NFL.com is reporting that if Peyton Manning goes to the Broncos then Tim Tebow might become trade bait. I think that's a weird idea since Manning likely only has a couple of years left. If this is true, what would Chiefs Nation think about trading for Tebow?

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea so long as he's used as a hybrid-type player. The Broncos were running a glorified high school offense last year to compensate for Tebow's weaknesses. What if you move him all over the field? Line him up in the backfield. Line him up at receiver. Occasionally put him under center. He may not be an NFL quarterback, but he's clearly an athlete and obviously a competitor. The divine intervention is also a nice bonus.

Remember when McCluster was drafted and the descriptor tagged on Dex was "offensive weapon"? To me, Tebow would make a pretty dangerous offensive weapon.

And also having Tebow in KC would give certain fans the media attention the so weirdly crave...

Mike Tomlin. Bill Cowher. Chuck Knoll.

Three coaches. Over the past 5 decades the Pittsburgh Steelers have had only 3 head coaches. The Chiefs by contrast have had 4 head coaches since 2005, if you count Crennel's 3 game stint as interim head coach. If Crennel isn't hired as head coach the Chiefs will have had 5 head coaches since 2005. (If you're keeping score at home we've had 37 offensive coordinators in that time span.) The point is this: when the Steelers hire a head coach they hit a home run every time.

I bring up the Steelers because a few years ago Clark Hunt brought them up. When Hunt was introducing Scott Pioli as the new GM of the Chiefs Clark brought up the Steelers as the NFL team he wanted the Chiefs to resemble. The Steelers were almost always good, they were almost always a fairly serious contender for the Superbowl and there was an almost unmatched level of stability the organization enjoyed. The Steelers have had 3 head coaches since 1969. Three head coaches in 42 years. And I think it's worth mentioning that in that time frame they've had 8 Superbowl appearances and won the thing 6 times. If you're going to pick a model organization in the NFL the Steelers are a good place to start.

Which is why I find the assumption that Romeo Crennel is going to be the next head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs to be a little bit mystifying. If Clark indeed wants to use the Steelers as his model for building the Chiefs then hiring Crennel makes no sense at all. If Clark wants to build a stable organization that can win year in and year out then hiring Crennel makes not sense at all.

Romeo Crennel is 64 years old. He was out of coaching for a season due to hip replacement surgery. I don't mean this to be cruel, but he's quite overweight. How much longer can he coach? Is it possible that he might have some serious health concerns in the next few years? If the Steelers are the model, why would you hire a coach that you know is only going to be around for 3 or 4 years?

I've read in many sources that a Crennel hiring is only a stopgap measure until the Chiefs can hire somebody else. That a younger coach like Josh McDaniels would be groomed for a few seasons while Crennel works as HC and then take over once Romeo retires. Again, if the Steelers are the model were're trying to emulate why would we consider a head coaching situation that resemblers The Apprentice?

If the Steelers are the model then we should be hiring a young coach that's here for 10-15 years. Not an old man who will be here 3 or 4.

The speculation is all on the Chiefs' coaching situation but I've been kind of fascinated with where Todd Haley will end up. He's a great receivers coach and did a fine job of OC in Arizona. But this season was a flat out disaster and I'm curious to see how badly it will tarnish Haley's overall reputation. If the rumors are true and Haley was torpedoing his own team by playing Palko when they still had a shot at the playoffs (or even if it's not true but the perception of it persists) and he was doing this to thumb his nose at his boss, how much could it hurt his chances to catch on someplace else? Haley has no shortage of players who are supportive of him. It's common for failed HCs to land as OCs following dismissals. I'm curious to see if Haley's coaching somewhere next year or if he gets busted down to receivers coach again.

There was a lot of of speculation on Monday that the reason the Dolphins fired Tony Sparano was in response to the Chiefs firing Haley--to get word out fast that they're looking for a new coach. I have no doubt that the Chiefs' firing of Haley with three weeks left in the season was at least partially intended to get a leg up on the other teams that would be searching for a new head coach as well. Remember when Haley was hired? After the Super Bowl, when many of the better coaching candidates had already been snatched up, I think the Chiefs want to be in the driver's seat when it comes to hiring their next coach.

I also think the Chiefs job is by far the most attractive of the three currently open and may still be the best HC job when all the other coaching vacancies are revealed (there could be as many as nine coaches fired).

First of all, the Chiefs are one of the storied franchises in the NFL. KC is a small market and as you guys know the small market teams often get the shaft when it comes to getting their story out there. But take a look at the Chiefs' story: The original owner founded the AFL, which more or less resulted in the AFC as we know it today. The original owner coined the name "Super Bowl". The team played in the first ever, jet-pack enhanced Super Bowl game and won the fourth one. The team played in the now legendary longest game in NFL history. Our rivalry with the hated Oakland Raiders remains one of the two or three greatest rivalries in the NFL. In the 90s we were the second-winningest team in the NFL, only the 49ers won more games in that decade. The Chiefs have one of the great fan bases in the NFL and Arrowhead Stadium is still one of the most formidable places for opposing teams to play. And speaking of Arrowhead, it just got a shiny new facelift and has re-taken its place as one of the premiere, state of the art stadiums in the NFL. As an NFL team, the Chiefs are as attractive a place to work as any in the league.

Miami is also a storied NFL franchise, but it's playing in an older stadium now (built more recently than Arrowhead but not recently renovated). And I don't think you could exactly call their fan base passionate. There is so much to do in South Florida and actually going to a Dolphins game is often an afterthought. I lived in South Florida for a few years and attended many Dolphins games -- the game day experience just isn't even close to what KC offers. The crowd is quiet and just kind of sits there. The games are often sold out but the stadium is awash with no shows as people decide to go to the beach instead. So yes, the Dolphins are as storied a franchise as the Chiefs but wouldn't a coach prefer to play for a more passionate fan base that has one of the most formidable 12th men in the league? In a newly rebuilt stadium?

