Posnanski: Longing for Martyball - Page 4

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, 09:43 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.

Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W.
Ooh, Posno found two or three instances where some QB called a surpise pass and instead of running the clock on a run, they ran the clock on a pass then kneel-downs. How exciting. Maybe we should go all-out and recruit someone who'll urge our QB to get really crazy and throw some J.George/Jake the Snake left-handed pass to nowhere that gives the entire league chuckle.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W....

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.

Inspector · 01-05-2006, 09:48 AM

"He probably hates losing games more than you do."

Uh...I don't think so. Especially based on some of his decisiosn over the years. IMO

FringeNC · 01-05-2006, 09:48 AM

After reading this article, and the fact that Al Saunders didn't get the job, makes me scared that we may actually dump this offense.

KChiefs1 · 01-05-2006, 09:51 AM

http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/...036/0071445099

KChiefs1 · 01-05-2006, 09:58 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ts.edwards.ap/

"We're doing the best we can do. It sounds real good, 'Open it up, go for broke, go do this, and go do that," he said. "That gives you the best chance of getting blown out in a game, trying to play that way. It's not like you throw caution to the wind. Go out there, run double reverses, trick plays. We're not some circus team."Maybe we're all dumb coaches. That's fine. That doesn't bother me."

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:01 AM

Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

Donnie Henderson might.

From the Jets board:

Quote:

Herm has never called or installed a defense in his life, and when he got to the Jets he tried to run the defense that he was a part of in Tampa, where Monty Kiffin is a genius. It failed miserably because there was never the personnel here to run it. We had man-cover corners and run-stopping LB's. Herm didn't see fit to play to their strengths, instead trying to fit square pegs into round holes. It was abysmal.

Quote:

I believe we were top 10 D the year before he took over, and took steps back in 2001 & 2002, despite playoff appearances. Our D never really improved under him. The first half of the 2001 season was a disaster on defense. The D never really looked strong against strong offenses on a consistent basis. 2004 they played well, but they also played alot of weak offenses. IMO, he's not really an Xs and Os guy. He's never been a coordinator. He just leads the bunch, and [should] let his coordinators handle the Xs & Os. It's his best chance at success. He's not a bad coach, but strategy is not exactly his strongest suit.

Quote:

He hired someone to turn the defense around after hiring the wrong one initially. I liked Herm for most of the time he was here, but he really did more to set our defense back than he did to improve it here... this is in reference to the expectations I had when I first heard we were hiring a "Defensive-minded HC".

oldandslow · 01-05-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Here it comes back again. If the 10 years of Marty were horrible, they were the best we've gotten out of the Chiefs in my lifetime, which is a pretty sad commentary.
I'm all for offensive productivity and creativity, but give me a defense you can rely on week in week out over a defense that's an embarassment to the entire concept of the game, seasoned with some thrilling propensity to toss some wacky balls-out play on offense at the end of the game in the hopes of scritching out a W.
Ooh, Posno found two or three instances where some QB called a surpise pass and instead of running the clock on a run, they ran the clock on a pass then kneel-downs. How exciting. Maybe we should go all-out and recruit someone who'll urge our QB to get really crazy and throw some J.George/Jake the Snake left-handed pass to nowhere that gives the entire league chuckle.

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.

MOhillbilly · 01-05-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

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

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Baby Lee and Titus,

Why can't we have BOTH?

I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE.

I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...

I sure hope so...If he can keep the O and rebuild the D, I'd be happy.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldandslow

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

And in Marty's case, not even that is good enough.

Hammock Parties · 01-05-2006, 10:08 AM

More:

Quote:

emphatically - herm, nor anyone post - parcells "built the jets defense"

in 2001 - the jets had the proverbial leftovers from parcells and some young studs ther with ellis and abe

herm installed his version of the cover 2 and pretty sealed the fate of the defense under cottrell for the next 2 years - they had their moments but it would lead to an overhaul after only 2 years....

then they try to re-tool the defensive line, secondary and linebacking core - mostly with middle round picks and second tier FA's - something that very risky - especially when you should be building your unit around 2 potential pro-bowl DE's.....

henderson comes in, vilma comes in, drob comes in and the defense definitely steps it up in aggressiveness, creativity and overall tallent...

however, IMO, they still have the ability to build a super-unit by keeping abe, getting a stud NT and a stud corner. - these are annual issues that just won't go away.

To give edwards credit for building a defense is very short sighted and frankly not correct.....

the 2 best moves that were made under his watch was the drafting of vilma and the hiring of henderson. in 5 years that is a very short list.

KCTitus · 01-05-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

More:

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

htismaqe · 01-05-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

Donnie Henderson might.

From the Jets board:

On the first quote, I like it. I WANT someone to come in here and run their scheme instead of pussifying it to fit the losers we have here now, which is basically what Gunther did. I really want to see us switch to the Kiffin cover 2, so this is actually music to my ears.

On the second quote, I don't care he's never been a coordinator. He's not gonna call the plays, his defensive coordinator is. He has, however, played defense, coached a defensive position, and scouted defensive players in his career. I like all of those things.

On the third quote, I don't really know what to say.

It's simple for me:

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.

01-05-2006, 02:24 AM
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1852500	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: 54,970

01-05-2006, 09:48 AM	#48
Inspector MVP Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: K.C. Casino cash: $9924975	"He probably hates losing games more than you do." Uh...I don't think so. Especially based on some of his decisiosn over the years. IMO
Posts: 7,907

01-05-2006, 09:48 AM	#49
FringeNC MVP Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: NC Casino cash: $1646014	After reading this article, and the fact that Al Saunders didn't get the job, makes me scared that we may actually dump this offense.
Posts: 10,173

01-05-2006, 09:51 AM	#50
KChiefs1 I’m a Mahomo! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Mid-Missouri Casino cash: $6771021	http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/...036/0071445099 __________________
Posts: 54,038

01-05-2006, 09:58 AM	#51
KChiefs1 I’m a Mahomo! Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Mid-Missouri Casino cash: $6771021	http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ts.edwards.ap/ "We're doing the best we can do. It sounds real good, 'Open it up, go for broke, go do this, and go do that," he said. "That gives you the best chance of getting blown out in a game, trying to play that way. It's not like you throw caution to the wind. Go out there, run double reverses, trick plays. We're not some circus team."Maybe we're all dumb coaches. That's fine. That doesn't bother me." __________________
Posts: 54,038

01-05-2006, 10:01 AM	#52
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	Baby Lee and Titus, Why can't we have BOTH? I think Carl maybe has finally realized that you can't win it all without BALANCE. I have every reason to believe right now that a guy like Herm can bring back the hard-nosed defensive attitude of Marty and still recognize that you don't just scrap an offense like ours...
Posts: 100,022