PDA

View Full Version : Herm not happy with chiefs GM search lol



RAIDERH8ER
12-31-2008, 02:19 PM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/12/20/report-herm-not-happy-with-chiefs-gm-search/

From the sounds of this looks like we will continue not to spend any money to bring in some free agent talent...oh well what's new

RAIDERH8ER
12-31-2008, 02:20 PM
*search

hermhater
12-31-2008, 02:22 PM
We don't even know who it's gonna be yet.

RAIDERH8ER
12-31-2008, 02:25 PM
True, but the statement I want a new GM who believes in building the team through the draft with young players. really puts a bad taste in ones mouth

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 02:38 PM
This changes nothing, this report came out on Dec. 20. How do you see a connection between this and the Chiefs involvement in FA?

RAIDERH8ER
12-31-2008, 02:43 PM
Hmm..well maybe im just confused, I just figured since Hunt wants a GM thats going to build the team from a draft...then they dont want to waste time or money with FA's

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 03:03 PM
Hmm..well maybe im just confused, I just figured since Hunt wants a GM thats going to build the team from a draft...then they dont want to waste time or money with FA's

The thing is that a good GM builds through a draft. Good teams replace players with drafted players. Good teams draft good players. Good teams know when to take a young stud from FA.

The Chiefs have the money and potential to make a 180 this season. If Hunt can bring in a competent GM, then the Chiefs could make the right moves to bring in good players through the draft and FA.

And Hunt was right not to give Kuharich the job. What has he done to deserve it. The only good draft the Chiefs have had over the past 8 years was last year. And that draft class has a lot of questions to whether they will pan out. The only thing you can award Kuharich to doing is bringing in Willie Roaf, Priest Holmes, Trent Green, and Eddie Kennison through either FA or trades.

Pro_Angler
12-31-2008, 04:52 PM
The thing is that a good GM builds through a draft. Good teams replace players with drafted players. Good teams draft good players. Good teams know when to take a young stud from FA.

The Chiefs have the money and potential to make a 180 this season. If Hunt can bring in a competent GM, then the Chiefs could make the right moves to bring in good players through the draft and FA.

And Hunt was right not to give Kuharich the job. What has he done to deserve it. The only good draft the Chiefs have had over the past 8 years was last year. And that draft class has a lot of questions to whether they will pan out. The only thing you can award Kuharich to doing is bringing in Willie Roaf, Priest Holmes, Trent Green, and Eddie Kennison through either FA or trades.

your 1st paragraph is perfect!

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 04:58 PM
The thing is that a good GM builds through a draft. Good teams replace players with drafted players. Good teams draft good players. Good teams know when to take a young stud from FA.

The Chiefs have the money and potential to make a 180 this season. If Hunt can bring in a competent GM, then the Chiefs could make the right moves to bring in good players through the draft and FA.

And Hunt was right not to give Kuharich the job. What has he done to deserve it. The only good draft the Chiefs have had over the past 8 years was last year. And that draft class has a lot of questions to whether they will pan out. The only thing you can award Kuharich to doing is bringing in Willie Roaf, Priest Holmes, Trent Green, and Eddie Kennison through either FA or trades.

Except that:

1. The Giants, while drafting well, built large portions of their offense and defense through FA (Burress, McQuarters, Pierce, etc.).

2. The Pats, while drafting well, can attribute their SBs to excellent FA/trade classes (McGinnest, Bruschi, Corey Dillon, etc.).

3. The Bucs, while drafting well, can attribute its SB to an influx of FAs/trades (Rice, Brad Johnson, Keyshawn, etc.).

4. The Rams, while drafting well, also brought in a large number of FAs during its SB years.

SB losers like the Raiders, Panthers, and Titans built their teams, in large part, using FA.

Believe it or not, FA is as important as the draft in building a team. FA builds the team, the draft keeps you on top.

It isn't the other way around.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:33 PM
Except that:

1. The Giants, while drafting well, built large portions of their offense and defense through FA (Burress, McQuarters, Pierce, etc.).

2. The Pats, while drafting well, can attribute their SBs to excellent FA/trade classes (McGinnest, Bruschi, Corey Dillon, etc.).

3. The Bucs, while drafting well, can attribute its SB to an influx of FAs/trades (Rice, Brad Johnson, Keyshawn, etc.).

4. The Rams, while drafting well, also brought in a large number of FAs during its SB years.

SB losers like the Raiders, Panthers, and Titans built their teams, in large part, using FA.

Believe it or not, FA is as important as the draft in building a team. FA builds the team, the draft keeps you on top.

It isn't the other way around.

Point taken. However, I am not opposed to free agency. I actually think there will be many young studs in this year's FA. So it is just a matter of the Chiefs grabbing the right ones since we have the money to do so.

What about the 1980's 49ers? I was born in the late 80s so I did not learn about what happened during that time. However, they won 4 superbowls in one decade, but was it from FA, draft, or a combo? The reason I ask is because that is what I want the Chiefs to be. A dynasty that constantly goes to the Superbowl.

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 06:01 PM
Point taken. However, I am not opposed to free agency. I actually think there will be many young studs in this year's FA. So it is just a matter of the Chiefs grabbing the right ones since we have the money to do so.