And then there's Jacksonville. The Jacksonville job isn't even close to being in the same league and the KC or Miami jobs. First of all, they're a relatively recent expansion team with no real history. Second, their fan base is so nonexistent they are one of the teams often talked about being relocated to Los Angeles. We know that the Jacksonville franchise is in the process of being sold, so a coaching candidate may not even know what kind of owner they would wind up working for. There is a tremendous amount of instability in Jacksonville at the moment.

And then there's KC itself. I don't live in KC anymore, but I think it's an easy city to sell coaches on. I know a lot of young players might want to live in a city with more exciting nightlife, but most coaches are going to be older guys with families to think about. KC is very family friendly. And this is something I never hear people talk about as a selling point of Kansas City: it's a very, very inexpensive city to live in. I'm in Los Angeles now and I was just back to KC for Thanksgiving. Gas was nearly $1 cheaper per gallon in KC. Home prices are enormously cheaper in KC, I would estimate that home prices in LA are at least 3 times as expensive, if not higher than that. I drove past a newly built housing edition the other day and the sign out front said home prices started in the "low $700s." The low $700s??? Yikes! My point is your money goes a lot further in KC than in a lot of the bigger markets. A $2.5 million salary in New York doesn't go as far as it would in KC.

Norv Turner is likely out in San Diego. SD is a beautiful city. I love San Diego. But who wants to coach in that Flintstones stadium of theirs? Their fan base sucks and the Chargers are one of the teams often discussed for relocation. Kansas City is a much more attractive head coaching job.

Jason Garrett might be out in Dallas. I read recently that they'd built a new stadium in Dallas, maybe it'll be on TV one day. And they are a storied franchise. But you'd have to deal with the most meddlesome and often incompetent (you gotta love how thoroughly Jones fucked up the Superbowl last year) owner in the NFL. Also you'd have to live in Texas. Kansas City is a much more attractive head coaching job.

Tom Coughlin might be out in New York. They have a new stadium and New York is the greatest city in the world. But you have to deal with the New York media. Kansas City is a much more attractive head coaching job.

Andy Reid might be out in Philly. Come on, Eagles fans booed Santa Claus. Kansas City is a much more attractive head coaching job.

Steve Spagnuolo is probably out in St. Louis. The Rams? Seriously? Horrible stadium. Terrible fan base. Probably another franchise that could potentially move to LA. Kansas City is a much more attractive head coaching job.

I think we all know that Pioli has got to hit a home run with this hire. But this job is as attractive as any in the NFL, if not the best one out there.

Clark Hunt has said he wants to emulate the Steelers as an organization. Since the early 70s the Steelers have had 3 head coaches: Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher and now Mike Tomlin. That, fans, is organizational stability.

Sorry that this isn't directly Chiefs or football related, but I think there are a lot of informed and thoughtful people who read and contribute to Ap.

The past week has weighed on my mind a lot regarding the sex abuse scandal that's been so devastating at Penn State.  It's bothered me because I've always been a big admirer of Joe Paterno and it's horrifying to see his fall from grace.  And it's also bothered me a lot because I used to coach high school sports and given the same or similar set of circumstances I would have handled the abuse allegations the same way Paterno did.

I've had a really hard time trying to explain this to people for the past few days, but Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do both legally and institutionally when he reported the abuse to the Penn State AD.  Yes, he most definitely should have followed up and made sure his higher ups had done their jobs.  People are saying Paterno should have taken the suspected abuse directly to the police but I can tell you from first hand knowledge that's not how things are done in educational institutions.  

When I was coaching and teaching we were told two things:  1.  Legally you have to report any child abuse or exploitation you might suspect is going on.  2.  You report that information to the building principal.  So if someone had come to me and said they saw a retired coach sodomizing a kid in the showers, I would have reported that information to my building principal.  I wouldn't have gone to the police.  That's what we are told to do.  

There's been a lot of outcry this past week about school officials not going directly to the police in matters like this.  It seems to me it takes really horrific events that cause us to reevaluate how our organizations work; we are creatures of habit.  Very few schools had plans for dealing with non-weather related emergencies before the Columbine shootings took place.  Now all schools have plans for dealing with the worst case scenario.   If something positive can come out of this terrible situation at Penn State maybe it's changing the way abuse gets reported.

I've been encouraging everybody I know who has children or grandchildren or nieces and nephews to contact the schools where your kids go and ask "What is your policy for reporting child abuse."  I am not much of a gambler but I'd be willing to wager almost every school out there does what Penn State did: report the abuse to your supervisor and your supervisor takes it from there.  I think we really need to start pushing our schools to change this policy and require the abuse be directly reported to the proper authorities and eliminate all this bullshit reporting to the middle man.

The Penn State coverage has been non-stop for a week but nobody is asking the right questions.  Everybody is outraged but nobody is saying "How do we keep this from happening again?"   I would encourage everybody here at AP to contact your schools and help change these policies and try to make something good come out of this terrible tragedy at Penn State.

I would assume nobody saw this coming.  I know everybody thought this season would be tougher than last year's due to the increased level of difficulty in scheduling.  But here we are now: two games and two historic blowout losses.  This is not an untalented team.  Yes they have had some horrendous injuries, but this is not a team that should be losing games in this fashion.  Amidst all the angst it seems to me that a big part of the problem here is something that's very simple: the Chiefs are giving the ball away at an astronomical pace.  

