An addition to the Pioli resume

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I adamantly disagree with any notion of a "rebuild" in the sense that a team cannot be reasonably successful while going through it. Thus, discounting or prorating our evaluation of Pioli in '09 in nonsensical in my view.

Our talent at key positions was pretty damn good. Still is, though it's largely the same guys. If Pioli were even reasonably good at his job, we could have been a consistent playoff team from '09 forward.

I don't care whom Clark hires as the next GM; the sonofabitch doesn't get an "evaluation year." Furthermore, "rebuilding" is rhetorical bullshit sold on fans to get them to continue to support financially a shit team. It's fluff and does nothing but absolve blame and buy time.

"Evaluation years," "Right 53s," "Processes," and "Rebuilding years" can be shoved right up the next GM's ass if he even dares utter these trite cliches.

Okay.

What do you call it when you install entirely new defensive and offensive playbooks and schemes, reassign positional responsibilities to your "best" players, and introduce an entirely new leadership group into the mix?

I know ... let's call it "Gloobering"! That should work just fine.

FAX

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

Okay.

What do you call it when you install entirely new defensive and offensive playbooks and schemes, reassign positional responsibilities to your "best" players, and introduce an entirely new leadership group into the mix?

I know ... let's call it "Gloobering"! That should work just fine.

FAX

Outside of QB, are the Chiefs more talented than the Colts? How are the Redskins possibly surviving during this difficult "rebuilding" process? Hell, what about the Seahawks, the least talked about good team in the NFL? That "rebuild" is a bitch.

Why in the world should the highest paid GM in the game get a mulligan, if one entire season can even be counted so lightly?

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Outside of QB, are the Chiefs more talented than the Colts? How are the Redskins possibly surviving during this difficult "rebuilding" process? Hell, what about the Seahawks, the least talked about good team in the NFL? That "rebuild" is a bitch.

Why in the world should the highest paid GM in the game get a mulligan, if one entire season can even be counted so lightly?

How should I know? I'm just a passerby in the football game of life.

But here's my best guess ...

When other franchise find themselves in the gloobering phase, they have the benefit of certain advantages the Chiefs simply do not possess. Namely, things like a more successful tradition or better coaching or stellar players at key positions (like say ... quarterback) or more recent experience in playing in and even winning playoff games.

As I see it, there are so many variables (schedule, fitting players into entirely new schemes or not, quality at key positions, or lack thereof, etc., etc.) that it's very difficult to isolate one particular gloober issue or (as the OP does) compare franchises in the way you wish to do, Mr. DeezNutz. We cannot magically snap our fingers and become the Redskins or the Seahawks or the Colts or anybody else.

I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean ...

The Chiefs have been historically bad at things like developing players. Unless we draft a player who enters the league with franchise or near-franchise talent and a driving, personal desire to improve (say ... a Tony Gonzalez type) we rarely see them improve from "okay" to "great". We've had a few, but not many. Additionally, the Chiefs seem to suck at what some people call "complimentary football". We either have a good offense and a bad defense or vice versa. That means when we try and gloober (like those teams you mention) we are working from a fundamental, organizational, systemic disadvantage. It's the reason we are always the league's ugly bridesmaids. And until those fundamentals change, we'll always suck when it counts the most.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm not sure that other franchises (the good ones, I mean) maintain the inherent loser mentality that the Chiefs have cultivated for some 50 years. In social terms, those franchises have a "high bottom" whereas ours is apparently bottomless.

FAX

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

How should I know? I'm just a passerby in the football game of life.

But here's my best guess ...

When other franchise find themselves in the gloobering phase, they have the benefit of certain advantages the Chiefs simply do not possess. Namely, things like a more successful tradition or better coaching or stellar players at key positions (like say ... quarterback) or more recent experience in playing in and even winning playoff games.

As I see it, there are so many variables (schedule, fitting players into entirely new schemes or not, quality at key positions, or lack thereof, etc., etc.) that it's very difficult to isolate one particular gloober issue or (as the OP does) compare franchises in the way you wish to do, Mr. DeezNutz. We cannot magically snap our fingers and become the Redskins or the Seahawks or the Colts or anybody else.

I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean ...

The Chiefs have been historically bad at things like developing players. Unless we draft a player who enters the league with franchise or near-franchise talent and a driving, personal desire to improve (say ... a Tony Gonzalez type) we rarely see them improve from "okay" to "great". We've had a few, but not many. Additionally, the Chiefs seem to suck at what some people call "complimentary football". We either have a good offense and a bad defense or vice versa. That means when we try and gloober (like those teams you mention) we are working from a fundamental, organizational, systemic disadvantage. It's the reason we are always the league's ugly bridesmaids. And until those fundamentals change, we'll always suck when it counts the most.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm not sure that other franchises (the good ones, I mean) maintain the inherent loser mentality that the Chiefs have cultivated for some 50 years. In social terms, those franchises have a "high bottom" whereas ours is apparently bottomless.

FAX

Good post. I appreciate Mrs. FAX taking the time to write it.

Plagiarism or any 'ism aside, all of what I've bolded, at least to me, ties directly back to the GM. Now, I'm not suggesting that our new GM will be able to snap his fingers and make everything magically better. But I do expect tangible progress, even in year one.

As to history and culture, are we really at a disadvantage with respect to these qualities in comparison to the Seahawks and Colts? The latter of which should have been known at the Mannings, with an enormous frontal lobe on the side of the helmets.