Posnanski: Longing for Martyball - Page 6

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.

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...

tomahawk kid · 01-05-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Marty try to throw the ball all over the field in the 1995 playoff game against the Colts?

IIRC, he REFUSED to run the ball in a 10-7 ballgame.

The net result was 3 Bono picks and all those FG misses.

Someone keep me honest here if I'm wrong.

Brock · 01-05-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

Marty wasn't a bad coach. He had just been here too long. An organization has to change up every few years, or it goes stale.

In SD, if they really want to win a Super Bowl, they would change coaches right now.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

Are you kidding me? I lead the charge in repeating lies long enough, to make them urban legends. Ive been working on one for a number of years.

Rather than bog down in the minutae of statistical analysis of whether ot not Marty's offenses were 'good' versus 'bad', it was embarrassing like our defense has been especially when KC needed to score points to win the game.

There's no myth to the fact that Marty played 'not to lose' and would settle for the FG or glady give away the football in critical times and put it on his defense (the great mythical defense) which you crumble come crunch time (kind of like our offense of today). Marty does that to this day.

Was the playoff flame out of 2003 any worse than the playoff flame outs of 1995 or 1997--hell no.

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wasn't his offense.

It was his offensive playcalling in the playoffs.

The only year he didn't do it, we had Joe Montana.

I think Marty has/had serious "can't trust my QB not to throw the game away" issues...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Titus

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.
___________________

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.

Where does this mention playoffs? Looks like someone's commenting on the entire 10 years to me. Further, he's comparing Marty years to Vermeil years, . . . so the playoffs are pretty much irrelevant as a comparison point.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

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

That's damn near ALL THERE IS. 95% of the people can't be wrong.

You got anywhere ELSE to find info?

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Was the playoff flame out of 2003 any worse than the playoff flame outs of 1995 or 1997--hell no.

The 2003 loss wasn't a flame out. It was a foregone conclusion. They played exactly the style they'd displayed to that point, as well as that style could be played, and it was shown to be fatally flawed.
The 95 and 97 were flame-outs. They were out of character. 95 was a throw-a-pooloza on a bitterly cold and windy day with a HoF RB on idle. 97 was a still healing QB not ready to put up points, and Gonzo getting jobbed in the EZ.
My defense of the Marty years isn't about lauding those flame-outs, it's about remining people there actually were 170 some-odd other games played, most of them very very well.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

The 2003 loss wasn't a flame out. It was a foregone conclusion. They played exactly the style they'd displayed to that point, as well as that style could be played, and it was shown to be fatally flawed.
The 95 and 97 were flame-outs. They were out of character. 95 was a throw-a-pooloza on a bitterly cold and windy day with a HoF RB on idle. 97 was a still healing QB not ready to put up points, and Gonzo getting jobbed in the EZ.
My defense of the Marty years isn't about lauding those flame-outs, it's about remining people there actually were 170 some-odd other games played, most of them very very well.

Semantics aside, the loss was just another first round exit like the others. 95 and 97 can be directly attributed to coaches decisions--passing instead of running or starting the wrong QB and you want to go back to that.

Sorry, I dont.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

That's damn near ALL THERE IS. 95% of the people can't be wrong.

You got anywhere ELSE to find info?

I dont find it suprising after this last year that 95% of the NYJ fans think Edwards is a bad coach. Fans have the attention span of average 4 year olds when it comes to their coach/team.

Again, forgive me for not believing a bunch of disgruntled fans after a 4-12 season or whatever they were.

siberian khatru · 01-05-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Rather than bog down in the minutae of statistical analysis of whether ot not Marty's offenses were 'good' versus 'bad', it was embarrassing like our defense has been especially when KC needed to score points to win the game.

I remember it being more "frustrating" than "embarassing." Well, except for the 1992 playoff shutout loss at SD. That was embarassing.

This D has sickened me. It's been off-the-charts bad. The Marty O just depressed me. It was just sluggish as hell.