So far in two games the Chiefs have 9 turnovers.  Compare that to last season when they did a much better job of protecting the ball and only had 14 turnovers all season.  In only two games the Chiefs have given the ball away almost as many times as they did all last season.  They are on pace to match that this year in only three games.  Matt Cassel had almost half as many interceptions this afternoon as he had all during the 2010 season.  Cassel is on pace to have 32 interceptions in 2011 against only 16 touchdown passes.  They have a turnover differential of -7 through 2 games already and they are on pace to give it away 72 times this year.  They are on pace to have a turnover differential of (you might want to sit down for this one) -56 if they continue to cough up the ball at their current rate.  You think it's been ugly so far?  You ain't seen nothing yet.

Pro football is a game that has grown increasingly complicated yet it still holds some very simple truths.  For instance, in order to win you have to be able to run the ball.  And you have to be able to stop the run.

And you have to be able to protect the ball.

According to ESPN.com if you lose the turnover battle you are going to lose the game about 4 out of 5 times.  That's about 80% of the time.  And the more turnovers you commit, the greater your chances of losing becomes.  I know it's common sense, but it's worth considering:  if you give the ball away it takes away a chance for you to score and gives your opponent an additional opportunity.  The Chiefs turned the ball over 6 times today.  That's 6 additional opportunities they gift wrapped for the Lions offense.  And that can be a 14 point swing on each turnover.  And it can set your opponents up with very favorable field position.  How many short fields have the Cheifs D had to defend in only two games so far this year?  How long were they on the field during the Buffalo game?

If a team has zero turnovers in a game they almost always win.  If a team has 5 turnovers in a game they almost always lose.  Sometimes I fear Haley is so right-brained and creative in his thinking that he may be missing some things that should be staring him plain in the face.

The Chiefs are not built to come back from three scores down.  Cassel had a good season last year when he was asked to manage the game and little else.  By giving the ball away the Chiefs are digging themselves enormous holes in games that they don't have the personnel to climb out of.  

I haven't been able to find any psychological studies to back me on this, but anybody who's played the game knows what I am talking about.  When things go wrong it's very easy for everything else to follow.  When McCluster fumbles the opening kickoff allowing the Bills to score an easy touchdown last week it sets a team up for failure.  Teams lose about 75% of their games if they are trailing at the end of the first quarter (again, stats courtesy of ESPN online).  

I'm not sure which preseason game it was, but Haley was asked about the team's propensity of coughing up the ball in the preseason contests.  Haley's response was they had a limited amount of time to prepare and they hadn't worked on that very extensively.  Today Haley said the team has many problems that need to be fixed.

I would submit that first and foremost they fix hanging on to the ball.

Sorry, this turned out to be a lot longer than I intended. . . .

They're opening up a new Cirque du Soleil show at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood and a few of my friends are working for it.  They told me recently that if I wanted to see it I should go now because the show is in previews and the tickets prices will be cheaper than when the show officially opens.  That should like a good deal to me.

For you guys who are unfamiliar, in live theater it's common to do previews before a show opens in order to work out the kinks a live show is invariably going to have.  It's important to do the show in front of a live audience so you know what parts or it are working and what parts aren't.  Sometimes set changes and technical things like lighting won't be working quite right during a preview performance.  Sometimes the script for a show will get rewritten during previews based on how well it's working for the live audience.  Since everybody involved knows what you're getting is a work in progress, tickets for previews are less than they will be when the show officially opens.  Once a show opens it's locked and very little will actually change.  

Most people have heard about the badly received Spider-Man musical that's running in New York right now.  That show caused a lot of controversy because major parts of it weren't working and yet the producers were paying full price for tickets while it was in previews.  Cast members were falling off the stage and yet the audience was being charged full price.

The NFL is doing the exact same thing -- they are charging their customers full price to see a show that's still in previews.  

When the Chiefs play Tampa next week, it's very likely our starters will only play the first quarter.  And after halftime you are watching a bunch of players who are very likely not going to even make the final roster.  And the League thinks we should pay full price for this. 

That's no way to treat your customers.

Right now Daniel Radcliffe is doing a Broadway show called How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.  If the NFL preseason were applied in this case, the paying audience would get to see Radcliffe for the first 30 or 40 minutes of the show.  Then his understudy would come in and take over while Radcliffe goes offstage to ride a stationary bike.  After the intermission everybody on stage would be a bunch of scrubs who were went home after the first round of auditions. And the producers of the show would think the audience should gladly pay the full price for that experience.

As we've learned during the lockout, the NFL makes about $10 billion a year.  The vast majority of league revenue comes from two places:  the TV deals with the networks and the licensing deals to sell NFL related products.  Yes the individual teams are making some money from ticket sales.  But that money is a tiny trickle compared to the Niagra Falls of the TV and licensing contracts.

Would it really hurt a $10 billion a year industry to shave $5 or $10 off ticket prices for preseason games, for them to just be honest with the fans and acknowledge that preseason games and regular season games are not the same?   Would it hurt them to give a deal on the two preseason games to their most loyal customers of all, season ticket holders?  Hell, shouldn't season ticket holders have the option to NOT have to buy the preseason games if they don't want to?  

A friend of mine and his dad have been Chiefs season ticket holders for nearly 30 years.  They've been loyal fans and paying customers through both the Frank Ganz and Herm Edwards eras.  Haven't they earned being able to say they'd rather not pay $300 - 400 for meaningless games played by the third string?

The NFL recently started scheduling more games against divisional opponents at the end of the season because teams who had already clinched playoff berths were sitting marquee players in meaningless games.  They seem to realize regular season games played by third stringers are bad for business.

Shouldn't the same consideration be paid to the fans during the preseason as well?

