At the beginning of the season, I predicted the Chiefs would finish
7-9. That was nothing more than a guess, of course, and five games
into the season, the odds that the Chiefs can finish 6-5 seem very
long indeed.

But while making that prediction, I also said that the Chiefs would be
on a roller coaster this season - that it would be impossible to tell
which team would show up for a particular game... the talented
youngsters with heart and drive, or the untested rookies with a lot to
learn.

So far, only the second part of my prediction has turned out to be
true.

On Sunday, the Chiefs simply stunk up the joint. They bore no
resemblence to the team that had surprised Denver in the previous
week. The line play on both sides of the ball was atrocious. No
fewer than four passes were batted down by Panther defensive linemen,
and Kansas City running backs had no chance to make any impact.
Carolina, on the other hand, simply turned the Chiefs defensive line
into so much Swiss cheese. And Damon Huard - who against Denver, had
looked like a savvy All-Pro - suddenly acted like he'd never started
an NFL game.

Yet there should be no surprise that Carolina shut out the Chiefs.

Five games into the season, the Panthers have given up fewer yards
than only three other teams. Prior to shutting down LJ, Carolina had
held LT to 97 yards, Adrian Peterson to 77 yards, and Michael Turner
to 56 yards. There was no reason to expect that LJ and his patchwork
OL would be able to gain much headway on the road in Carolina. And as
we have seen, unless LJ can run effectively - and the Chiefs can stay
in the game - they can do very little on offense.

Therein - along with Huard's poor play - lies the main difference
between the Denver and Carolina games.

In fairness to Huard, his uncharacteristic performance might very well
have had something to do with the aftermath of the Denver game.
During the television broadcast, Harlan and Gannon said that Edwards
had revealed to them that Huard had struggled all week in practice
after being "beaten up" against the Broncos. They made it seem like
some kind of inside information, but it should have been no secret
that Huard was limping in the locker room following the win against
Denver.

Remember, too... Denver and Carolina both lead their divisions at 4-1,
but Carolina plays in the much stronger NFC East, and is a legitimate
playoff contender - simply because they're winning the old-fashioned
way: with strong defense and a multi-faceted running game. Denever,
on the other hand, is starting to look like the Vermeil-era Chiefs.
They may very well win the AFC West, but with their porous defense,
they probably have little chance to advance in the playoffs.

None of this, however, addresses the absence of fundamentals in
Sunday's game. Once again, we witnessed the poor tackling we saw in
the Raiders debacle. Dwayne Bowe may sometimes drop passes, but he
seldom runs a different route than the quarterback is expecting;
without that embarassing play, the Chiefs might at least have been
able to salvage some respectability - and perhaps even some momentum -
in their only decent drive. Damion McIntosh played like a rookie,
instead of the veteran anchor the Chiefs are paying him to be. So
while we should have expected Carolina to win this game, it is the
return of this fundamentally poor play that turned it into an
embarassment.

So what happened? Much has been made of Edwards' decision to tell the
team to just "go out and play" before the Denver game - to not worry
so much about making every play perfect, but to find a way to make
plays. This was a dangerous gamble. The best NFL players understand
that on every play, they must find the right balance between playing
smart and playing with abandon - that is, to cover their assigment,
but also to recognize the right moment to step out of that assignment
and make a play. This, in fact, is one of the biggest differences
between an NFL rookie and an NFL veteran, and the young Chiefs squad
may have gotten the message too early. While Edwards' gamble
certainly paid off against the weaker division leader at home, it came
back to haunt him against the stronger division leader on the road.
This, too, should have been no surprise.

So now, after two weeks to think about it, the Chiefs must face one of
the NFL's most successful teams. It's unrealistic to expect the
Chiefs to win this game, but if they can get some of their
fundamentals back during the bye week, they at least have a chance to
take a step forward. And who knows? On this roller coaster, anything
is possible.

