PDA

View Full Version : If we can't get a good coach



figcrostic
12-13-2011, 02:07 PM
Like Cowher caliber then lets just stick with Romeo, we are so close do being a good team I don't want to see someone come in and start over.

2010chiefs
12-13-2011, 10:05 PM
I agree. Romeo head coach and a killer Offensive Coordinator!

turner_robert
12-14-2011, 01:42 AM
If one of these 4 coaches fisher, Gruden, Billick ,or cowher do not become our coach then stick with Crennel. Or its going to be another three years of hell.

dbolan
12-15-2011, 10:20 AM
If one of these 4 coaches fisher, Gruden, Billick ,or cowher do not become our coach then stick with Crennel. Or its going to be another three years of hell.


Please tell me that you do not mean Brian Billick!!! Look at his prolific Minnesota offense comapred to the one he had at Baltimore when he was HC.

OC, yes....Not HC.

azchiefsfan
12-15-2011, 11:11 AM
I'm thinking Crennel might deserve a year, but as I and others have said several times the last few days, only if he has a serious and proven OC. His offenses in Cleveland were always the worst in the entire NFL. He has NO offensive game and would need help. Muir sucks and could not handle it.

AkChief49
12-16-2011, 03:43 AM
Please tell me that you do not mean Brian Billick!!! Look at his prolific Minnesota offense comapred to the one he had at Baltimore when he was HC.

OC, yes....Not HC.
But he did win a superbowl (albeit solely on the defense) no way he comes back as a OC.

bbacker51
12-16-2011, 10:25 AM
At first, I didn't want Crennel. Now, with Gruden and Cowher at a 0% probability coming, he may not be a bad choice.................with a new OC.

I think Miami will go after Fisher hard and get him signed the sunday afternoon after their last game.

bbacker51
12-16-2011, 10:26 AM
Crennel has the D playing hard!

70 chiefsfan70
12-16-2011, 11:03 AM
I agree, we are too close to start over, I think Muir has to go, however without Haley telling him his every move Muir may be better. We will see if the play calls change any starting this week. I can't wait to see what orton does to the mentality of this team, maybe just change and no Cassel will bring this offense together. They have been without leadership so long, who knows.

dbolan
12-16-2011, 11:18 AM
Crennel has the D playing hard!

What about the 5-6 blowouts? Those were defensive meltdowns.

The offense played hard too and they have less talent than our defense.

Now what? lmao

okikcfan
12-16-2011, 11:41 AM
Three games with the first one being against the Undefeated Packers, it will be hard to evaluate Romeo. And we all know what happens when a HC takes over two jobs such as HC and DC. So what will happen next year. I thing it would be best to keep Romeo as the DC, bring in a new HC and OC to start the new season. Pioli will have to work hard and fast. I'm sure Miami and KC are not the last two teams to lose coaches. More will fall. I have an idea that Pioli already knows who he wants but cant speak to him until the season has ended. IMHO

70 chiefsfan70
12-16-2011, 11:47 AM
What about the 5-6 blowouts? Those were defensive meltdowns.

The offense played hard too and they have less talent than our defense.

Now what? lmao


I'm sorry but I missed the game where the offense played hard. I like the sound of it though, could you tell me more about it?


They played without a leader all year! I don't think anyone can disagree.

OPLookn
12-16-2011, 11:56 AM
Three games with the first one being against the Undefeated Packers, it will be hard to evaluate Romeo. And we all know what happens when a HC takes over two jobs such as HC and DC. So what will happen next year. I thing it would be best to keep Romeo as the DC, bring in a new HC and OC to start the new season. Pioli will have to work hard and fast. I'm sure Miami and KC are not the last two teams to lose coaches. More will fall. I have an idea that Pioli already knows who he wants but cant speak to him until the season has ended. IMHO

I'd agree with everything you said although I wouldn't be upset if Crennel became the HC. The main thing I like about all this is that Pioli has time. When Hunt brought Pioli in the season was already past the first round of the playoffs (hired Jan 13, 2009). Then Haley was hired (Feb 6th, 2009), pretty quickly after Herm was fired (Jan. 23rd, 2009). It just seemed like the coaching hunt was limited and hurried because Pioli was hired so late.