What about the 1980's 49ers? I was born in the late 80s so I did not learn about what happened during that time. However, they won 4 superbowls in one decade, but was it from FA, draft, or a combo? The reason I ask is because that is what I want the Chiefs to be. A dynasty that constantly goes to the Superbowl.

FA didn't originate until 1993! The only successful dynasty in the FA period was/is the Pats. We should use them as a template (a glut of FAs to start, then the draft and good trading to stay).

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:04 PM
FA didn't originate until 1993! The only successful dynasty in the FA period was/is the Pats. We should use them as a template (a glut of FAs to start, then the draft and good trading to stay).

Ah, this makes more sense now. Patriots are nice, I just think it is hard to emulate what they did.

texaschief
12-31-2008, 07:06 PM
Except that:

1. The Giants, while drafting well, built large portions of their offense and defense through FA (Burress, McQuarters, Pierce, etc.).

2. The Pats, while drafting well, can attribute their SBs to excellent FA/trade classes (McGinnest, Bruschi, Corey Dillon, etc.).

3. The Bucs, while drafting well, can attribute its SB to an influx of FAs/trades (Rice, Brad Johnson, Keyshawn, etc.).

4. The Rams, while drafting well, also brought in a large number of FAs during its SB years.

SB losers like the Raiders, Panthers, and Titans built their teams, in large part, using FA.

Believe it or not, FA is as important as the draft in building a team. FA builds the team, the draft keeps you on top.

It isn't the other way around.

Each of these teams had a solid foundation for which free agents could be added to make a solid impact on the team. Adding a bunch of high priced free agents to a team that has nothing to build on is EXACTLY what the Raiders did last year. Now, that team is stuck because their hands are tied with ZERO cap space. They can't do hardly ANYTHING this year to improve that team. While the Chiefs have the most money to spend and a young, solid foundation on which to build.

Last year would've been a HORRIBLE year to sign high priced free agents. Plus, who was out there that you're just dying to have on this team? All the top, YOUNG OTs were re-signed by for at least another year or franchised by their original organizations. Now, some of them like Stacy Andrews, Jordan Gross, Davis Stewart, and Maxx Starks will be on the market again, along with this year's crop of free agents.

There weren't any DEs on the market which is why we got the package we got for Allen.

The good YOUNG OLBs either didn't hit the market or were franchised. Of the LBs who were FAs last season, Suggs, Dansby, and Boley will be back on the market again this season. Only Briggs and Pace were removed from the market for the long-term.

There were absolutely ZERO good YOUNG MLBs on the market last season.

DTs were in low supply as well. Haynesworth was franchised and will be on the market this year again. The Raiders set the market for DTs when they signed Tommy Kelly to a ridiculous contract and that would've killed anyone else who signed DTs last season.

There were a couple young OGs last season like Jacob Bell who signed with the Rams and Rex Hadnot who signed with the Browns. But everyone else was over 31 like Faneca.

There was A safety on the market in Gibril Wilson, but I'd rather let the Raiders overpay for guys like him.

The only QB to hit the market was Pennington and he would've been hurt just like Croyle was behind that line.

There were a couple CBs, but we already had Surtain and I was happy with Flowers, Carr and Leggett. We wouldn't have known anything about those guys had we signed a Deangelo Hall or somebody like that.

(This year's crop is on a new thread entitled "2009 free agent targets")

Hayvern
01-01-2009, 04:18 AM
Herm said in his post season wrap up that the Chiefs would not be participating in free agency. I have to believe they will need to if they want to be competitive. They not only have more holes to fill than the draft will allow, they also need a couple of guys with experience to teach these guys not to do the things that Johnson has been doing!

texaschief
01-01-2009, 04:24 AM
Herm said in his post season wrap up that the Chiefs would not be participating in free agency. I have to believe they will need to if they want to be competitive. They not only have more holes to fill than the draft will allow, they also need a couple of guys with experience to teach these guys not to do the things that Johnson has been doing!

Edwards in fact said the EXACT opposite. He believes THIS season is the season to get some good young free agents in here to help the organization. I think you misunderstood him.

Hayvern
01-01-2009, 04:38 AM
Edwards in fact said the EXACT opposite. He believes THIS season is the season to get some good young free agents in here to help the organization. I think you misunderstood him.

Sorry it is late and I put a NOT in where I should not have. You are right and it is what I meant to say, looks like my fingers have a mind of their own tonight.

Chiefster
01-01-2009, 09:59 AM
I want a new G.M. who believes in building the team through the draft with young players.

...Anything that gets rid of Herm.