RDOGuy wrote:
> At the beginning of the season, I predicted the Chiefs would finish
> 7-9. That was nothing more than a guess, of course, and five games
> into the season, the odds that the Chiefs can finish 6-5 seem very
> long indeed.
>
> But while making that prediction, I also said that the Chiefs would be
> on a roller coaster this season - that it would be impossible to tell
> which team would show up for a particular game... the talented
> youngsters with heart and drive, or the untested rookies with a lot to
> learn.
>
> So far, only the second part of my prediction has turned out to be
> true.
>
> On Sunday, the Chiefs simply stunk up the joint. They bore no
> resemblence to the team that had surprised Denver in the previous
> week. The line play on both sides of the ball was atrocious. No
> fewer than four passes were batted down by Panther defensive linemen,
> and Kansas City running backs had no chance to make any impact.
> Carolina, on the other hand, simply turned the Chiefs defensive line
> into so much Swiss cheese. And Damon Huard - who against Denver, had
> looked like a savvy All-Pro - suddenly acted like he'd never started
> an NFL game.
>
> Yet there should be no surprise that Carolina shut out the Chiefs.
>
> Five games into the season, the Panthers have given up fewer yards
> than only three other teams. Prior to shutting down LJ, Carolina had
> held LT to 97 yards, Adrian Peterson to 77 yards, and Michael Turner
> to 56 yards. There was no reason to expect that LJ and his patchwork
> OL would be able to gain much headway on the road in Carolina. And as
> we have seen, unless LJ can run effectively - and the Chiefs can stay
> in the game - they can do very little on offense.
>
> Therein - along with Huard's poor play - lies the main difference
> between the Denver and Carolina games.
>
> In fairness to Huard, his uncharacteristic performance might very well
> have had something to do with the aftermath of the Denver game.
> During the television broadcast, Harlan and Gannon said that Edwards
> had revealed to them that Huard had struggled all week in practice
> after being "beaten up" against the Broncos. They made it seem like
> some kind of inside information, but it should have been no secret
> that Huard was limping in the locker room following the win against
> Denver.
>
> Remember, too... Denver and Carolina both lead their divisions at 4-1,
> but Carolina plays in the much stronger NFC East, and is a legitimate
> playoff contender - simply because they're winning the old-fashioned
> way: with strong defense and a multi-faceted running game. Denever,
> on the other hand, is starting to look like the Vermeil-era Chiefs.
> They may very well win the AFC West, but with their porous defense,
> they probably have little chance to advance in the playoffs.
>
> None of this, however, addresses the absence of fundamentals in
> Sunday's game. Once again, we witnessed the poor tackling we saw in
> the Raiders debacle. Dwayne Bowe may sometimes drop passes, but he
> seldom runs a different route than the quarterback is expecting;
> without that embarassing play, the Chiefs might at least have been
> able to salvage some respectability - and perhaps even some momentum -
> in their only decent drive. Damion McIntosh played like a rookie,
> instead of the veteran anchor the Chiefs are paying him to be. So
> while we should have expected Carolina to win this game, it is the
> return of this fundamentally poor play that turned it into an
> embarassment.
>
> So what happened? Much has been made of Edwards' decision to tell the
> team to just "go out and play" before the Denver game - to not worry
> so much about making every play perfect, but to find a way to make
> plays. This was a dangerous gamble. The best NFL players understand
> that on every play, they must find the right balance between playing
> smart and playing with abandon - that is, to cover their assigment,
> but also to recognize the right moment to step out of that assignment
> and make a play. This, in fact, is one of the biggest differences
> between an NFL rookie and an NFL veteran, and the young Chiefs squad
> may have gotten the message too early. While Edwards' gamble
> certainly paid off against the weaker division leader at home, it came
> back to haunt him against the stronger division leader on the road.
> This, too, should have been no surprise.
>
> So now, after two weeks to think about it, the Chiefs must face one of
> the NFL's most successful teams. It's unrealistic to expect the
> Chiefs to win this game, but if they can get some of their
> fundamentals back during the bye week, they at least have a chance to
> take a step forward. And who knows? On this roller coaster, anything
> is possible.

Even with a team at this stage of restructuring, there has to be some sort
of motivation and desire. When players like Bowe are just giving up on
routes, and thus giving up INTs, for which the QB is blamed, that is bad
juju. And its the fault of the coaching staff, and ultimately, the head
coach, when that stuff happens. Its a lack of discipline when a player feels
he can get away with such behavior on the field, and a lack of motivation,
when he doesn't care whether he takes care of his responsibility or not.

That sort of failure has nothing to do with rebuilding a team. It has to do
with a basic lack of motivation, inspiration, confidence, and willingness.
These qualities are the responsibility of the head coach, and when there is
a failure of character at that level, it does not matter whether a team is
rebuilding, or made of top notch veterans. They will fail.

It's time for Edwards to go. ESPN awaits.

MartyB in KC

On Oct 7, 10:42 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:

> Even with a team at this stage of restructuring, there has to be some sort
> of motivation and desire.