This time there was a month left in the regular season and we still have the playoffs. It'll give Pioli plenty of time to look around and get "the right guy". We all know if Pioli doesn't get the right guy this time both Pioli and our new coach will be leaving next time.

kcvet
12-16-2011, 12:06 PM
let's see how he does these last remaining games. close or blow outs. if we beat the packers this game is rigged.

dbolan
12-16-2011, 12:42 PM
I'm sorry but I missed the game where the offense played hard....

Did the defense play hard when they got totally hammered?

Same difference...

TopekaRoy
12-16-2011, 01:02 PM
What about the 5-6 blowouts? Those were defensive meltdowns.

The offense played hard too and they have less talent than our defense.

Now what? lmao
You are just looking at the final score. You are completely missing the reason why they were blowouts. In every one of those blowouts the offense scored 10 points or less and that's pretty amazing because it's pretty easy to score on a team who is ahead by more than 2 TDs.

The Chiefs are 4-1 in games where the offense scores more than 10 points.

KC 17 @ SD 20
KC 22 vs Min 17
KC 28 @ IND 24
KC 28 @ OAK 00
KC 23 vs SD 20 (OT)

You want to blame Crennel for the blowouts? It's not his fault when the offense can't score more than 10 points.

dbolan
12-16-2011, 01:32 PM
You are just looking at the final score. You are completely missing the reason why they were blowouts. In every one of those blowouts the offense scored 10 points or less and that's pretty amazing because it's pretty easy to score on a team who is ahead by more than 2 TDs.

The Chiefs are 4-1 in games where the offense scores more than 10 points.

KC 17 @ SD 20
KC 22 vs Min 17
KC 28 @ IND 24
KC 28 @ OAK 00
KC 23 vs SD 20 (OT)

You want to blame Crennel for the blowouts? It's not his fault when the offense can't score more than 10 points.

You just said it was easy for our offense to score when we are behind by 2 OR MORE touchdowns!! So, that says it all!! The defense got burned!!

And to add to that, the offense can't score due to lack of high quality receivers!

Remember, the Chiefs are #13 in sacks allowed...The Steelers and the Packers have allowed more, so it is not the O line here.:mooning:

TopekaRoy
12-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Wow. Thgere are so many things wrong with your last post that I don't know where to begin! but I'll try.

You just said it was easy for our offense to score when we are behind by 2 OR MORE touchdowns!! So, that says it all!! The defense got burned!!I didn't say our offense. I said offenses in general. The defense didn't get burned - They got burned out. The offense couldn't stay on the field long enough for them to catch their breaths. When the offense scored more than 10 points the defense didn't get blown out. You blamed Crennel for the blowouts. You were wrong.


And to add to that, the offense can't score due to lack of high quality receivers!
Wrong again and I explained why, as did several other people in the "we need receivers" thread.


Remember, the Chiefs are #13 in sacks allowed...The Steelers and the Packers have allowed more, so it is not the O line here.:mooning:
There is much more to evaluating how good an O-line is than just counting the number of sacks, Just as you can't say a QB with 9 interceptions has to be worse than a QB with 8. It could be Poor pass protection. It could be a QB who holds on to the ball too long and, yes, it could be the receivers.

You are oversimplifying everything. Numbers are meaningless out of context.

simple analogy: The Boomtown Badgers scored 23 points last Friday, but their QB threw 2 interceptions.

Did they win?

OPLookn
12-16-2011, 02:02 PM
You just said it was easy for our offense to score when we are behind by 2 OR MORE touchdowns!! So, that says it all!! The defense got burned!!

And to add to that, the offense can't score due to lack of high quality receivers!

