit up.

No, that's bullshit that you just pulled out of your ass because you're getting owned.

Just like Hootie.

Tom Coughlin/Kevin Gilbride.

Now shut the **** up.

You couldn't own me with a title in your hand bitch. That's what is so funny about you. You talk in circles and think you're out smarting everyone, all the while ignoring it when people smack your shit down. You are a god damned ass clown.

The biggest difference between what Jimmy and the others tried is that they went to other organizations as head coaches. Haley is a first time head coach bringing in former OC's\NFL and college coaches.

OK, so just winning SB's together is not meritorious...it would be better to bring dudes who have won superbowls, but just not together. A room full of successful strangers if you will...cuz if they know each other and have had success together in the past, the only reason they are wanting to work together again is cuz they are cronies...not because.. they are any good or anything...

I forgot that they handed out rings for Wild Card berths.

No. You think you did, but you didn't.

Greg ****ing Robinson has two SB wins as a coordinator. Vermeil trotted out that tired excuse for him all the time.

I'm sure he was so much better than other options based on his "success" in Denver, and that success was solely attributable to him.

A coach that wins more than 100 games in a decade did not fail his franchise. There is more to football than just coaching ass clown.


Actually I did. You are too stupid to understand it. Because in no way, shape, or form does it apply to the Chiefs situation.

You seem to think that Haley is putting together this team.

Wait a minute. So you are saying that the players in Denver made up for Robinson's short comings? And in contrast to that, shitty players can make good coaches look bad as well?

Is that so?

The weight of history is really on your side.

You haven't provided anything that resembles what we are doing in Kansas City. you also ignored the Coughlin/Gillbride note the first time. As usual.

Jesus, you're too ****ing stupid to live.

OF COURSE THAT'S PART OF THE ****ING POINT, MORON. WHY DO YOU THINK I LISTED ALL THOSE ****ING PLAYERS ABOUT 5 POSTS AGO.

heh

thanks for saying that.

so Todd Haley. It's all his fault right?

:eek:

First of all because it's not applicable.

Coughlin has been to one SB as a head coach. He flamed out spectacularly in Jacksonville.

Second of all, that's a horrible comparision.

Let me go grab a box of crayons so I can draw it out for you.


Tom Coughlin=Parcells guy, but flexible. Will play QBs drafted high, high priced vets or guys off the street. More importantly, he gives his coordiinators carte blanche. He doesn't stick to the 3-4 b/c it was ordained by the almighty Parcells.


What is Pioli doing?

Well, he's going with the same defense (that doesn't fit the talent) that he had in NE. He's going with the same offense that he had in NE. He's going with the same coordinators he had in NE. And he's picking up the same scrubs cast off from New England.

The NFL is a living entity. It changes, evolves, and adapts. The arrogance of Pioli comes from not how he is rarely interviewed or that he locks down the facility, it's from the fact that he thinks he's found a panacea that can some how stop the evolution of the game, and that by simply assembling the same pieces that existed somewhere else he can achieve the same success he had in the past.

That's a flawed strategy on two fronts:

1) History shows that it doesn't work
2) You can never exactly re-create any situation.

And yet in spite of all this, in spite of all our scouts supposedly attending every pre-season game, in spite of the fact that we have the most talent-bereft roster in the league, what do we do?

1) Freeze out all our scouts but one douchetard who was fired from NE
2) Sign no people after PS cuts save for one Pats scrub
3) Sign guys off the street who almost universally have ties to the tree in which he sprouted from. (Of course the one success was from a guy w/o connections...shocking)

Well guess what, Chiefs fans.

Tom Brady isn't walking through that door. Bill Belichick is not walking through that door and Richard Seymour isn't walking through that door.

Do the right thing:

http://www.neogen.com/animalsafety/i...C_Bands_lg.jpg

::::::::::::moving goal posts again::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Translation: I have no rebuttal, so I'll allude to a common refrain hoping that someone will believe me.

How many starting QBs have won Super Bowls at more than one place?

By your logic we should not want Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger to QB the Chiefs if given the opportunity.

How many starting QBs who have won SBs have switched teams in their prime years?

That's a horrible ****ing comparison, not to mention reductive, and you should know that, given how awesome you are.

So is Crennel signed like the first post says? Sorry in advance, but I have been busy and out of the loop for a bit.

Hamas keeps proving that he may indeed be the biggest ass pipe on this board. Congratulations.


I can't fathom why more people don't wade into football discussions...

How many head coaches have won SB's with two different teams????????

no ... he hasn't signed yet but rumors are leaking out all over the place so it appears that he is headed our way.

FTW

A complete ass clown to the Nth degree.

In regards to Weis I believe that is the case.

:thumb: Thanks!

