Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

Thread: Herm coaches Chiefs to another loss.

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    883
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default Herm coaches Chiefs to another loss.


    0 Not allowed!
    5 minutes left in the game. A couple first downs away from a guaranteed win or just 1 first down away from making it very difficult to lose. What do we do? Play action bootleg which worked great all day. NO. A quick sideline pass on 2nd or 3rd down for 4 yards like we had been getting all day. NO. Maybe we should come out in a passing formation and run or a running formation and pass. NO. How about run to the left 3 times and punt it. Thats what Herm / Chan did. Thats why we lost. We gave BRETT FAVRE a football with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter of a football game. Herm should know what happens when those events occur. He coached in Tampa for years, played against Brett a few times. Oh, how could I forget. This happened last year didnt it? Against Brett, right?
    In the post game press conference Herm Edwards (like usual) took all the blame off of himself, saying: We thought we could run the ball at that time and Kolby slipped on 3rd down or he would have got it. My bad Herm. I forgot. Its all Kolbys fault. HOLD ON. Did you say "I thought we could run the ball," because last time I checked, we couldnt run all day. JC had one good run and other than that the running game was nothing. Herm continued to say that If DJ didnt drop that pick in the red zone that this was a much different ball game. How bout this you spineless b.asterd. If we would of went for it on one of the four, 4th and 1's, it could have been a different game. Herm Edwards is spineless, scared, content and arrogant and when you mix that all up with bad clock management, you become a giant peice of worthless crap.
    Last edited by Big Daddy Tek; 10-26-2008 at 06:20 PM.


    CLICK HERE! FOR MY TWITTER PAGE

  2. #101
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,149
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 31
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    He did not accept the offer, he refused to be franchised and that is why they said he can go to Minnesota.
    He did accept the offer. He said that he would play under the tag, then leave after that contract was up. The only way to refuse that offer would have been to retire from The NFL. He didn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    Can you please stop making Jared out to be totally innocent in all this?

    First off he demanded a trade if he did not get the contract that HE wanted.

    No. You are wrong. After a year of seeking a long-term contract with The Chiefs, without ever getting an offer, he was invited to seek a trade.

    $8.8 million for a season of proving that he would not be a liability to the team was not enough to buy his loyalty.

    If it weren't for the fact that they had already had him prove it for one season. He was told to shut-up and prove it last off-season. And that is exactly what he did.

    No one has "turned" on Jared. The fact is he is now a Viking so I do not spend all day complaining and speculating about how things might be if he was here. Maybe we are better, maybe we are worse.

    Everyone talks about all the great attributes he brings to the table, but the fact is we were 4-12 last season. He did not liike the offer given to him (which was more than fair) so he got what he wanted. A trade.

    Because the offer wasn't the offer that he was told he would get.

    He made the ultimatum, not CP. So explain to me why it is that this is all the fault of management.

    Because Jared Allen wanted an extension in '07, but was told that the team needed him to stay out of trouble for a season first. He did, then asked for that long-term contract and got invited to leave.

    I am not saying that they do not share in the blame, but Jared played his part too. You act like he was an innocent angel in all of this. Two DUI's and a 4 game suspension. (reduced to 2) but still a high risk investment for $74 million don't ya think.
    I do. But I didn't see any offer from The Chiefs. And, if that is the value that some other team placed on him, then obviously, The Chiefs didn't find him as valuable.

    My opinion is that, if they wanted to insist that Jared 'behave' for a season, then they needed to reward him with some job security.

    But, because he played too well, they didn't want to pay for him. Now they are paying for it in another way.

    Jared has more sacks than The Chiefs team does, and four times as many wins.

    The Vikings, in half as many games, are on pace to accumulate four more sacks than they had last season, and The Chiefs are on pace to accumulate less than 1/4 as many as last season.

    Not to mention that sacks are only the 'glam' stat of DEs, and Jared is excellent in all aspects of playing DE. He led the NFL in Forced Fumbles in '05 and had 10 Pass Deflections in '06 and '07.

    By comparison, Dwight Freeney has ten Pass Deflections in his 6 1/2 seasons.

    Then, there is the fact that Jared was just a great guy to have on any team. Take a look at any game that he has played. He is always having a good time. I defy anyone to find him not smiling. It is an extreme rarity.

    Meanwhile, look at the player that we chose above him, in LJ. Has a smile ever found that face? All he does is sulk, and under-achieve.

    The Chiefs booted the stud, and rewarded the pud.

    Like I've said before, Jared was the only party that showed any interest in having Jared Allen remain as a Chief.