However, the bottom-line results were the same: No playoff wins, no SB. Point being, we've had one-sided teams for 17 years.

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Semantics aside, the loss was just another first round exit like the others. 95 and 97 can be directly attributed to coaches decisions--passing instead of running or starting the wrong QB and you want to go back to that.

Sorry, I dont.

Salient distinctions are not semantics. But I can understand you wanting to broaden the proposition to the point that it carries no impact.
Both were 1st round exits, but one was an exit because the plan was carried out as well as it could be, but was fatally flawed. The others were examples of plans being scrapped and the new plans not being ready for prime time. That's an important disinction, IMO.
Why not go all out? Marty, Vermiel, Donald Trump and William Hung are all equally good/bad coaches, as none have won a SB for the Chiefs.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm espousing a rational view of history. I've never espoused a return to bad decision making. that's just stupid.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Salient distinctions are not semantics. But I can understand you wanting to broaden the proposition to the point that it carries no impact.
Both were 1st round exits, but one was an exit because the plan was carried out as well as it could be, but was fatally flawed. The others were examples of plans being scrapped and the new plans not being ready for prime time. That's an important disinction, IMO.
Why not go all out? Marty, Vermiel, Donald Trump and William Hung are all equally good/bad coaches, as none have won a SB for the Chiefs.
And don't put words in my mouth. I'm espousing a rational view of history. I've never espoused a return to bad decision making. that's just stupid.

LOL...Salient distinctions...I like it, but again, it's nothing short of parsing. You find some sort of nobility in the playoff losses of 95 and 97 and nothing good about the loss of 2003. Fine, whatever. I dont see any difference.

I dont prefer to go back to 2003 or 1995 or 1997.

A rational view of history would not be complete without acknowledging that the playoff losses during Marty's tenure were the result of complete and totally embarrassing offensive performances coupled with boneheaded coaching decisions. Not to mention going a decade without a RB putting up 1000 yards in a season. The only wins were dispite Marty and because of Montana.

Again, as long as I can recall the game of football has been won due to scoring points. To do that requires and offense. Relying on converted FB's and shaky FG kickers is not going to do it. Hell, it wasnt until Brady showed up that NE became the dynasty they are today.

Gaz · 01-05-2006, 12:59 PM

I NEVER want to see Martyball again.

That is why I am not enamored of Edwards in KC.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not interested in stepping backwards.

dj56dt58 · 01-05-2006, 01:02 PM

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.

Except with the Chiefs now that wouldn't happen. We have LJ, he can run the ball all day long for I care. Can anyone stop him? Not that I have seen. The only difference would be maybe our Defense could acctually stop somebody. Martyball would be Perfect for Kc right now. We still have a great offensive line, we run the ball a lot w/ LJ, who nobody can stop. And Trent, who for right now is still our qb for at least another year, is still a very good QB who can convert on 3rd down. These are things kc didn't have very often when Marty was here ...

**Baby Lee** · 01-05-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

You find some sort of nobility in the playoff losses of 95 and 97 and nothing good about the loss of 2003.

You have real problems with reading comprehension.
I have ascribed no nobility to any of the playoff losses. I was simply pointing out the different ways in which the failures came about. One was the stupidity of changing your successful gameplans in the playoffs without making sure that the conditions were appropriate and the preparedness of the team was adequate. The other was the stupidity of thinking there was an ever made offense that could carry a defense as shitty as we had. Both are stupidity.
I know that, for you, pretending that respecting Marty means being in agape love with his shortcomings makes it easier to argue your point. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is I respect the things he did well, and hoped like heck when he was our coach that he'd correct the things he didn't do well.

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, 12:59 PM	#88
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	Don't do it, Carl...I'm begging you... I NEVER want to see Martyball again. That is why I am not enamored of Edwards in KC. xoxo~ Gaz Not interested in stepping backwards.
Posts: 5,911