Chiefstillidie
01-01-2009, 03:46 PM
who cares what herm wants...he won't be around for much longer anyways thank god

texaschief
01-01-2009, 03:50 PM
who cares what herm wants...he won't be around for much longer anyways thank god

Oh yeah, he'll be gone by the end of... when again? :lol:

Chiefstillidie
01-01-2009, 04:13 PM
Oh yeah, he'll be gone by the end of... when again? :lol:

When the chiefs land a new GM!!!!drrrrrr:iamwithstupid:

texaschief
01-01-2009, 04:25 PM
When the chiefs land a new GM!!!!drrrrrr:iamwithstupid:

oh.... :rolleyes:

Chiefstillidie
01-01-2009, 04:46 PM
oh.... :rolleyes:


haha:D

jtandcrew
01-02-2009, 09:55 AM
Herm is not happy? oh no! We cant have Herm not happy! It must take an aweful lot to make Herm unhappy since I havent heard him say that this season was a disappointment. All I hear him talk about is progress! I think Herm needs to get his priorities straight about whats making him happy and unhappy! To bad college coaches werent available in the college draft!:lol:

qfactor87
01-02-2009, 10:34 AM
Except that:

1. The Giants, while drafting well, built large portions of their offense and defense through FA (Burress, McQuarters, Pierce, etc.).

2. The Pats, while drafting well, can attribute their SBs to excellent FA/trade classes (McGinnest, Bruschi, Corey Dillon, etc.).

3. The Bucs, while drafting well, can attribute its SB to an influx of FAs/trades (Rice, Brad Johnson, Keyshawn, etc.).

4. The Rams, while drafting well, also brought in a large number of FAs during its SB years.

SB losers like the Raiders, Panthers, and Titans built their teams, in large part, using FA.

Believe it or not, FA is as important as the draft in building a team. FA builds the team, the draft keeps you on top.

It isn't the other way around.

I don't agree, I still believe building through the draft is much better, and added free agents to fill a few holes.
In you example, Teddy Bruschi and McGinest were drafted by the Pats, not free agents.

jmlamerson
01-02-2009, 01:50 PM
I don't agree, I still believe building through the draft is much better, and added free agents to fill a few holes.
In you example, Teddy Bruschi and McGinest were drafted by the Pats, not free agents.

You are, of course, right about Bruschi and McGinnest. I was thinking of their other two LBs, Vrabel and Phifer.

FAs at starting positions for the Pats in 2001:

Joe Andruzzi: RG
Mike Compton: LG
Jermaine Wiggins: TE
David Patten: 2WR
Antowain Smith: RB
Marc Edwards: FB
Bobbi Hamilton: LDE
Anthony Pleasant: RDE
Mike Vrabel: LOLB
Roman Phifer: ROLB
Otis Smith: 2CB

Or 11 out of 22.

jmlamerson
01-02-2009, 02:00 PM
Each of these teams had a solid foundation for which free agents could be added to make a solid impact on the team. Adding a bunch of high priced free agents to a team that has nothing to build on is EXACTLY what the Raiders did last year. Now, that team is stuck because their hands are tied with ZERO cap space. They can't do hardly ANYTHING this year to improve that team. While the Chiefs have the most money to spend and a young, solid foundation on which to build.

Last year would've been a HORRIBLE year to sign high priced free agents. Plus, who was out there that you're just dying to have on this team? All the top, YOUNG OTs were re-signed by for at least another year or franchised by their original organizations. Now, some of them like Stacy Andrews, Jordan Gross, Davis Stewart, and Maxx Starks will be on the market again, along with this year's crop of free agents.

There weren't any DEs on the market which is why we got the package we got for Allen.

The good YOUNG OLBs either didn't hit the market or were franchised. Of the LBs who were FAs last season, Suggs, Dansby, and Boley will be back on the market again this season. Only Briggs and Pace were removed from the market for the long-term.

There were absolutely ZERO good YOUNG MLBs on the market last season.

DTs were in low supply as well. Haynesworth was franchised and will be on the market this year again. The Raiders set the market for DTs when they signed Tommy Kelly to a ridiculous contract and that would've killed anyone else who signed DTs last season.

There were a couple young OGs last season like Jacob Bell who signed with the Rams and Rex Hadnot who signed with the Browns. But everyone else was over 31 like Faneca.

There was A safety on the market in Gibril Wilson, but I'd rather let the Raiders overpay for guys like him.

The only QB to hit the market was Pennington and he would've been hurt just like Croyle was behind that line.

There were a couple CBs, but we already had Surtain and I was happy with Flowers, Carr and Leggett. We wouldn't have known anything about those guys had we signed a Deangelo Hall or somebody like that.

(This year's crop is on a new thread entitled "2009 free agent targets")

I wasn't criticizing our lack of FA movements last year - entirely. I though we should have gone after Kawika Mitchell, Alan Faneca, kept Casey Weigmann, Bernard Berrian (I didn't know Bradley would eventually join the team, obviously), and Jake Scott. Not all of those are young, but they would have been very decent players for us for the next five years.

I've mostly criticized our draft from last year and have exhorted the Chiefs to jump into FA this year.

I think the absolute dearth of FA talent at the DT and DE positions is probably the best proof that the JA trade was idiotic, but we could argue that until the end of time.

Hayvern
01-02-2009, 07:17 PM
I think the absolute dearth of FA talent at the DT and DE positions is probably the best proof that the JA trade was idiotic, but we could argue that until the end of time.

Well we have Peterson to thank for the Allen trade. I think he was the reason Allen got pissed and decided that he would hold out.

And hold out is what he would have done. Peterson slapped him with the franchise tag without even inquiring about his cost.