Remember, the Chiefs are #13 in sacks allowed...The Steelers and the Packers have allowed more, so it is not the O line here.:mooning:

Steve Breaston has had over 700 yards in every season since his rookie season and in those years the average gain is over 12 yards per catch. That's a slot receiver.

Bowe was 5 yards short of a 1000 in his rookie year, got injured and out for 5 games in 2009, was in Haley's dog house and overlooked and still had almost 600 yards. Every other year he had over a 1000 yards and this year he's 63 yards shy of another 1000 yard year. Bowe is a top 10 receiver and if you're not willing to admit that then there's really nothing left to discuss.

Baldwin is a rookie receiver that's learning and will need at least another year to get into the swing of things.

I'm not exactly sure why you're expecting a run first offense to have receivers that are lighting it up on the field. For the type of offense we run for them to have as many yards as they do this year is simply astounding to me! Not sure what you're looking at but am interested in why we need "new" receivers.

jap1
12-16-2011, 02:02 PM
You just said it was easy for our offense to score when we are behind by 2 OR MORE touchdowns!! So, that says it all!! The defense got burned!!

And to add to that, the offense can't score due to lack of high quality receivers!

Remember, the Chiefs are #13 in sacks allowed...The Steelers and the Packers have allowed more, so it is not the O line here.:mooning:

I think he was saying it is easy for any other offense to score when you are down by 2 TDs.

As far as the OL goes, Steelers have one of the less than stellar OL in the league, AND everyone tries to blitz the crap out of Roethlisberger. That having been said they are sacked 8.5% of the time, compared to our 8.1%. Green Bay is sacked 7.4% of the time.

I woud like to be compared to teams like New Orleans and New England's OL. They are only sacked around 4-4.5% of the time.

Here is where I based my numbers off of: 2011 NFL Team Passing Stats - National Football League - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/sacks)

dbolan
12-16-2011, 02:02 PM
Wow. Thgere are so many things wrong with your last post that I don't know where to begin! but I'll try.
I didn't say our offense. I said offenses in general. The defense didn't get burned - They got burned out. The offense couldn't stay on the field long enough for them to catch their breaths. When the offense scored more than 10 points the defense didn't get blown out. You blamed Crennel for the blowouts. You were wrong.


Wrong again and I explained why, as did several other people in the "we need receivers" thread.


There is much more to evaluating how good an O-line is than just counting the number of sacks, Just as you can't say a QB with 9 interceptions has to be worse than a QB with 8. It could be Poor pass protection. It could be a QB who holds on to the ball too long and, yes it could be the receivers.

You are oversimplifying everything. Numbers are meaningless out of context.

simple analogy: The Boomtown Badgers scored 23 points last Friday, but their QB threw 2 interceptions.

Did they win?

Simple is better and it could be the receivers! ;-)

TopekaRoy
12-16-2011, 02:13 PM
I think he was saying it is easy for any other offense to score when you are down by 2 TDs.

As far as the OL goes, Steelers have one of the less than stellar OL in the league, AND everyone tries to blitz the crap out of Roethlisberger. That having been said they are sacked 8.5% of the time, compared to our 8.1%. Green Bay is sacked 7.4% of the time.

I woud like to be compared to teams like New Orleans and New England's OL. They are only sacked around 4-4.5% of the time.

Here is where I based my numbers off of: 2011 NFL Team Passing Stats - National Football League - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/sacks)
Great post. Thanks for the info.

70 chiefsfan70
12-16-2011, 02:26 PM
Simple is better and it could be the receivers! ;-)

I'm not a big Bowe fan, but the mans got talent an athletic ability to be the best of the best. Breaston is very underated the man has good hands and fights, I mean FIGHTS for every inch he can possibly get. Balwin is a rookie and if he didn't have locker room problems we would have seen a lot more of him and I could see him being the best of the three next year.

And yes I know they dropped way to many passes, but these guys are undercoached and have no connection with any of our clueless and leaderless QB's. It is to be seen what Orton can do.