There are often posts on AP debating the merits of various sports/football movies.  With that in mind I'd like to point out to everybody that ESPN Classic announced today they will be the cable TV home from reruns of NBC/DirecTV's Friday Night Lights.  FNL is not just a great sports drama, it is quite simply one of the very best dramatic series ever broadcast on American television.  It always astounded me that the show never found a massive audience but maybe it will be like The Wire and grow it's audience via word of mouth after the show is out of production.  If you are a fan of Buzz Bisinger's book the series is based on you will love this show.  If you were a fan of the movie version you will love this show.  Hell, the television series is significantly better than the movie.  If you grew up playing high school football in a small town you will love this show.  If you've ever coached sports you will love this show.  I cannot express in more glowing terms how consistently great this Peabody Award winning show is.  I can't imagine anybody not loving it.  

Before I moved to California I was a high school coach in the KC area.  I played football in high school and primarily coached wrestling, with a little bit of football thrown in.  As a former coach I have to say I have never seen anything get it right like this show does.

The cast is great -- in ten years people will look back on this show and see how many acting careers were made from it.  

People who don't live on either of the coasts often complain about not being well represented in the media.  For those of you who live in the middle part of the country, you've never been better represented before.  

If you missed out on Friday Night Light before ESPN Classic has come to your rescue.  

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

Hey guys, I live in Los Angeles and I was wondering if there was any news about this in KC.  Right now the talk is the Sacramento (formerly Kansas City) are going to relocate to Anaheim, which would put a third NBA franchise in LA (Anaheim is pretty much only a suburb of LA).  The talk shows here think it's a terrible idea because it is.  Not only would the Kings be the third NBA team in town (Blake Griffen has suddenly made the Clippers relevant), they'd also be the third choice team to see in Anaheim, the Angels and Ducks are both decent franchises.  Also they'd be the second teams with the nickname Kings."  The local sports talk shows are saying Seattle and KC are far better options for the Kings than Anaheim.  A couple weeks ago at the All Star game David Stern mentioned KC as a possible NBA team but only if they could get a local owner involved.

So what's making the rounds on local talk shows in KC or local media?  Is this something being discussed, the Kings coming back home to KC?  The Kings suck and it would add an ownership group that rivals the Glasses for sheer incompetence and ineptitude.  

Also, AEG seems like a pretty sharp group, would they want the Kings or hold out for a better team to anchor the Spring Center?

A short time ago, Magic Johnson sold his ownership stake in the Lakers and announced a partnership with Tim Leiweke of AEG designed to bring an NFL team back to Los Angeles.  KC residents should know AEG as the organization that runs the Sprint Center.  KC residents should also know Leiweke, the president of AEG, Missouri native and former part owner of the Kansas City Comets.  Though there is a stadium proposal on the books that would build a new NFL venue in east LA County, Leiweke recently made news by suggesting a plan to build a new football stadium in downtown LA adjacent to the Staples Center.  The new stadium (which is in the extremely early planning stages) would have a retractable roof allowing LA to host other events such as the Final Four and the Superbowl.

News broke yesterday that Phil Anschutz (the A in AEG) intended to buy a 35% ownership stake in the San Diego Chargers with an intention of relocating the franchise to LA.  There's been a lot of denials of this deal, but often when there's smoke there's also fire.  The Chargers have been trying unsuccessfully for years to get the city to build them a new stadium.  The old Jack Murphy Stadium (I'm not sure what corporate name they've whored the place out to recently) is quite a bit older than Arrowhead and hasn't been kept up as nicely.  It was also one of the shit-boxes from the late 60s/early 70s that housed both baseball and football.  Without a new deal for a modern stadium the Charges could bolt from the area.  

The new downtown LA stadium wouldn't utilize any public money -- AEG would build the $1 billion facility themselves.  The NFL has stated they want at least one team to move to LA (Jacksonville and Minnesota had seemed like likely candidates) that had local ownership.  If the Chargers sell at least part of the team to AEG the move to LA could be pretty quick.

I'm not sure if the move would have that much of an impact on the area.  Like the Chiefs, the Chargers played their first season in the AFL in a different city before relocating to where they are now.  It wouldn't be a major chore for their "fans" to stay close to the team -- it's only a 2 hour drive up the 5 to get to LA.  

But the LA market is significantly bigger than SD is.  The Charger fans in SD are at best low key.  They've had 3 of their first 5 home games locally blacked out and word just came down a couple hours ago that they have sold enough tickets for the Raider game to be shown on local TV.  This is a team with both the #1 offense and #1 defense in the NFL playing a division rival in a game with massive playoff implications and they nearly failed to sell it out.  That really boggles my mind.  The Chargers have been a good team for a number of years and yet the SD community seems to no really give a shit.

Would a move to LA change that?  A better stadium, a larger fanbase?  

What are the odds this sale and move happens?

If the Chargers moved back to Los Angeles, would that affect the Chiefs in any noticeable way?

I was out of town last week and didn't get to the computer much, so if any of this was already covered in the Mini Spygate posts from last week please forgive me.

As we know, the Donks got busted filming 49ers practice in London a few weeks ago.  $100 K in fines were levied.  Some dude got fired.  But as the Chiefs prepare for the 2010 rematch with Denver I'd like to point out that McDaniels might be a perfect match for the Broncos.  Over the years the Broncos have done some underhanded things.  It's not a big surprise that they'd try to gain a competitive advantage over a bad team like the Niners.  Of course the hilarious part is they lost.

There are a few examples of lapses in Donkey ethics that leap immediately to mind.  Spygate 2 is not a one-time lapse in their judgement.