    The Chiefs had four choices. A.) Negotiate for a long-term contract. B.) Ignore his complaints, and force him to play under the Franchise Tag. C.) Let him go, as his contract was up. And D.) Get something for him, by trading him.

    Jared had one option. A.) Do what The Chiefs told him to do.

    He did.

  3. #102
    Member Since
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,915
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    He did accept the offer. He said that he would play under the tag, then leave after that contract was up. The only way to refuse that offer would have been to retire from The NFL. He didn't do that.



    I do. But I didn't see any offer from The Chiefs. And, if that is the value that some other team placed on him, then obviously, The Chiefs didn't find him as valuable.

    My opinion is that, if they wanted to insist that Jared 'behave' for a season, then they needed to reward him with some job security.

    But, because he played too well, they didn't want to pay for him. Now they are paying for it in another way.

    Jared has more sacks than The Chiefs team does, and four times as many wins.

    The Vikings, in half as many games, are on pace to accumulate four more sacks than they had last season, and The Chiefs are on pace to accumulate less than 1/4 as many as last season.

    Not to mention that sacks are only the 'glam' stat of DEs, and Jared is excellent in all aspects of playing DE. He led the NFL in Forced Fumbles in '05 and had 10 Pass Deflections in '06 and '07.

    By comparison, Dwight Freeney has ten Pass Deflections in his 6 1/2 seasons.

    Then, there is the fact that Jared was just a great guy to have on any team. Take a look at any game that he has played. He is always having a good time. I defy anyone to find him not smiling. It is an extreme rarity.

    Meanwhile, look at the player that we chose above him, in LJ. Has a smile ever found that face? All he does is sulk, and under-achieve.

    The Chiefs booted the stud, and rewarded the pud.

    Like I've said before, Jared was the only party that showed any interest in having Jared Allen remain as a Chief.

    The Chiefs had four choices. A.) Negotiate for a long-term contract. B.) Ignore his complaints, and force him to play under the Franchise Tag. C.) Let him go, as his contract was up. And D.) Get something for him, by trading him.

    Jared had one option. A.) Do what The Chiefs told him to do.

    He did.
    Yeah, I find it pretty impossible for anyone to defend that trade. Good franchises don't trade cornerstone 26-year-old DEs. You keep your young players at premium positions (JA), and you get rid of older players at more replacable positions (LJ - maybe not old, but with a whole lot of milage).

    The Chiefs could have signed JA to the identical deal that the Vikes offered him. Is it a big contract? Sure. And if the Chiefs were up against the cap, I maybe could see their reasoning. But they're $32M under the cap, and they'll be more under the cap next year.

    If the Chiefs don't trade JA, they probably trade down and still draft Albert, along with picking up a third (like the Pats did a spot below us, with the Saints) so we can still draft Cottam. We don't have Morgan, who isn't starting for us anyway.

    How exactly do we lose? We're still massively under the cap. We still get Albert, Charles, and Cottam.

    The only question is whether we think Dorsey + Morgan > JA. They are almost equal in salary ($30M for JA, $23M for Dorsey, guarenteed). And as for talent, well, I don't think history will be kind to the Chiefs for this.

    I agree that we have to suck it up and move on, but its boneheaded moves like this that make me contemptuous of the Chiefs "braintrust."

  4. #103
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,343
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 29

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    I am not DEFENDING the trade. I am tired of hearing how it is all managements fault for 6 months. Jared could have sh!t on the field and told all the fans to F@$k off and you guys would find a way to blame it on management. Two posts ago 31 said

    Canada: First off he demanded a trade if he did not get the contract that HE wanted.

    Chief31: No. You are wrong. After a year of seeking a long-term contract with The Chiefs, without ever getting an offer, he was invited to seek a trade.

    Soooo...he did want the contract that HE wanted or not? You guys talk in circles all day and then put words in peoples mouths. He was "invited" to seek a trade. Was that because he said "If you franchise me then I am gonna leave"? He got EXACTLY what he wanted. But now I am gonna have to sit here for years and hear about this crap. Its all management and the players have no accountability to anyone anymore. It is a joke.

    And as far as the double the sacks thing. He has 4....4 sacks and happened to be near Orlovsky when he ran out of bounds. And unless you can show me how he has improved the Minnesota run D then that is just your opinion.
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  5. #104
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,148
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 255
    Given: 451

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    I am not DEFENDING the trade. I am tired of hearing how it is all managements fault for 6 months. Jared could have sh!t on the field and told all the fans to F@ off and you guys would find a way to blame it on management. Two posts ago 31 said

    Canada: First off he demanded a trade if he did not get the contract that HE wanted.

