Posnanski: Longing for Martyball - Page 10

tk13 · 01-05-2006, 02:24 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/13551859.htm

Longing for Martyball

Maybe Peterson believes Edwards can rekindle glory

JOE POSNANSKI

From the start, I’ve thought that Chiefs president/CEO/general manager/cruise director Carl Peterson would try to hire Herman Edwards to be coach. It just makes too much sense. Peterson loves Edwards. They go back more than 25 years. Peterson tried to recruit Edwards to UCLA. He signed Edwards as a pro player. He hired Edwards to work as a scout. He persuaded Edwards to go into coaching. He helped Edwards get the head-coaching job in New York.

When Peterson hired Dick Vermeil, he hired someone who had been like a father to him. Hiring Herm Edwards would be like hiring something close to a son.

But there’s something else at work here, too, something you can’t help but notice if you listen to Peterson talk. He has grown tired of the roller coaster. He has grown tired of 38-37 games. He has grown tired of winning seasons followed by losing seasons followed by winning seasons. You couldn’t miss it on Tuesday, when Peterson was challenged by a pointed question: With the way the Chiefs’ offense has played the last five years, how could you hire anyone but offensive coordinator Al Saunders?

Peterson was not too crazy about the tone of the question. He bounced around a little bit, talked about the NFL minority-hiring policy, talked about how he knows Al Saunders’ strengths and weaknesses. And then he said this: “There are other considerations more than just the offensive side of the football.”

Here’s what I thought: Carl Peterson really misses Marty.

It isn’t the first time that Marty nostalgia has popped up either.

Peterson misses the Marty Schottenheimer 1990s, when the Chiefs always won 10 or more games and always made the playoffs. True, to many Chiefs fans, that was the age of frustration, years most remembered for heartbreaking playoff losses and grinding 17-14 punt-fests. But to Peterson, those years were heaven.

And I think he believes Herm Edwards can take the Chiefs back to heaven.

See, this is what you have to understand about Peterson: The man hates losing. People always seem to miss this. Peterson hates losing football games as much as anyone in the NFL. Put it this way: He probably hates losing games more than you do.

That disgust for losing has been the driving force behind Peterson and the Chiefs for 17 years. It is why the Chiefs have averaged about 10 victories per season over that time. It is why, unlike almost every other team in the NFL, the Chiefs have never been thoroughly awful on Peterson’s watch.

Best winning percentages since 1989:
1. San Francisco, .618
2. Pittsburgh, .613
3. Denver, .610
4. Kansas City, .594
5. Green Bay, .588.

Now you will point out that, unlike the other four teams on the list, the Chiefs have not made the Super Bowl in that time. Well, that’s a whole different argument. I’m talking about winning and losing games. Here — let me try and prove to you that Carl Peterson cares more about winning games than you do. I’ll make you an offer. You have two choices:

1. The Chiefs can win 10 or 11 games each of the next five years and make the playoffs, but they probably will not go to the Super Bowl.

2. The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl once in the next five years, guaranteed, but the other four years they will go 3-13.

Now, which of those options would you take? I don’t know you very well, but I’m guessing you might take Option 2 — you would take four bad years for one Super Bowl championship. It has been so long for this town. We’re all dying for the title. I asked nine people — all nine took the Super Bowl win. I would take Option 2.

That’s where Carl Peterson’s different. He would, almost without any doubt, take Option 1. He would not trade all those losses for one Super Bowl championship. No way. Winning and losing games matter to him too much. Winning is good business. He’d take the double-digit victories every year and take his chances in the playoffs.

That’s what the Marty Schottenheimer days were all about. Good business. The Chiefs made the playoffs seven of eight years, they gave up the fewest points twice, they ran the ball down people’s throats, they had the best record in the AFC twice, they were as reliable as a Maytag. Peterson liked that. He tried to keep that metronome going with Gunther Cunningham, but things changed, Derrick died, the metronome stopped.