True. And there is plenty. These are largely young players. By
definition, they'll have more motivation and desire than veteran
players.

> When players like Bowe are just giving up on
> routes, and thus giving up INTs, for which the QB is blamed, that is bad
> juju.

Gannon characterized what happened as Bowe "giving up" on the route,
but I think that's unlikely. None of the camera angles available to
viewers actually showed what Bowe did - so neither of us can say what
really happened - but it's a lot more likely that Bowe or Huard simply
weren't on the same page.

> And its the fault of the coaching staff, and ultimately, the head
> coach, when that stuff happens. Its a lack of discipline when a player feels
> he can get away with such behavior on the field, and a lack of motivation,
> when he doesn't care whether he takes care of his responsibility or not.

If you're talking about Bowe... where's your evidence that this is
taking place? Bowe had five catches in the game, and none of those
showed any lack of discipline - in fact, I'd say quite the opposite.
If you're talking about everybody else on the play - where Gannon
spoke of players "standing around" instead of going to the ball after
the interception - well, what would you expect? You're down 24-0 in
the third quarter, and the day's only legitimate drive has just been
cut short by a interception. I'll agree with you that professional
players still have the responsibility to get up and make a play in
that situation, but really... on a human level, is what happened on
that play truly surprising?

> That sort of failure has nothing to do with rebuilding a team. It has to do
> with a basic lack of motivation, inspiration, confidence, and willingness..
> These qualities are the responsibility of the head coach, and when there is
> a failure of character at that level, it does not matter whether a team is
> rebuilding, or made of top notch veterans. They will fail.

Yes... all of that is true. I simply disagree that the Chiefs lack
motivation, inspiration and willingness. They certainly lack
confidence, but that can only be earned by success on the field.
Let's not forget that mixed in with all the "bad juju" of Sunday's
game, the Chiefs forced two red zone turnovers - the first in a very
long time. Teams that are lacking in motivation, inspiration and
willingness don't make those plays.

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:42 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:
>
>> Even with a team at this stage of restructuring, there has to be
>> some sort of motivation and desire.
>
> True. And there is plenty. These are largely young players. By
> definition, they'll have more motivation and desire than veteran
> players.
>
>> When players like Bowe are just giving up on
>> routes, and thus giving up INTs, for which the QB is blamed, that is
>> bad juju.
>
> Gannon characterized what happened as Bowe "giving up" on the route,
> but I think that's unlikely. None of the camera angles available to
> viewers actually showed what Bowe did - so neither of us can say what
> really happened - but it's a lot more likely that Bowe or Huard simply
> weren't on the same page.
>
>> And its the fault of the coaching staff, and ultimately, the head
>> coach, when that stuff happens. Its a lack of discipline when a
>> player feels he can get away with such behavior on the field, and a
>> lack of motivation, when he doesn't care whether he takes care of
>> his responsibility or not.
>
> If you're talking about Bowe... where's your evidence that this is
> taking place? Bowe had five catches in the game, and none of those
> showed any lack of discipline - in fact, I'd say quite the opposite.
> If you're talking about everybody else on the play - where Gannon
> spoke of players "standing around" instead of going to the ball after
> the interception - well, what would you expect? You're down 24-0 in
> the third quarter, and the day's only legitimate drive has just been
> cut short by a interception. I'll agree with you that professional
> players still have the responsibility to get up and make a play in
> that situation, but really... on a human level, is what happened on
> that play truly surprising?
>
>> That sort of failure has nothing to do with rebuilding a team. It
>> has to do with a basic lack of motivation, inspiration, confidence,
>> and willingness. These qualities are the responsibility of the head
>> coach, and when there is a failure of character at that level, it
>> does not matter whether a team is rebuilding, or made of top notch
>> veterans. They will fail.
>
> Yes... all of that is true. I simply disagree that the Chiefs lack
> motivation, inspiration and willingness. They certainly lack
> confidence, but that can only be earned by success on the field.
> Let's not forget that mixed in with all the "bad juju" of Sunday's
> game, the Chiefs forced two red zone turnovers - the first in a very
> long time. Teams that are lacking in motivation, inspiration and
> willingness don't make those plays.

A few more games should reveal all.