This team has lots of problems but I see the WR's as being the least problem. Considering the Offensive coaching (or lack of, and the horrible qb's) they are the diamond in the rough.

With a real leader in a qb these guys would be the envy of the league.

dbolan
12-16-2011, 02:31 PM
I'm not a big Bowe fan, but the mans got talent an athletic ability to be the best of the best. Breaston is very underated the man has good hands and fights, I mean FIGHTS for every inch he can possibly get. Balwin is a rookie and if he didn't have locker room problems we would have seen a lot more of him and I could see him being the best of the three next year.

And yes I know they dropped way to many passes, but these guys are undercoached and have no connection with any of our clueless and leaderless QB's. It is to be seen what Orton can do.

This team has lots of problems but I see the WR's as being the least problem. Considering the Offensive coaching (or lack of, and the horrible qb's) they are the diamond in the rough.

With a real leader in a qb these guys would be the envy of the league.

Of the 3 you mentioned, I will agree on Breaston. Now, about the other two...

You say you are not a fan of Bowe and he has the "ability" to be the best, yet he is not. Baldwin is a rook with locker room problems. With that being said, why would you NOT want to improve the WR corp?? LOL!

dbolan
12-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Don't get me wrong here....We DO need improvements elsewhere but we also need them at WR and I have said that for years, yet nothing.

We continue to rotate QB's and O-Linemen year after year after year yet the WR's seem to be an after thought.

Don;t you think linemen get burned out on having to pass protect an additional 2 seconds because the WR's can't stretch the field and create open lanes?

Anyways...Whatever the Chiefs decide to do with drafting or FA, I hope it is the right answer!

OPLookn
12-16-2011, 02:37 PM
Don't get me wrong here....We DO need improvements elsewhere but we also need them at WR and I have said that for years, yet nothing.

We continue to rotate QB's and O-Linemen year after year after year yet the WR's seem to be an after thought.

Don;t you think linemen get burned out on having to pass protect an additional 2 seconds because the WR's can't stretch the field and create open lanes?

Anyways...Whatever the Chiefs decide to do with drafting or FA, I hope it is the right answer!

How in the world do you say you've wanted new WR but nothing when we spent a 1st round pick on....a WR! LOL

TopekaRoy
12-16-2011, 02:39 PM
... why would you NOT want to improve the WR corp?? LOL!
That's not really the point we are trying to make. With the possible exceptions of Charles, Hali, Flowers and Berry, every position could be upgraded. But you can't replace the whole team in one year. You have to focus on the areas of greatest need amd the general consensus is that our receiving core is not an area of great need. We can make changes at other positions that will improve the team far more than changing or adding receivers would.

dbolan
12-16-2011, 02:40 PM
How in the world do you say you've wanted new WR but nothing when we spent a 1st round pick on....a WR! LOL

Other than Bowe, how is that one panning out? lol

In the past, I have been for signing vet WR's such as Boldin, etc.

OPLookn
12-16-2011, 02:56 PM
Other than Bowe, how is that one panning out? lol

In the past, I have been for signing vet WR's such as Boldin, etc.

You're judging a rookie receiver based on 8 games in the NFL....you're more impatient than my fiance and that's saying something! LOL!

We added Breaston too... We've added receivers and quality ones they're clearly just not the receivers that you wanted.

70 chiefsfan70
12-16-2011, 03:00 PM
Of the 3 you mentioned, I will agree on Breaston. Now, about the other two...

You say you are not a fan of Bowe and he has the "ability" to be the best, yet he is not. Baldwin is a rook with locker room problems. With that being said, why would you NOT want to improve the WR corp?? LOL!