So, Peterson went with his old friend, a Super Bowl coach, Dick Vermeil, and for five years it was a high-wire act, passes flying everywhere, scoreboards lighting up, touchdown dances galore. Everybody bet the over. Every game was exciting. But the Chiefs finished 6-10 one year, the worst record in the Peterson era. They had another losing season. They made the playoffs only once — that now makes it one playoff appearance in eight years. And I think, toward the end especially, Peterson, like George Jetson, wanted to get off this crazy thing.

That’s why I think he will, if at all possible, hire Herm Edwards. Let’s face it: There’s nothing about Edwards that gets your heart racing. He has a losing record with the Jets. He has never coached a team to more than 10 wins. He has won a couple of playoff games — two more than the Chiefs have in the last decade — but he is probably best remembered for the way his Jets went into a Robert Novak conservative shell in the final minutes last season in Pittsburgh and lost a playoff game they had won.

There are good things, too. The Jets did make the playoffs three times in five years — no Jets coach before had made the playoffs three times. Edwards’ players swear by him. They play hard for him. Terrific coaches like Tony Dungy, Bill Cowher and, yes, Schottenheimer, say that Edwards is one of the brightest coaches in the game. Give him a running game (Larry Johnson) and defensive talent (the Chiefs seem to have some), and he might very well do good things.

There are some other interesting choices out there. Bob Stoops has been amazing at Oklahoma. Butch Davis was dreadful in Cleveland, but he was a big winner in college, too. Jim Fassel went to a Super Bowl with the Giants. And, hey, Al Saunders has, in fact, engineered the league’s highest-scoring offense the last four years.

But in the end, I think, Peterson wants stability. He wants to go back to the 1990s. He can’t hire Marty Schottenheimer again. Herm Edwards looks like the next-best thing.

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sibkhat

Martyball = playing not to lose (and losing). Getting conservative in the playoffs.

Maulball (i.e., smashmouth) = An aggressive power running game that uses play-action to set up the pass.

How exactly did Okoye gain the characterization [however short it's duration d/t wearing down] as Mr. Power runner? How exactly did Deberg gain the characterization as king of the play action pass?

nmt1 · 01-05-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

My point was that an emphasis on running the ball does not necessarily equal a bland, conservative, punchless offense (i.e, Marty's Chiefs teams). You can run the ball a lot and still be potent through the air and wrack up points and win games and reach the Super Bowl. And that we have the personnel to do that even if Al Saunders leaves.

Not disagreeing with you.
Isn't it ironic that our offense now does what Marty tried to do for many years with little success? Guess we really do need a decent QB to go with a stong Oline and RB.

milkman · 01-05-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

The only person I've seen who's actively hostile to it is keg.

True.

But there are a number of people that simply refuse to acknowledge the existentence of that distinction, and just go on posting the same old BS as though it has never been explained.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

How exactly did Okoye gain the characterization [however short it's duration d/t wearing down] as Mr. Power runner? How exactly did Deberg gain the characterization as king of the play action pass?

You completely missed the point. Completely.

Martyball does not equal running the ball. It refers to being conservative, playing not to lose.

Marty ran the ball and ran play action -- then undermined it with horrendous tactical decisions.

People think maulball = running the ball = conservative = Marty.

We can play maulball without falling into Martyball.

Maulball is an offensive philosophy. Martyball is a coaching style.

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

You completely missed the point Completely.

Martyball does not equal running the ball. It refers to being conservative, playing not to lose.

Marty ran the ball and ran play action -- then undermined it with horrendous tactical decisions.

People think maulball = running the ball = conservative = Marty.

We can play maulball without falling into Martyball.

Maulball is an offensive philosophy. Martyball is a coaching style.

My point is, you make this distinction between Martyball and Maullball, when Marty coached a team that, for a period, had two who were known throughout the league the best at the two things you state as defining Maullball. AND they gained that distinction UNDER Marty. Just wondering how that was possible.
Don't tell me, Marty's coaching style led to the phantom holding call on Okoye's big run that put us in position to beat Miami in the playoffs. His 'play not to lose' ways led him to instruct John Alt to make it look like holding to put Lowery's feet to the fire.