If Seymour did walk through the door, all we would hear about is continually how Pioli doesn't have an original thought.

I really don't know why this is an issue. Patriots fans were pining for Romeo and Weis. I think, as I said in another thread, that BB's genius is vastly overstated and the guys he worked with deserve some of the success as well. He hasn't won without either of the guys we now have. Chalk it up to coincidence, dumb luck, whatever you want. But it says a lot to me that Pat fans wanted them back when everyone outside of Patriot Nation says it was all Belichick.

This doesn't help you.

Again, you can't re-create the wheel. I know you want to reduce my argument down, because it's the only way you can get your peanut brain around it, but it's more complicated than that.


How much success did Vermeil have when he tried to turn KC into West St. Louis?

How much success did Parcells have when he turned Dallas or the Jets into the Giants redux?

How much success did Johnson have when he hired his old coaches and buddies from Dallas in Miami?

The answer is little to none.

Why? Again, because you can't re-invent the wheel.

I used this analogy last week, and I'll use it again. Pioli thinks that he can reform the Beatles in Arrowhead, but he's missing out on John and Paul.

People think that we're going to be the Patriots just because we hired some old Pats coaches, brought in some washouts, and their VP of Pro Personnel.

It doesn't work that way.

:clap:

First, Richard Seymore MAY walk through that door. Doubt it, but possibly.

Now, on to the bigger point. Coaches are hired based on familiarity and compatability. Due to this, guys usually hire other guys they have worked with.

They can't duplicate the situation in New England. I get that. But, they can establish a program. This team is still in need of so much. And, you have to get to a level of competency, before you can hope to go further than that. Coaches and rosters are similar in that they can be tweaked every offseason. Right now, the Chiefs are still trying to get the foundation laid.

Are you really saying that Parcells had little to no success with the Jets? You continue to be a fool.

Does anyone else get the feeling that if the Chiefs won a SB that Hamas and Mecca would leave?

I guess your idea of "success" is different from others.

One playoff win over 3 years isn't my hope for the Chiefs, nor should it be for anyone.

In the end it's the end all argument. If you didn't win it all you didn't have any success. Never mind that Parcells is one of a handful of coaches to coache two different teams to the SB. Seems the that was left out of the argument.


PhilFree:arrow:

The new coaches don't guarantee anything, but they also don't preclude the Chiefs from success. It is moronic to argue that merely because they were former Pats, the Chiefs won't be successful.

Anyone would consider these two among the best and most accomplished coordinators available.

Oh, and as far as the switch to the 3-4.... other than Dorsey, who isn't expendable? Seriously. Who were you worried about losing? If Allen were still here and they went to a 3-4, I would have been upset. But, Dorsey is the only guy that I was worried about, and he actually played pretty well.

Establishing a program is just another PR phrase.

It's about bringing in the best players and the best people to coach them up. What I've seen for the first year is a pattern of myopia in hiring and player acquisitions that point to an inability of this regime to see things beyond the bounds of how they happened in New England.

Nah, they are just very critical and detailed imo

Are you ****ing serious?

Of course not. That team never won anything. Nor was it ever even close to winning anything.

Parcells left after that period.

If two years from now, the Chiefs had won a playoff game, I would feel like the Chiefs were on the right path. I don't expect Haley to move on at that point. And, if Weis or Crennel move on, the key is to have the systems in place so that they can be replaced by someone on the staff.

The key is getting a good system in place and continuing to build.

No, the key is getting in good players. That's all that ever mattered. The same "system" that worked so well in Dallas in 1993 didn't work worth a shit in Miami in 1999.

The "system" that worked so well in New York in the mid 1980s didn't work worth a shit in Dallas in the mid 2000s.

Why?

Talent.

What you see is a belief system. This is not a bad thing. See, there are many different ways to build a team. The good ones stick to one and go with it. They don't change every year because it didn't progress as fast as they wanted.

I am not saying there is no other way to build a champion. But, Parcells and Belichick have both won multiple Super Bowls with the same philosophy. I am okay with that being the Chiefs' philosophy.

And, building a system isn't a PR phrase in my mind, it is a fact of turning around a 2-14 team.

I still hate the fact that they cut Pollard. I still think it was a mistake. But, I wasn't in the lockeroom, and it isn't all about talent alone.

There are a ton of 'talented' teams that never win anything. The key is getting the entire organization going in the same direction.

Oh, so you think that the Chiefs will quit trying to get better talent now that they have the coordinators?

No, of course not. They will still continue to acquire talent. And some of those moves will work, and some won't. Same as every team.

Belichick went 5-11 his first year in NE. He had a lot of guys from the Parcells staff in NY. But, they kept building.

The key is to get the foundation laid, the system in place and then continue to build.