I said I'm not a big fan of Bowe, mostly because he feeds into emotions and drama. That does not mean he can't be the best football player on the field. Earlier this season I actually thought he was a big problem for this offense and acted like he didn't want to be here. But I'm giving him a pass because of the bad coaching and really bad QB. Its a end of contract season and he has not signed and there has not been any rumors that the chiefs are even working on it. But now looking at the bigger picture with the relationship he had with Haley. Also its easy to see there is no connection between him and Cassel. But mark my words, give him a real qb and bottled up energy and talent will explode. We have not seen the best of him.

With Balwin, hes young and did a really stupid thing in the preseason and I think he should be given a chance to redeem himself. I think we have seen glimpes of great things he can do. He has very good speed and ok hands,seems very eager to learn and with a new QB and OC his confidense will be built and will know no limits.

Keep in mind when Moiaki somes back, Everyone of these guys will be better.

azchiefsfan
12-16-2011, 03:27 PM
Our wide receivers are fine. With a good OL they would have time to run routes and make plays. Unless Hunt breaks with tradition, however, there's no way he'll pay Bowe the average salary of the three highest WR in the game-unless he's trading him. So we do probably need another good rookie to draft at WR.

TopekaRoy
12-16-2011, 03:52 PM
Unless Hunt breaks with tradition, however, there's no way he'll pay Bowe the average salary of the three highest WR in the game-unless he's trading him.
I can see where Hunt might "break with tradition" this one time. With a new Head Coach, new Offensive Coordinator and possibly a new quarterback, franchising Bowe would allow the Chiefs to keep him without a long term commitment and without drastically overpaying him. I'm not saying Bowe is worth top 3 money, but as a free agent he will get close to it, anyway. This would give the Chiefs an extra year to see how he performs under the new changes and negotiate a longer contract with him that would be appropriate based on his performance next year.

I'm not saying they will do that, but I can see how they might.

OPLookn
12-16-2011, 05:04 PM
Our wide receivers are fine. With a good OL they would have time to run routes and make plays. Unless Hunt breaks with tradition, however, there's no way he'll pay Bowe the average salary of the three highest WR in the game-unless he's trading him. So we do probably need another good rookie to draft at WR.

I just don't see how Hunt wouldn't be open to the idea. He's in a zero sum game with Bowe. Regardless of if you (by you I mean the masses not literally you) like him or not Bowe is considered a top 10 receiver. We obviously don't want to downgrade so we'll need to bring in a better receiver. To do that we're going to have to pay top 3 money.

The other option is that we draft another WR. To replace Bowe we'd need to spend another 1st round (granted this is my opinion) to replace Bowe's talent on the team. By doing this we now have a rookie that will have played 11 games by season end and still is at least an off season away from integrating with the offense and having the kind of years that Bowe has been having. Add on to that another rookie and I think our situation has done nothing but decrease in the short term.

To me Hunt takes the easy way out and either gives Bowe another contract or franchises him to get draft picks, have another year or start talking to Bowe about a contract.

Bike
12-18-2011, 12:26 AM
I just don't see how Hunt wouldn't be open to the idea. He's in a zero sum game with Bowe. Regardless of if you (by you I mean the masses not literally you) like him or not Bowe is considered a top 10 receiver. We obviously don't want to downgrade so we'll need to bring in a better receiver. To do that we're going to have to pay top 3 money.

The other option is that we draft another WR. To replace Bowe we'd need to spend another 1st round (granted this is my opinion) to replace Bowe's talent on the team. By doing this we now have a rookie that will have played 11 games by season end and still is at least an off season away from integrating with the offense and having the kind of years that Bowe has been having. Add on to that another rookie and I think our situation has done nothing but decrease in the short term.

To me Hunt takes the easy way out and either gives Bowe another contract or franchises him to get draft picks, have another year or start talking to Bowe about a contract.
I like Bowe. He's an awesome athlete. But his mind has been filled up with so much @#$% from Herm and Haley that one has to wonder if he can motivate himself to be THE premier reciever in the NFL on this team. I mean - four offensive coordinators in four years? C'mon. A change of scenery for Bowe may not be in our best interest, but it could be quite possibly in his.