FringeNC · 01-05-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Martyball is a coaching style.

I think it is more than just a tactical coaching style. Marty's teams were built to exploit the mistakes of bad teams. When we faced good teams in the playoffs, we lost, because they didn't beat themselves.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

My point is, you make this distinction between Martyball and Maullball, when Marty coached a team that, for a period, had two who were known throughout the league the best at the two things you state as defining Maullball. AND they gained that distinction UNDER Marty. Just wondering how that was possible.

As I said: Marty undermined maulball -- an offensive philosophy -- with a losing coaching philosophy (poor tactical decisions).

He got conservative with it. You don't have to be conservative with maulball.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I think it is more than just a tactical coaching style. Marty's teams were built to exploit the mistakes of bad teams. When we faced good teams in the playoffs, we lost, because they didn't beat themselves.

That too. A lot of things went wrong back then.

**Rausch** · 01-05-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

As I said: Marty undermined maulball -- an offensive philosophy -- with a losing coaching philosophy (poor tactical decisions).

He got conservative with it. You don't have to be conservative with maulball.

Exactly.

I'd welcome back smashmouth football in a heartbeat...

milkshock · 01-05-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Exactly.

I'd welcome back smashmouth football in a heartbeat...

I wouldn't. Generally speaking, smashmouth football teams, for whatever reason, tend to have their offensive deficiencies masked by smothering defenses.

stevieray · 01-05-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Sweet. Get the hell out of here.

It sure was sweet. I got to paint two players and an NFL logo.

what did you do today?

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

It sure was sweet. I got to paint two players and an NFL logo.

what did you do today?

I put another coat of paint on the Sistine Chapel.

stevieray · 01-05-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

I put another coat of paint on the Sistine Chapel.

I bet that pays well. did they give you hazordous duty pay for exerting energy?

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

I bet that pays well. did they give you hazordous duty pay for exerting energy?

I did it for free. I'm a true "artiste."

stevieray · 01-05-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

I did it for free. I'm a true "artiste."

what is a true artiste?

01-05-2006, 02:24 AM
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1702500	Posnanski: Longing for Martyball http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/13551859.htm Longing for Martyball Maybe Peterson believes Edwards can rekindle glory JOE POSNANSKI From the start, I’ve thought that Chiefs president/CEO/general manager/cruise director Carl Peterson would try to hire Herman Edwards to be coach. It just makes too much sense. Peterson loves Edwards. They go back more than 25 years. Peterson tried to recruit Edwards to UCLA. He signed Edwards as a pro player. He hired Edwards to work as a scout. He persuaded Edwards to go into coaching. He helped Edwards get the head-coaching job in New York. When Peterson hired Dick Vermeil, he hired someone who had been like a father to him. Hiring Herm Edwards would be like hiring something close to a son. But there’s something else at work here, too, something you can’t help but notice if you listen to Peterson talk. He has grown tired of the roller coaster. He has grown tired of 38-37 games. He has grown tired of winning seasons followed by losing seasons followed by winning seasons. You couldn’t miss it on Tuesday, when Peterson was challenged by a pointed question: With the way the Chiefs’ offense has played the last five years, how could you hire anyone but offensive coordinator Al Saunders? Peterson was not too crazy about the tone of the question. He bounced around a little bit, talked about the NFL minority-hiring policy, talked about how he knows Al Saunders’ strengths and weaknesses. And then he said this: “There are other considerations more than just the offensive side of the football.” Here’s what I thought: Carl Peterson really misses Marty. It isn’t the first time that Marty nostalgia has popped up either. Peterson misses the Marty Schottenheimer 1990s, when the Chiefs always won 10 or more games and always made the playoffs. True, to many Chiefs fans, that was the age of frustration, years most remembered for heartbreaking playoff losses and grinding 17-14 punt-fests. But to Peterson, those years were heaven. And I think he believes Herm Edwards can take the Chiefs back to heaven. See, this is what you have to understand about Peterson: The man hates losing. People always seem to miss this. Peterson hates losing football games as much as anyone in the NFL. Put it this way: He probably hates losing games more than you do. That disgust for losing has been the driving force behind Peterson and the Chiefs for 17 years. It is why the Chiefs have averaged about 10 victories per season over that time. It is why, unlike almost every other team in the NFL, the Chiefs have never been thoroughly awful on Peterson’s watch. Best winning percentages since 1989: 1. San Francisco, .618 2. Pittsburgh, .613 3. Denver, .610 4. Kansas City, .594 5. Green Bay, .588. Now you will point out that, unlike the other four teams on the list, the Chiefs have not made the Super Bowl in that time. Well, that’s a whole different argument. I’m talking about winning and losing games. Here — let me try and prove to you that Carl Peterson cares more about winning games than you do. I’ll make you an offer. You have two choices: 1. The Chiefs can win 10 or 11 games each of the next five years and make the playoffs, but they probably will not go to the Super Bowl. 2. The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl once in the next five years, guaranteed, but the other four years they will go 3-13. Now, which of those options would you take? I don’t know you very well, but I’m guessing you might take Option 2 — you would take four bad years for one Super Bowl championship. It has been so long for this town. We’re all dying for the title. I asked nine people — all nine took the Super Bowl win. I would take Option 2. That’s where Carl Peterson’s different. He would, almost without any doubt, take Option 1. He would not trade all those losses for one Super Bowl championship. No way. Winning and losing games matter to him too much. Winning is good business. He’d take the double-digit victories every year and take his chances in the playoffs. That’s what the Marty Schottenheimer days were all about. Good business. The Chiefs made the playoffs seven of eight years, they gave up the fewest points twice, they ran the ball down people’s throats, they had the best record in the AFC twice, they were as reliable as a Maytag. Peterson liked that. He tried to keep that metronome going with Gunther Cunningham, but things changed, Derrick died, the metronome stopped. So, Peterson went with his old friend, a Super Bowl coach, Dick Vermeil, and for five years it was a high-wire act, passes flying everywhere, scoreboards lighting up, touchdown dances galore. Everybody bet the over. Every game was exciting. But the Chiefs finished 6-10 one year, the worst record in the Peterson era. They had another losing season. They made the playoffs only once — that now makes it one playoff appearance in eight years. And I think, toward the end especially, Peterson, like George Jetson, wanted to get off this crazy thing. That’s why I think he will, if at all possible, hire Herm Edwards. Let’s face it: There’s nothing about Edwards that gets your heart racing. He has a losing record with the Jets. He has never coached a team to more than 10 wins. He has won a couple of playoff games — two more than the Chiefs have in the last decade — but he is probably best remembered for the way his Jets went into a Robert Novak conservative shell in the final minutes last season in Pittsburgh and lost a playoff game they had won. There are good things, too. The Jets did make the playoffs three times in five years — no Jets coach before had made the playoffs three times. Edwards’ players swear by him. They play hard for him. Terrific coaches like Tony Dungy, Bill Cowher and, yes, Schottenheimer, say that Edwards is one of the brightest coaches in the game. Give him a running game (Larry Johnson) and defensive talent (the Chiefs seem to have some), and he might very well do good things. There are some other interesting choices out there. Bob Stoops has been amazing at Oklahoma. Butch Davis was dreadful in Cleveland, but he was a big winner in college, too. Jim Fassel went to a Super Bowl with the Giants. And, hey, Al Saunders has, in fact, engineered the league’s highest-scoring offense the last four years. But in the end, I think, Peterson wants stability. He wants to go back to the 1990s. He can’t hire Marty Schottenheimer again. Herm Edwards looks like the next-best thing.
Posts: 54,995