I think its time to can Edwards if it continues this way for the next few
games. Many have spoken about the apparent lack of energy of the team, and
while this stuff is subjective, its something you really hate to hear about
a young team. They should be full of fire, and perhaps making a lot of
mistakes, but making them out of agression and lack of patience, not out of
just being beaten down. There are always a few bright spots like the red
zone turnovers, but that stuff is scarce right now.

The problem I see is that they are not well motivated and while they are
supposed to be learning, they seem more to be throttled back. I think the
Edwards culture and mindset is bad for the team, and a young energetic team
shouldn't be saddled with his mind numbing game plans. If they want to let
young players play, then let them bump their heads. Edwards may be good at
player acquisition but that's about it.

I would make Gailey interim HC until season's end, then let the team search
for a really good HC in earnest who can make the most of the considerable
unrefined talent on the team.

MartyB in KC

On Oct 9, 10:32 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:

> I think its time to can Edwards if it continues this way for the next few
> games. Many have spoken about the apparent lack of energy of the team, and
> while this stuff is subjective, its something you really hate to hear about
> a young team. They should be full of fire, and perhaps making a lot of
> mistakes, but making them out of agression and lack of patience, not out of
> just being beaten down.

Marty, I think that would be a huge mistake. Firing a coach in mid-
season is nothing less than an act of desperation - or in the case of
Al Davis, business as usual. :)

There's nothing desperate about what the Chiefs are going through. It
is just what you can expect from a young team whose real rebuilding
program only started around week 13 of last season. Bringing in a new
coach at this point - or even at the end of this season - will tend to
make things worse... not better.

Further, I don't think it's going to happen. My read on this
situation is that this is precisely what Clark Hunt wanted right from
the time he started running this team - to blow it up and start over.
He couldn't do it while his father was still alive, but he did have
day to day control when Edwards was brought in, and I think Edwards
was hired specifically to eventually do precisely what he is doing
right now - he as much as said so in almost the very first words he
spoke as the Chiefs head coach.

You can argue that Edwards shouldn't have screwed around with it for
two seasons before making the commitment to rebuild, and I won't
disagree. It's even possible that the delay was the result of
Peterson's influence. However it happened, it's a problem for the fan
base. Unless they can see real results by the end of Edwards'
contract, they'll be screaming for his head. And don't forget... that
contract won't exprire until after next season. So delaying the
inevitable did create a PR problem (not to mention missed
opportunities to get more young players by trading the likes of Tony
Gonzalez or Larry Johnson... while it was still feasible) but unless
the Chiefs have made no significant progress by the end of NEXT
season, I think Edwards will be kept on.

> The problem I see is that they are not well motivated and while they are
> supposed to be learning, they seem more to be throttled back. I think the
> Edwards culture and mindset is bad for the team, and a young energetic team
> shouldn't be saddled with his mind numbing game plans. If they want to let
> young players play, then let them bump their heads. Edwards may be good at
> player acquisition but that's about it.

Well, we'll just have to disagree about that, Marty. I don't see that
lack of motivation - just lack of experience. I mean, really... what
do you expect the Chiefs to do? Throw that voluminous and complicated
Vermeil offense at a bunch of rookies? I think what Gailey is doing
with the offense makes sense with this team, and at this moment.
You've got to walk before you can run. You can always add more to it
as the players develop.

At least you're acknolwedging that Edwards does have a good eye for
young talent. I would add Bill Kuharich to that list, and say that
this is an area where the Chiefs have been deficient for a long time,
and is just one of the reasons they decided to blow it all up...
because they hadn't developed any young players who could replace
their aging veterans.

I don't know... maybe Clark Hunt's master plan is to keep Edwards at
the helm just long enough to build a team, and then bring in somebody
else to mold it into a playoff contender. That wouldn't have been the
way his father would have done it, and the junior Hunt - aside from
this rebuilding program - isn't showing signs of having a different
approach to personnel. But even if it is his plan, I don't see that
Edwards will be jettisoned at least until after his contract expires;
from all appearances, Hunt is as committed to this rebuilding program
as Edwards, and I think it's crazy to believe Edwards will be fired
anytime soon.

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:32 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:
>
>> I think its time to can Edwards if it continues this way for the
>> next few games. Many have spoken about the apparent lack of energy
>> of the team, and while this stuff is subjective, its something you
>> really hate to hear about a young team. They should be full of fire,
>> and perhaps making a lot of mistakes, but making them out of
>> agression and lack of patience, not out of just being beaten down.
>
> Marty, I think that would be a huge mistake. Firing a coach in mid-
> season is nothing less than an act of desperation - or in the case of
> Al Davis, business as usual. :)
>

But WAIT! Doncha know since Davis refuses to pay Kiffin, he is going to have
trouble even getting a goat to sign a contract to coach! So.... Enter the
freshly fired Herm Edwards, the perfect Al Davis bait. Turn Edwards from a
liability into an asset by letting him keep a division opponent down in the
dirt.

