The state of the Kansas City Chiefs.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

My thoughts too.

But does this extend to the players...? I know they are under contract, but still...don't know how some of them could be mentally prepared to play every time they step foot on 1 Arrowhead Dr.

No, they weren't witness to it. Nor are they being asked to lead a football program.

A lot of the people that were at the facility today are going to be scarred by this. We're gonna need someone with zero connections to this incident in order to move forward next year.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

No, they weren't witness to it. Nor are they being asked to lead a football program.

A lot of the people that were at the facility today are going to be scarred by this. We're gonna need someone with zero connections to this incident in order to move forward next year.

Harsh to say just hours after the fact, but absolutely true.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

No, they weren't witness to it. Nor are they being asked to lead a football program.

A lot of the people that were at the facility today are going to be scarred by this. We're gonna need someone with zero connections to this incident in order to move forward next year.

Absolutely true.

It won't turn the franchise around, but maybe it can start to resemble NFL football at some point.

This is the freaking Twilight Zone.

[bevischief]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

I don't think anyone associated with this tragedy should be part of the leadership group next season.

We badly need a fresh start.

I agree.

[FlaChief58]

Just when you think things could'nt get any worse with this team....Condolences to the families.

[lcarus]

The state of the Kansas City Chiefs is Missouri. I know it's confusing to some people not familiar with the region. I mean...why the F is it called Kansas City if it's in Missouri? There's another Kansas City that's actually in Kansas? Why don't the Chiefs play there?

Here's an explanation on the history of Kansas City and why it's called that when it is, in fact, in Missouri and not Kansas. Nice thread! I believe it will clear things up for a lot of people!

Both Kansas and Missouri have a Kansas City, but neither started with that name.

Kansas City in Missouri has been incorporated three different times under three different names. Prior to the first incorporation, the site of early Kansas City was a boat dock called Westport Landing.

In the 1830s, John McCoy’s settlement of West Port, at what is now Westport Road and Pennsylvania, outfitted pioneers for the Santa Fe Trail. Since the nearest landing for river travel and transport was 14 miles away at Blue Mills, near Independence, McCoy established a closer landing on the bluffs at the bend in the Missouri River, just two miles north of his settlement.

Soon after McCoy established “Westport Landing” in 1834, Kansas Town Company, a group of 14 investors, began to settle the area. In 1850 the landing area incorporated as the Town of Kansas; in 1853, as the City of Kansas; and finally in 1889 as Kansas City. John McCoy’s settlement, the old town of Westport, was annexed by Kansas City, Missouri, on December 2, 1897.

The Kansas, or Kaw, River flows into the Missouri River near the site of the early town, and the city founders finally settled on this geographic term for the town’s name. The Kansas River was named after the Kansa Indian tribe located in the area.

http://www.kclibrary.org/kchistory/w...instead-kansas

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by lcarus

The state of the Kansas City Chiefs is Missouri. I know it's confusing to some people not familiar with the region. I mean...why the F is it called Kansas City if it's in Missouri? There's another Kansas City that's actually in Kansas? Why don't the Chiefs play there?

Here's an explanation on the history of Kansas City and why it's called that when it is, in fact, in Missouri and not Kansas. Nice thread! I believe it will clear things up for a lot of people!

Both Kansas and Missouri have a Kansas City, but neither started with that name.

Kansas City in Missouri has been incorporated three different times under three different names. Prior to the first incorporation, the site of early Kansas City was a boat dock called Westport Landing.

In the 1830s, John McCoy’s settlement of West Port, at what is now Westport Road and Pennsylvania, outfitted pioneers for the Santa Fe Trail. Since the nearest landing for river travel and transport was 14 miles away at Blue Mills, near Independence, McCoy established a closer landing on the bluffs at the bend in the Missouri River, just two miles north of his settlement.

Soon after McCoy established “Westport Landing” in 1834, Kansas Town Company, a group of 14 investors, began to settle the area. In 1850 the landing area incorporated as the Town of Kansas; in 1853, as the City of Kansas; and finally in 1889 as Kansas City. John McCoy’s settlement, the old town of Westport, was annexed by Kansas City, Missouri, on December 2, 1897.