Between 1996 - 1998 the Broncos circumvented the NFL salary cap.  They were fined $1 million (twice) by the NFL and stripped of a third round draft pick.  Of course the reason those years are significant is because those are the years the Donkeys won 2 Superbowl championships.  Even Al Davis is convinced Denver cheated to win those Superbowls in the late 90s.  And Al knows cheating.  The Broncos were fined by the League twice within a three year period of time for cheating on the salary cap.  About $29 million in deferred money to Elway and Terrell Davis was in question.  Of course Pat Bowlen insists that cheating the salary cap gave the Donks no competitive advantage.  If it didn't give a competitive advantage then why cheat in the first place?  If this were college football the NCAA would've stripped Denver of their Superbowl titles.  

Speaking of the late 90s, anybody remember a certain playoff game with the Chiefs in January of 1998?  The Broncos took the field after slathering themselves in Vasaline or some other slippery substance.  I remember being stunned as I watched the officiating crew order players be wiped off with towels.  It was like watching WWE wrestling.  In typical fashion, no penalties were enforced for that underhanded shit.  No players were ejected from the game.  Nobody got fined.  Typical underhanded Donkey crap.

Who can forget 2003 when the Broncos oh so conveniently "forgot" to pack their dark jerseys for a road game and brought their whites to San Diego.  White jerseys don't absorb as much heat for a hot weather game against the Chargers who usually wear white at home.  They were fined $25,000.  

I'm sure many of you can come up with other examples (and I'd like to read them), but my point is the taping of Niners' practice is nothing new when it comes to the Broncos.  They've been an underhanded bunch of weasels for years.

So this is what I would call on fans to do.  Get to bed early on Saturday night.  Eat a hearty breakfast Sunday morning.  Make sure you have your energy.  Listen to Johnny Cash sing "God's Gonna Cut You Down."  Then head out to the New Arrowhead and be the most crazed 12th man in the history of the stadium.  Rain down holy hell on those sniveling, cheating, cheap shot taking assholes in orange and blue.  Never let up for a minute.  The Chiefs can beat them physically but the fans can beat them mentally.  McDaniels looks like a 12 year old boy.  Let him leave KC looking like a whipped 12 year old boy.

I want those 78,000 fans to take all that rage and channel it onto the Donkeys.

As Russell Crowe says in Gladiator:  "On my signal, unleash hell."

Or as Jeff Bridges says in the new version of True Grit: "Them boys, they'll think about the wrath that's about the set down on them."

I just wanted to point out a little flaw in some of the logic as Haley's fourth down calls get debated.  While everybody has a right to their opinion on the matter (personally, I would have tried the field goal on 4th and 2), nobody can definitively say, "If we would have tried a field goal there we would have won in regulation."  We simply have no way of knowing what would really happen.

First of all, that statement works out of the assumption Succop makes the field goal.  There's no guarantee he does.  There's no guarantee that the play isn't botched in some way, that the snap isn't fumbled or that the Bills block the kick and run it back the other way.  Yes, it's a fairly short field goal, but there's no way to know for sure what the outcome of that play would have been.  The outcome of the 4th and 2 in today's game was pretty neutral, but it could have been disastrous.

Second, and this is where it gets weird, we don't know how the rest of the game would have played out.  The "if we kick it we win in regulation" argument assumes that the rest of the game would have played out exactly as it did, just switching the outcome of one play with another.  That's simply not possible.  This is going to sound like something out of Back to the Future, but once you change that play (the going for it on 4th and 2 play), the rest of the game goes off in a completely different direction.  Let's say the Chiefs make the kick.  The next play from scrimmage would be kicking off back to Buffalo.  From that point on, the rest of the game would be completely different than the one we watched today.  Who knows, maybe CJ Spiller runs that kickoff back for a touchdown.  There's no way of knowing what might have been.  This is one of the problems in playing armchair coach, you can't switch one coaching decision without it affecting everything else that comes after it.  

Along the same lines, you can't send a robot back in time to kill John Elway's mom.  The idea would be that if Elway isn't born the Chiefs will win at least 2 Superbowls in the 90s.  There's just no way to know.

Like I said,  I would have kicked the short field goal, had the decision been mine.  But the rest of the game would have been some completely different thing from the point on.  Like that time when Biff stole that sports almanac from the future. . .

So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week.  This comes after the league has mounted various pre-season games in cities all over the world for years.  I distinctly remember the Chiefs playing the Vikings in Tokyo back in the mid 90s.  There has been talk about the NLF staging the Superbowl in London.  The aim of all this is, of course,  to expand the NFL's appeal outside of North America.  And Goodell has stated he has one ultimate goal with these regular season games in the UK: he wants a permanent NFL franchise based in London.

As the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell's title could just as easily be CEO -- part of his job description is to make the NFL as profitable as is humanly possible.  The proposed 18 game schedule is certainly a part of that.  It makes logical sense for a successful US business to try and make more money by franchising itself in Europe and beyond.  McDonadls. Starbucks.  The NFL would like to be a big brand in Europe.

So is it a good idea?  From a fiscal standpoint it most certainly is.  If the NFL wants to keep making more money, the most logical way to do that is expanding the brand overseas.  Did anybody see a little movie last year called Avatar?  It's the highest grossing movie both here in the States and internationally as well.  Avatar made about $750 million in North American.  But it made almost $2 billion in overseas markets.  In other words, it made nearly 3 times as much money overseas as it did here.  That's not an uncommon occurrence with American entertainment exports, that they make at least as much money overseas as they do here.  For most American movies, about 60% of their total gross comes from overseas markets.  If the league wants to increase revenues, an obvious means for this is to expand the game outside the US.