> There's nothing desperate about what the Chiefs are going through. It
> is just what you can expect from a young team whose real rebuilding
> program only started around week 13 of last season. Bringing in a new
> coach at this point - or even at the end of this season - will tend to
> make things worse... not better.

But Gailey isn't really new, and if he lets Gun have his head, they can
continue the status quo. That is why specifically, if I were able to fire
Edwards, it would have to be part of a package where Gailey became interim
HC... for the sake of continuity. I think the Edwards mindset and culture is
poisonous to this young team, and cannot be allowed to sit and fester, and
become habit for the future.
>
> Further, I don't think it's going to happen.

I don't either. Consider it my fantasy.

>My read on this
> situation is that this is precisely what Clark Hunt wanted right from
> the time he started running this team - to blow it up and start over.
> He couldn't do it while his father was still alive, but he did have
> day to day control when Edwards was brought in, and I think Edwards
> was hired specifically to eventually do precisely what he is doing
> right now - he as much as said so in almost the very first words he
> spoke as the Chiefs head coach.
>
> You can argue that Edwards shouldn't have screwed around with it for
> two seasons before making the commitment to rebuild, and I won't
> disagree. It's even possible that the delay was the result of
> Peterson's influence. However it happened, it's a problem for the fan
> base. Unless they can see real results by the end of Edwards'
> contract, they'll be screaming for his head. And don't forget... that
> contract won't exprire until after next season. So delaying the
> inevitable did create a PR problem (not to mention missed
> opportunities to get more young players by trading the likes of Tony
> Gonzalez or Larry Johnson... while it was still feasible) but unless
> the Chiefs have made no significant progress by the end of NEXT
> season, I think Edwards will be kept on.

That would be a tragedy of massive proportions, unless somehow they turn the
season around and finish with a better record than last season. If he could
go 7-9 from this point, for example, maybe I would reconsider my inability
to find Edwards credible. But he has overstayed his welcome, and is not
showing anything positive with the positive elements he sought, and was
given.
>
>> The problem I see is that they are not well motivated and while they
>> are supposed to be learning, they seem more to be throttled back. I
>> think the Edwards culture and mindset is bad for the team, and a
>> young energetic team shouldn't be saddled with his mind numbing game
>> plans. If they want to let young players play, then let them bump
>> their heads. Edwards may be good at player acquisition but that's
>> about it.
>
> Well, we'll just have to disagree about that, Marty. I don't see that
> lack of motivation - just lack of experience. I mean, really... what
> do you expect the Chiefs to do? Throw that voluminous and complicated
> Vermeil offense at a bunch of rookies? I think what Gailey is doing
> with the offense makes sense with this team, and at this moment.
> You've got to walk before you can run. You can always add more to it
> as the players develop.

No, but I would rather see them making regular rookie mistakes, than being
throttle back. If they are treated like incompetents instead of students,
they will not succeed as players.
>
> At least you're acknolwedging that Edwards does have a good eye for
> young talent. I would add Bill Kuharich to that list, and say that
> this is an area where the Chiefs have been deficient for a long time,
> and is just one of the reasons they decided to blow it all up...
> because they hadn't developed any young players who could replace
> their aging veterans.
>
> I don't know... maybe Clark Hunt's master plan is to keep Edwards at
> the helm just long enough to build a team, and then bring in somebody
> else to mold it into a playoff contender. That wouldn't have been the
> way his father would have done it, and the junior Hunt - aside from
> this rebuilding program - isn't showing signs of having a different
> approach to personnel. But even if it is his plan, I don't see that
> Edwards will be jettisoned at least until after his contract expires;
> from all appearances, Hunt is as committed to this rebuilding program
> as Edwards, and I think it's crazy to believe Edwards will be fired
> anytime soon.

I think Clark's master plan is for Edwards and Peterson to be gone at the
end of this season unless they show him something he can sink his teeth into
whilst he is writing bazillion dollar checks. Otherwise, he is going to
become a cranky billionaire, and I won't blame him when he does.

Its good to get some discussion going here again!

MartyB in KC