But, rest assured, they will continue to find talent.

Oh, and Jimmy Johnson didn't have that many coaches with him from the Dallas days in Miami. Just an FYI.

He took a team that had 4 wins over its previous two seasons and took them to 9-7 his first year. His second year they went 12-4 and to the Conference Championship. That is a dramatic improvement you brain damaged weasel.

No, they would just complain about the final score and that Pioli didn't do enough to build a dynasty.

On the same website today, there is an article that states both Crennel and Fewell are still unsigned contrary to reports, and are still on the Giants radar.
Posted via Mobile Device

So now improvement is substituted for winning.

Nice.

Next, participation ribbons.

Just so I am understanding you correctly.......... That if something is proven to be a success you should not try to emulate it but go your own way and try to find your own nitch?

Don't be so dumb.

Think about it. It's not that they'll stop trying to acquire talent, it's that they only seem to look to the narrowest avenues from which to find ideas and talent.

You can borrow some things from it. Sure, adopt ideas from those who have been successful. But don't completely Xerox the "blueprint", leaving out the most important elements, and think that you'll be successful.

Again, reading comprehension.

Yes, they previously held Coordinator jobs with the New England Patriots.
That said, can we really argue that they aren't fully qualified and among the VERY BEST candidates available for these vacancies?

Well... I suppose there are 4 people here who can.

Care to name the 4?

The guy is holding his hat on the fact that the contract is not signed. Crennel has told the Chiefs he's coming there. Now they are just hammering out the contract.

I have no problem with the Weis hire. Never claimed that I did. I don't think he's the perfect hire, but he's not the best, IMO. But the Crennel hire is troubling on three fronts.

#1) Belichick had his hand in really deep on those defense, planning and scheming
#2) Crennel's Ds in Cleveland were miserable
#3) Yet another guy from the Pats.

The reason that free agency is largely a bust, is because players often don't fit the new team.

So, by being more selective about the players, and where they players come from.... they are protecting the chemistry of the team.

This was especially important in the first year of the program. As the team progresses, I would look for them to bring in more players from other systems.

But, team chemistry is very important, especially on a losing team.

The key is to having guys buy in. So, it figures that would be an easier sell to guys who have already bought in to similar systems.

Bad players will buy in anywhere, because they if they don't they can't get a job anywhere else.

Unfortunately, they still lose games for you.

I think it's fairly obvious.

No, please.

Could you name the 4 for me?

football is the least of the discussions
I'm right is all that seems to matter
zzzzzzzz

Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb, but I sure am curious as to why you're avoiding a simple question.

The four, please.

#1) Any new upcoming coach would have had their former boss (DC) really involved in the planning and scheming.

#2) He wasn't the DC there, he was the HC. Some guys are just better coordinators. Oh, and is Phil Savage a guy that you think is a great GM? What did the Browns do prior to Crennel or this last year? Were they markedly better?

#3) Dumb. Who freaking cares? It is a stupid argument.

Now, to be honest, Crennel isn't my favorite DC. I don't particularly like his style of defense. He and Belichick run a more passive defense than I prefer. I like more of an attack style defense.

But, I think a team can be successful either way.

Crennel is easily one of the most qualified candidates on the market, and I think bashing the move just because he is from the Patriots four years ago is moronic.

Does the fact that Haley's offenses in KC this year were awful make him any less attractive as a coordinator if (or when) he's canned?

I don't think they do.

I'm starting to think that Hamas is only happy when he has something to bitch about.

Good lord.

Yeah, those Pat, Dolpin and Card teams are filled with bad players that can't get a job anywhere else. I mean, what with two of them being playoff teams this year and the Phins having a winning season.

I see what you mean.

If you think it matters that you really haven't been in this thread, you're wrong.

So....what's the problem here?

He is also from the Giants, Jets, and Browns....

Which apparently means that Crennel cannot coach the 3-4 without Belichick's assistance.

The 2005 Browns were the 11th best Scoring Defense in the league. Does Crennel get no credit for that?
They were a middle of the pack defense (in terms of scoring) his last season in Cleveland.

And, the fact that he previously coached in New England should be the dealbreaker and the reason why we DON'T hire one of the best available candidates for coaching the 3-4 scheme here in Kansas City?

Okay.

That's why he's avoiding the question.

He realized something was up, did a quick search and found that I've said next to nothing about Crennell, (nothing more than that I'm not as excited as I am about Weis) and am actually pretty pleased about the Weis hire.

Another classic case of lumping people together instead of actually reading and comprehending what people have to say.

Why get experienced coordinators, when you can wallow in mediocrity?

It's a good move, especially considering the 2009 coaching staff. The idea is to IMPROVE, these coordinators, should help us in that area.

Spot on.