Are there complications with this?  Oh yeah, there are some complications.  The biggest one is the issue of travel.  I was reading this week about the Donkeys' and 49ers' travel plans for dealing with the jet lag and how they organized  their travel to play the game.  I know this sound pretty fundamental, but they will also have to travel back after their game tomorrow.  So traveling to the UK will affect a visiting team's play this week and also next week as they recover from jet lag.  But that's just the visiting team.  If you base a team in London, they will have to deal with kind of travel EIGHT TIMES a season.  Nine if they adopt an 18 game schedule.  Then you would have to travel for two pre-season games.  And if you make the playoffs you would have to travel for non-home games as well.  You're looking at a team making potentially 12 or 13 jaunts across the pond, 14 or 15 if the expand the schedule.  A flight from New York to London is only a couple of hours longer than a flight from New York to L.A.  But if a team in the UK had to travel from London to play in San Diego?  Those guys will be logging more frequent flyer miles than George Clooney did in Up in the Air.

Would there be a fan base?  So far all the games they've staged at Wembley have sold out.  So there is at least some interest in it.  I'm sure the NFL wouldn't go forward with a UK team if they hadn't studied its chances for success.  Plus, London is a huge city, with a population of 7.5 million people.  However, you have a situation in the UK where nobody plays youth football.  I'm sure the NFL would be more than happy to help fund equipment for youth leagues if that would help expand the popularity.  But like the rest of the known world, soccer is king in England.  Could an American football team succeed in a city like London?   The NFL has already failed at trying to start a league in Europe, but that is partially because the World League was a self-admitted bush league of developmental players -- the fans in Europe weren't getting the best possible NFL product.  

Who would they move?  Goodell has stated he doesn't want to expand the league from 32 teams, so somebody would have to get relocated to London.  Who goes?  What division do they play in (I would assume the London team would have to be in either of the Easts)?  I know the NFL wants to move at least one team to Los Angeles (there are two different stadium plans underway, one headed up by AEG to build a stadium next to Staples downtown).  Jacksonville is usually the first team people mention as a possible LA team.  Who goes to London?  Buffalo?  If London were in the US it would be the second biggest city, nearly as populated as New York.  Buffalo has a population of 270,000.  One team would have to be relocated.  The team owner would have to go along with it.  Who moves?

Would players want to live in London?  I wouldn't mind it, but you never know if a London team would be able to sign free agents.  This is just me, but I would much rather live in London over the following NFL cities:  Green Bay, St. Louis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Indy, or Oakland.  But that's just me.  Would a team in the UK be able to attract talent like a team in the States?  London is a great city, with as much to do and see and as much culture (maybe more) than New York.  But would a player want to live there?  Would a GM and coaches want to move their families there? 

I don't live in KC any more, so I don't know what the  atmosphere was like there for the World Cup.  In LA it was pretty insane.  The sports bar across the street from my apartment was serving breakfast at 6 am so fans could come in and watch the games.  Most sports bars were open that early.  The company I work for is based in the UK and my boss is from England.  All the games were on here at work.  People had their flags out, wearing their teams' jerseys around.  Honestly, it reminded me of Arrowhead.  And that's not even close compared to what the atmosphere was like overseas.  The thing the NFL might be pushing towards down the road would be a World Cup of American football, where countries sent all star teams to compete against each other once every four years.  If American football can be grown outside the US, this kind of event is possible in the future -- remember the World Cup is by far the most successful sporting event in the world.

So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week.  Do you think American football can thrive outside the United States?

*I know the title is a little obvious, but I'm a fan of The Clash.  So sue me.

I was responding to the post about how much good fortune the Chiefs have had this year, and I was thinking about what a great job the entire organization has done over the past 21 months with player development.  When Pioli and Haley arrived in KC one of the things they said a team had to do in order to become an elite organization was develop the players they inherited from the previous regime.  When fans were screaming for the signing of as many free agents as possible, Haley and company quietly went about the work of coaching up the guys they had and adding a remarkable group of players through this year's draft.  The jump in the level of play from last year to this year with essentially the same group of players (especially on the defensive side of the ball) has been really remarkable.  According to Pro Football Weekly, The Chiefs are the fifth youngest team in the NFL this year.  So this question popped into my brain:

What if the jump in player development and player performance jumps at the same level in 2011 as it did from 2009 to 2010?  What if the Chiefs are able to add another draft class with the same combination of talent and work ethic as this year's?  (Realistically, this might not be possible as this year's draft was especially deep.)  And with Pioli knowing exactly what he has and the main pieces to the puzzle are now in place, the Chiefs might be able to sign a couple of key free agents to fill some holes.  As we all know, the 2010 Chiefs have several rookies who are contributing in major ways. As good as they are now, just imagine what they'll be like when they have some seasoning.

I may be really, really drunk on the Kool Aid.  But it appears to me that this is not just a team on the rise, but an elite one,  potential dynasty on the rise.  Hell, if they continue to improve as the season goes along, it will be interesting to see how good they are at week 17.  From reading a lot of the posts on AP, it seems to me that a lot of Chiefs fans have low expectations.  KC hasn't seen a major professional sports championship since the Reagan administration.  I think fans are happy just to see a team make the playoffs.  I think your expectations are going to be radically invigorated this decade.

I grew up in KC and live on the West Coast now.  I had a brief chat the other day with a tourist who was wearing a Royals hat.  I told him I admired his guts -- it takes a lot of courage to wear Royals gear in public outside the area.  The conversation shifted to the Chiefs and he sort of shrugged his shoulders and said, "Nobody cares about the Chiefs."  Is this possible?  My connection to Chiefs fandom is this site and it's safe to say that 100% of the guys on here care about the Chiefs.  Is the rest of the town really apathetic about them?  If true, that's going to change in a hurry.  I can't imagine people being apathetic about attending a Superbowl parade.