    Chief31: No. You are wrong. After a year of seeking a long-term contract with The Chiefs, without ever getting an offer, he was invited to seek a trade.

    Soooo...he did want the contract that HE wanted or not? You guys talk in circles all day and then put words in peoples mouths. He was "invited" to seek a trade. Was that because he said "If you franchise me then I am gonna leave"? He got EXACTLY what he wanted. But now I am gonna have to sit here for years and hear about this crap. Its all management and the players have no accountability to anyone anymore. It is a joke.

    And as far as the double the sacks thing. He has 4....4 sacks and happened to be near Orlovsky when he ran out of bounds. And unless you can show me how he has improved the Minnesota run D then that is just your opinion.
    I gotta go along with Canada on this one; players have a share of the responsiblity regarding the options governing their future in the league. IMHO.


  6. #105
    Member Since
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,915
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Small point, he has seven sacks, not four.

    And the MN run defense is 2nd in the league.

    Ours is now 32nd.
    Last edited by jmlamerson; 11-07-2008 at 03:21 PM.

  7. #106
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,148
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 255
    Given: 451

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by jmlamerson View Post
    Small point, he has seven sacks, not four.

    And the MN run defense is 2nd in the league.

    Ours is now 32nd.
    Noted and acknowledged.


  8. #107
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,343
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 29

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by jmlamerson View Post
    Small point, he has seven sacks, not four.

    And the MN run defense is 2nd in the league.

    Ours is now 32nd.
    I have never denied his ability as a player, and it is only 6 (standing near Orlovsky while he ran out of bounds is not a sack in my book) But that is $10 million a sack. Seems like a high price. And what was the Min run defence ranked last year before JA arrived? 2nd, Maybe they thought getting some good DTs before a good DE was a good way to build a defense?!?!
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  9. #108
    Member Since
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,915
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    I have never denied his ability as a player, and it is only 6 (standing near Orlovsky while he ran out of bounds is not a sack in my book) But that is $10 million a sack. Seems like a high price. And what was the Min run defence ranked last year before JA arrived? 2nd, Maybe they thought getting some good DTs before a good DE was a good way to build a defense?!?!
    JA is in the very first year of his contract! He's on pace for 13-14 sacks this year. In a brand new system. The Vikes are getting their money's worth. Right now, it's $5M/sack (even if I accept your argument about the Orlovsky one - and I don't) in guarenteed money. It will be signifcantly less by the time he through with the contract. I'll be willing to wager they get more sacks per dollar from JA than the Chiefs do from their entire current DL.

    The Vikings are giving up fewer yards per game this year (69.6) than last year (74.1). KC, by the way, are giving up over 52 extra yards a game on the ground this year (from 130 yards a game to 182 yards a game). The Williamses are a very large part of the Vikings superb run D, but they are doing better with a legitimate DE. Kevin Williams has already doubled his sack total from the entirety of last year as they can't double team him anymore.

    I agree that KC needs good DTs. I disagree that you sell your best defensive player for 25 cents on the dollar for the opportunity to draft a DT, when almost every good DT takes 4-5 years to develop.

    Here's the thing - it isn't either/or. The Chiefs didn't need to get rid of JA. If they had offered him an identical contract to the MN one, he would have stayed. We had more than enough cap room to keep him. He fit perfectly in our "youth movement" as he was only 26. He's one of the top-3 DEs in the NFL, which isn't a easy position to fill. So why did we trade him?

    Look, the Chiefs management screwed up badly with this. It doesn't do any good to cry over spilled milk, but it certainly should be taken account when judging if the current Chiefs leadership can be/should be trusted in rebuilding this team.

  10. #109
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,343
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 29

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    AGAIN I am not defending management. I am not saying JA was not a good player. I do however give Jared his share of the blame in how things worked out but there are some here that will blindly blame management for Jared being gone while not putting ANY of the blame on Jared himself.
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  11. #110
    Member Since
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,915
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    AGAIN I am not defending management. I am not saying JA was not a good player. I do however give Jared his share of the blame in how things worked out but there are some here that will blindly blame management for Jared being gone while not putting ANY of the blame on Jared himself.
    I know that. And I know it seems we're going in circles, but I just don't understand why you are putting blame on JA.

    The Chiefs could have kept him for the next six years by paying him his market value (same contract as MN).

    JA wanted a long term extension or to be traded.

    The Chiefs chose to trade him rather than give him the extension.

    The only way this is JAs fault is if you blame him for not playing year-to-year under the franchise tag, or for not giving a significant hometown discount. I guess I can't blame players in a sport as violent as the NFL for not agreeing to work year-to-year or for working for less than they are worth.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •