Posnanski: Longing for Martyball - Page 2

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.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote:

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.

This is why Carl and I will never get along.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 08:06 AM

Look at this. Innocent question. Herm lost it.

Quote:

The Jets were 2-5, seemingly out of hope, and a reporter asked Herman Edwards if he was worried about players giving up.

The question was posed by Kit Stier, the beat writer from the Westchester Journal-News, and it set off an emotional diatribe that became a defining moment for Edwards and the Jets. Who could forget Edwards' reply?

"That's the great thing about sports: You play to win the game," he said, offended by the mere suggestion that his team was on the verge of quitting. "Hello? You play to win the game!"

**the Talking Can** · 01-05-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Look at this. Innocent question. Herm lost it.

that equals "losing it?"

not a very high bar...

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

that equals "losing it?"

not a very high bar...

Are you kidding me? That shit made ESPN. He definitely lost it.

**the Talking Can** · 01-05-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Are you kidding me? That shit made ESPN. He definitely lost it.

You play to win the game = losing it?

ok....

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

You play to win the game = losing it?

ok....

It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.

**the Talking Can** · 01-05-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.

how could I miss such an epic meltdown?

right up there with Dean...

jidar · 01-05-2006, 08:18 AM

Who the **** cares about press conferences? Nobody.
I know I don't care what he does in press conferences.
Hell, if he shits in his hand and throws it at the reporters I still don't care so long as he's winning on the field.

**the Talking Can** · 01-05-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jidar

Who the **** cares about press conferences? Nobody.
I know I don't care what he does in press conferences.
Hell, if he shits in his hand and throws it at the reporters I still don't care so long as he's winning on the field.

no, you don't get it...it was "infamous" to the Jet's equivelant of NEPA...

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 08:23 AM

This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

Extra Point · 01-05-2006, 08:23 AM

I see the Chiefs going 3-13 WITHOUT winning the Super Bowl with Edwards.

If you play to win, then first get your team to play. Edwards can't do that, and that's the whole problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't more Super Bowls been won with former offensive coordinators as head coaches?

**Skip Towne** · 01-05-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. I guess you missed it. It's infamous among Jets fans.

Your and idiot.

**the Talking Can** · 01-05-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

This article makes me ill...

I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'.

That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing.

yes, but CP remembers it fondly....

stevieray · 01-05-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

It's called being a professional.

get and hold down a job before you call others unprofessional.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

get and hold down a job before you call others unprofessional.

Your paintings are pretty unprofessional. I think they blow.

But don't worry, you make a great "Professional Fan."

01-05-2006, 02:24 AM
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1442500	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: 55,071

01-05-2006, 08:18 AM	#23
jidar MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: a Casino cash: $10004900	Who the **** cares about press conferences? Nobody. I know I don't care what he does in press conferences. Hell, if he shits in his hand and throws it at the reporters I still don't care so long as he's winning on the field.
Posts: 5,502

01-05-2006, 08:23 AM	#25
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9892732	This article makes me ill... I dont want to return to the days of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, 2 runs a pass and a punt, inability to get a first down to kill the clock, punting to give the ball back to the other team and 'putting it on the defense'. That was 10 horrible years of football. Making the playoffs means nothing. __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,193

01-05-2006, 08:23 AM	#26
Extra Point MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Prairie Village, KS Casino cash: $10004900	I see the Chiefs going 3-13 WITHOUT winning the Super Bowl with Edwards. If you play to win, then first get your team to play. Edwards can't do that, and that's the whole problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't more Super Bowls been won with former offensive coordinators as head coaches? __________________ "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." --Satchel Paige
Posts: 7,845