Here's my question:  will this be the decade of the Chiefs?

This may wind up being really rambling and incoherent as I've had a few drinks.  So apologies if my logic is faulty.  To my mind in its current state, this all makes perfect sense to me.

There's been a lot of talk this week about brain injuries in the NFL.  I wish we'd just stop using the word concussion altogether.  These are literally traumatic injuries to the human brain.  Anybody who this week either wrote on the internet or in print media or spoke in a public forum that the concern over these dangerous hits were tantamount to reducing the NFL to flag football needs to be dressed in pads and then receive a helmet to helmet hit from James Harris after he's had a ten yard running start.  Once you've regained consciousness (if you regain consciousness), you might have a different opinion about the seriousness of these hits.   There's something inherently offensive to me when couch potatoes start to insult the manhood of guys who play a game that literally shaves two decades off their life spans (the average NFL player only lives 58 years), concussions or no.  I know a lot of guys weighing in on this issue have never played football in their lives.  I know a lot of them have only played high school football.  Some may have played college football.  Virtually none of us has played in the NFL and taken the shots these guys take, colliding with some of the biggest, most powerful, most well conditioned (when Herm Edwards isn't your coach) athletes on the face of the earth.   

So the League is trying to figure out how to deal with concussions.  One of the ideas that they are supposedly going to implament to curb all these vicious helmet-to-helmet hits is suspending players from the following game. Well, what if they just kick them out of the game they're currently playing?  If a pitcher throws at a guy's head, he get tossed from the game.  How is this any less dangerous?  I've seen NFL players ejected from games for "fighting."  I use quotation marks on the word fighting because is there anything more ridiculous than two guys in suits or armor trying to punch each other?  If throwing a punch on a football field can get you tossed out of the game, why can't knocking somebody unconscious carry the same penalty?  If a player knows they could wind up ejected from the game, that's an immediate consequence to the hit.  It's also a blow for the team if key players can't compete.  

Everybody remembers the hit Trent Green took in 2006?  He was unconscious on the field for what, seven minutes?  Seriously, when I saw that hit I thought he was dead.  I was having dinner a few days later and Trent and his wife happened to be at the same restaurant.  He looked like he could barely walk.  His wife had to drive their car for him.  The brain trauma he suffered in that game was severe.  (Nobody will ever convince me that hit couldn't have been averted.)

Also, the NFL has got to really crack down on PEDs.  Having superhumans running around is going to compound the problem.  

And I am rambling. . . .

Good night!

I've never been much of a fan of ESPN, but apparently the NFL is investigating allegations that both Jeff Fisher and Jack Del Rio were asked to take timeouts during this week's game in order to allow ESPN to broadcast more commercials.  There are 20 commercial timeouts allotted for in a game and if the game does not allow for all 20 to be used then ESPN must refund that money.  Fisher says he was approached and asked to take his timeouts and he declined, preferring to be able to take a knee,end the game and avoid any unnecessary injuries.  Fisher also accused Del Rio of taking timeouts for this reason.

ESPN is denying this, but why would Fisher make up such a thing?  In the 49ers game we saw Mike Singletary call timeouts in an attempt to score a meaningless touchdown, which resulted in injury to one of his players.  I can't imagine the league being happy with this turn of events.   

I know he's gone.  The Chiefs organization is rid of him and we are moving forward without him.  Cutting him lose was sort of like having that 11 pound tumor removed from your lower intestines.  So I realize this is kind of like beating a dead horse with a stick, but I just saw these stats from today and it made me laugh a little.  

I've been a little interested to see how LJ does now that he has is working with Mike Shanahan.  It was alleged in Denver that Shanny was able to put nearly anybody in the backfield and get a 1,000 yard rushing season out of him.  Does anybody fit the "nearly anybody" criteria better than our man Larry?  Could Shanny bring about an LJ renaissance?  A rebirth?  Well so far the answer appears to be a resounding "fuck no, Shanny's a coach not a magician."

I was looking at the box score of Washington's OT loss to Houston to see how dearly departed LJ did today.  I know I shouldn't be even bothering with this since the NFL has yet to adopt "runs into the O-line and falls down" as an offensive statistic, but I couldn't help myself.  Also it's mean.  And yet there were the numbers: 

LJ had 2 carries for -7 yards.  (In case you were wondering that's a -3.5 average yards per carry).  To put it into proper perspective, LJ rushed for 7 fewer yards than Stephen Hawking did today.

I know change is hard, people like things the way they are.  Traditions are important.  But if my memory serves me didn't some adjusted stats inform us that LJ's yards per carry were actually 2.9 and the whole 2.7 nickname was really incorrect, at least mathematically?

So I offer this one as a replacement:  LJ's new nickname should be 2-7, based on his crappy performance from earlier today.  Now as I look at that, I think it's a little confusing.  And "2 for -7" isn't much better.  So here's what I offering:  2(-7).  I know it's harder to type -- the parentheses require using the shift key.  But I kind of like it.  And even if it doesn't replace the classic "2.7" it's sill pretty entertaining.  

On a side note, did you guys hear the Chiefs were 2-0 for the first time in 7 years?

I've been reading the post where everybody seems to be arguing about whether or not Monday's win was a fluke (it wasn't) which has me wondering:  do special teams not count as a legitimate part of the game anymore?  Or is it just accepted that if you're good at them you're just lucky (or fluky)?  In all the talk about how many yard Rivers passed for Monday night and how many yards Cassel didn't there's been a deafening silence about the stats on special teams.  