The Kansas, or Kaw, River flows into the Missouri River near the site of the early town, and the city founders finally settled on this geographic term for the town’s name. The Kansas River was named after the Kansa Indian tribe located in the area.

http://www.kclibrary.org/kchistory/w...instead-kansas

^ awesome

I love KC History

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by lcarus

.

Neg'd

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

Neg'd

Mr. Tomahawk.

[Lumpy]

IMO, this doesn't change much, other than having 1 less player on the roster. What Crennel and Pioli witnessed today will, without a doubt, have an impact on them. Belcher was in his 4th year, right? That's a lot of time for management and a player to build a relationship.

As far as if this will affect me as a fan, not really. I haven't been paying much attention to the games. If they had a decent season, I would be more interested. But the rebuilding year after year and the lack of effective management has deterred me from, well, pretty much giving a shit.

This wasn't always the case though. When I became a Chiefs fan in '94 I looked forward to every single game. Win or lose, the game was exciting. It was because of my husband, (then b/f), that I became a fan. We watched the games together, he taught me about the sport, and we even spent our honeymoon at Arrowhead, (the Chiefs crushed the Lions). It's just something nice to share w/ someone.

Perhaps one of these days the excitement will return.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

IMO, this doesn't change much, other than having 1 less player on the roster. What Crennel and Pioli witnessed today will, without a doubt, have an impact on them. Belcher was in his 4th year, right? That's a lot of time for management and a player to build a relationship.

As far as if this will affect me as a fan, not really. I haven't been paying much attention to the games. If they had a decent season, I would be more interested. But the rebuilding year after year and the lack of effective management has deterred me from, well, pretty much giving a shit.

This wasn't always the case though. When I became a Chiefs fan in '94 I looked forward to every single game. Win or lose, the game was exciting. It was because of my husband, (then b/f), that I became a fan. We watched the games together, he taught me about the sport, and we even spent our honeymoon at Arrowhead, (the Chiefs crushed the Lions). It's just something nice to share w/ someone.

Perhaps one of these days the excitement will return.

I know how you feel...

Part of that excitement will be gone forever for me...

it sucks.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

I know how you feel...

Part of that excitement will be gone forever for me...

it sucks.

Why? Because of Belcher?

This is leading the sports news cycle today, but the emotion of it will soon fade. Yeah, we'll remember and talk about from time to time, but this isn't going to be a defining moment. Rather, it's one that we'll be forced to remember when the douches at ESPN put together a documentary of the events.

Fans, players, and the organization as a whole will move past this and be just fine. Belcher was no DT, and thus the memory of the former will fade greatly over time.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Why? Because of Belcher?

Shit no, because of the whole thing, man.

The Haley firing was inexcusable, 4 seasons of Matt Cassel AFTER 3 seasons of Huard/Croyle/Thigpen, letting Carr walk, Larry Johnson, the list goes on and on...but the reality is that This team has fallen flat on its face ever since Clark Hunt took over, almost from the ****ing minute it happened.

I think he's a billionaire business man who doesn't care about football, the Chiefs, fheir fans or Kansas City in general.

and I think it kinda shows. Forgive me for feeling disgusted when I look through my closet and all I see are red jerseys and red/yellow hoodies.

I feel like a ****ing chump because I have nothing else to wear.

I feel like I'm a sucker who's been duped.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

Shit no, because of the whole thing, man.

The Haley firing was inexcusable, 4 seasons of Matt Cassel AFTER 3 seasons of Huard/Croyle/Thigpen, letting Carr walk, Larry Johnson, the list goes on and on...but the reality is that This team has fallen flat on its face ever since Clark Hunt took over, almost from the ****ing minute it happened.

I think he's a billionaire business man who doesn't care about football, the Chiefs, fheir fans or Kansas City in general.

and I think it kinda shows. Forgive me for feeling disgusted when I look through my closet and all I see are red jerseys and red/yellow hoodies.

I feel like a ****ing chump because I have nothing else to wear.

I feel like I'm a sucker who's been duped.

Understandable emotions, but I believe these will pass when we get a new GM and things genuinely begin moving in the right direction. At some point--I hope not too long from now--there will be a rebirth of Arrowhead.