Posnanski: Longing for Martyball - Page 5

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.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Are these posts from NYJ geniouses (chiefsplanet spelling)? If so, I take it with a grain of salt.

They are from Jets fans. Most of the posts I am quoting seem factually accurate and educated.

For instance, I didn't feel the need to quote this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jetman in indy

build what defense? our defense BLOWS! they were bitch slapped all year long. screww the stats this year. they couldn't stop anybody when it counted. WHAT DEFENSE did herm build?

FringeNC · 01-05-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Thank you, BL. Larry Johnson and a great defense will get you much further in this league than scoring 30 and giving up 32.

And for everyone's information - you have to GET to the playoffs before you can win a SB.

I welcome the Herm era.

A great D is great. Where's it gonna come from? The brain trust of Herman Edwards and Gunther Cunningham? Yeah, right.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 10:13 AM

All joking about Carl aside, I just cannot comprehend the stubborn arrogance of wanting to scrap this offense.

I can see playing more maulball (which is NOT Martyball, and yes I know keg disagrees with that) -- less shifting and trickery, but still plenty of play-action passing set up by a fabulous running back.

But otherwise, I just can't imagine someone coming in and thinking "we're going to scale it back and have 10 plays in the playbook, 9 of which are runs up the middle." I think any new coach would look at this job as: "The offense is SB-caliber right now; I'm not gonna waste time changing that. I'm gonna focus exclusively on the defense. I can win immediately with this team if I fix the defense."

Maybe I'm just naive.

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

Who is cometent enough to take over as OC in your opinion Htis????

I'm hoping Mike Solari gets a shot.

1) He knows this offense.

2) He's an offensive line coach, so he might have a better appreciation for doing what it takes to win games when you can't put up gawdy passing stats.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

They are from Jets fans. Most of the posts I am quoting seem factually accurate and educated.

Pass the salt, then.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I really want to see us switch to the Kiffin cover 2, so this is actually music to my ears.

Uh...and you think we have the personnel for it?

I certainly don't think our defensive line can handle rushing the quarterback all by themselves.

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

More:

If getting Vilma and hiring Henderson were his best moves, it seems he started righting the ship about the same time as they decided they didn't want him anymore.

That to me says we're getting him at the BEST possible time.

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Uh...and you think we have the personnel for it?

I certainly don't think our defensive line can handle rushing the quarterback all by themselves.

No, we absolutely DO NOT have the personnel for it.

We need to GET the personnel for it, instead of pussifying the scheme to fit the losers we have.

If they don't fit, CUT THEM.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Herm Edwards is most likely gonna be our coach. I might as well get used to the idea. I'm at least gonna enjoy it like I did the first 2 or 3 years of Vermeil -- until he either wins it all or proves he can't.

Im right there as well...it's just that this article scared the crap out of me.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Pass the salt, then.

Well, I don't know where else to find detailed information on the Jets from observers.

I certainly know the last BB I went to to mine information from was correct (Dolphins board on Surtain).

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:16 AM

Siberian,

Herm isn't stupid, neither is Carl. Stubborn maybe? Hell yeah.

They may scale down the offense some, but NOBODY is gonna come in here and scrap the most feared offense in the league.

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

They were only the 'best' because for a brief 2 year period we had an offense (read quarterback) that succeeded DESPITE of Marty. That's the ONLY reason you can say anything good about those Marty years.

Short of that, it was: run, run punt...get scored on early and have no way of scoring points in return. As long as the game of football is won by scoring points, I will allways prefer offense to defense.

The DV years were the exact converse of the Marty years. It wasnt much fun either, but going back to the Marty years of all D and no O, just flat sucks.

Why do people continue to harbor the belief that if a lie is repeated enough, it'll someday transform into truth. Marty's offenses weren't as good as we've had in the past 4 years, but it wasn't bottom of the barrel either. And it certainly wasn't historically, epically, mythically embarassing like our defense has been.
You've taken the trauma of a couple of, admittedly traumatic, playoff games and expanded them into the entirety of a decade of Chiefs play, and it's not an accurate summation.

nychief · 01-05-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

All joking about Carl aside, I just cannot comprehend the stubborn arrogance of wanting to scrap this offense.

I can see playing more maulball (which is NOT Martyball, and yes I know keg disagrees with that) -- less shifting and trickery, but still plenty of play-action passing set up by a fabulous running back.

But otherwise, I just can't imagine someone coming in and thinking "we're going to scale it back and have 10 plays in the playbook, 9 of which are runs up the middle." I think any new coach would look at this job as: "The offense is SB-caliber right now; I'm not gonna waste time changing that. I'm gonna focus exclusively on the defense. I can win immediately with this team if I fix the defense."

Maybe I'm just naive.

I think it would be foolish to assume that he is going to scrap the offense just because he is not going to hire Saunders. I mean hell, DV was not known as an offensive genius before a his first few years in St. Louis - those Eagles teams where not the greatest show on turf. I think to assume that Herm is set on a three runs and a punt offense is a little premature.

Messier · 01-05-2006, 10:25 AM

The offense will stay the same if only because of Trent Green. He could probably coach the coaches on how to run this.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Well, I don't know where else to find detailed information on the Jets from observers.

I certainly know the last BB I went to to mine information from was correct (Dolphins board on Surtain).

You're getting 'info' from people who sit in the stands. If their fans are anything like us, all information comes biased.

Forgive me if I dont jump on it as gospel at the onset.

You've already positioned yourself as one who advocates against hiring Edwards, so naturally, you're finding posts that support your position.

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

01-05-2006, 10:13 AM	#63
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2244950	All joking about Carl aside, I just cannot comprehend the stubborn arrogance of wanting to scrap this offense. I can see playing more maulball (which is NOT Martyball, and yes I know keg disagrees with that) -- less shifting and trickery, but still plenty of play-action passing set up by a fabulous running back. But otherwise, I just can't imagine someone coming in and thinking "we're going to scale it back and have 10 plays in the playbook, 9 of which are runs up the middle." I think any new coach would look at this job as: "The offense is SB-caliber right now; I'm not gonna waste time changing that. I'm gonna focus exclusively on the defense. I can win immediately with this team if I fix the defense." Maybe I'm just naive.
Posts: 69,307

01-05-2006, 10:16 AM	#71
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	Siberian, Herm isn't stupid, neither is Carl. Stubborn maybe? Hell yeah. They may scale down the offense some, but NOBODY is gonna come in here and scrap the most feared offense in the league.
Posts: 100,022

01-05-2006, 10:25 AM	#74
Messier MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $10005050	The offense will stay the same if only because of Trent Green. He could probably coach the coaches on how to run this.
Posts: 7,610