Here's a news flash:  the Chiefs fucking dominated the Chargers on special teams Monday night.  Our kick and coverage teams absolutely destroyed San Diego.  And the Chargers have a very, vert  solid return guy in Darren Sproles.

Let's look at the numbers:  219 return yards for the Chiefs -- 65 return yards for San Diego.  It's interesting, you look at those stats and they are almost as lopsided as the passing stats.  Sproles averaged about 6 yards per return.  Dex and Arenas both averaged over 30.  So why is nobody talking about these number?  It must be that special teams don't count, right?  If you score on special teams it can't be because of skill or gameplanning can it?   It must be a fluke.

Ladies and gentlemen, special teams are just as important as offense and defense.

I know as Chiefs fans we like to bemoan the fact that the Chiefs don't get the national attention they should.  Dallas opens a new stadium and they're on national TV ten times last year.  As a Cowboys hater, that's like shivving me in the ribs and then twisting the blade around.  For the Arrowhead crowd to find its passion and voice again last night will be a huge part of the Chiefs getting more national coverage.  I am not much of a Jim Rome fan but he's right when he says the NFL is better when the Chiefs are good.

I was watching the game in a sports bar in L.A. last night.  Not to bore you guys with a lot of technical TV production stuff, but the crowd really made the game visually compelling to watch.  On Charles big TD run you can see the crowd reactions in the background.  Same thing with Dex's punt return.  There were massively long cut-away shots of the crowd after those plays because seeing 70,000 people in red jumping up and down looks mighty impressive, especially in HD.  There were also a lot of crowd shots in between plays just leading up to the snap of the ball.  Normally you get on field shots in those moments of a regular game.  You don't see those types of crowd shots in pro games all that much because the pro football crowd usually just sits there and looks at the game, as if they were at a baseball game.  Or a wake.  I can't imagine NBC not using the flex schedule for that week 17 game against the Raiders if there are playoff implications tied into it -- Arrowhead looked awesome on TV last night.  

I've seen some test footage from 3D TV (since Best Buy is selling 3D TVs now they may be showing some of this type footage in-store) cameras and a game with that kind of atmosphere will look absolutely stunning in 3D.  ESPN is supposed to be launching a 3D network very very soon.  

So to all the season ticket holders:  keep it up!  You're helping the team on the field, but you're also making a great case for the Chiefs to be showcased nationally.  Who doesn't want to watch a game with that kind of home field atmosphere?

All the people who criticized Haley for being a conditioning Nazi can suck it.  If our D hadn't been in top shape, we never would have won this game.  Ever.  The D was on the field pretty much the entire game and came up with big plays when they had to.  Herm's D would never have been in shape good enough to compete in the fourth quarter.

Chiefs Nation should be very, very proud of the way the defense played tonight.  A gritty, tough performance from them.  Based on tonight, the D is coming along well and if we had a legitimate pass rush guy (for instance, if Carl had been fired before he pissed off Jared Allen) this could be a formidable group.  In fact, this game had the feel of a Marty era 90s game with the offense being almost non-existent and the defense and special teams single-handedly winning the game.  Kick coverages were excellent all night and the combo of Arenas and McCluster isn't even fair.  We will win games with special teams this year.

The offense looked pretty terrible.  I know they want to limit the pounding Charles takes but it certainly seems like they move the ball more efficiently when he's in there.  

This rookie class looks to be something special.  If we can draft this well every year we will be loaded with talent.

Nice to see the crowd show up again.  I was watching the game at a sports bar in Los Angeles and the level of heat the crowd was bringing was obvious on TV.  Four penalties that can be directly link to crowd noise -- I think the Arrowhead faithful got their groove back tonight.

Despite the really awful showing by the offense I think this game was a huge turning point for the program.  This team learned how to win tonight.  Ric Flair says it best:  "To be the man, you gotta beat the man."  If you want to win the Superbowl you have to beat good teams.  And those games usually look like this one tonight -- a close, gutsy game that comes down to literally the last play.  There's no question this is a game we would have lost 2 years ago.  Huge, huge step forward tonight.

I grew up in KC but live on the West Coast now, so it's kind of hard sometimes for me to gauge what the perception of things are in the city.  I keep tabs on the Chiefs here at AP (seriously, how did out of town people retain their fandom before the internet?) but I know the faithful here are just that -- the faithful.  The vast majority of contributors here seem to think the team is heading in the right direction, that the foundation is being laid the right way.  But what's the average Kansas Citian make of all this?  I talk to friends and family and they seem to just shrug their shoulders when it comes to the Chiefs.  

We've often discussed here if the Chiefs are losing the fan base, if the they are losing the support of the city.  Last year brought the first blacked out home game since the late 80s.  It had been three decades since that happened.  I remember as a kid growing up in KC that home game blackouts were just the norm.  Home games were never, ever on TV.  St Louis football Cardinal games would be on instead.

So how important is the game Monday night?  How important is the game for the development of the team taking the next step?  How important is the game in reconnecting the team to the town?  How important is the game for the fans in finding their voice at Arrowhead again?

Before I moved to California I was a Chiefs season ticket holder.  On October 7, 1991 we hosted Monday Night Football for the first time in years (I want to say it was the first home Monday night game in 15 years but I may be wrong about that).  We were playing the Buffalo Bills, who were at the time the class of the AFC.  Nobody gave KC a chance to win the game.  The Chiefs didn't just win, they totally dominated Buffalo that night.  On a national stage, the Chiefs took the field and said, "We're back."  The Chiefs were part of the conversation from that point on.  But another important thing happened that night.  The Arrowhead crowd really learned how to be the 12th man that night.  Nobody sat down that night.  There was constant, deafening crowd noise.  That Monday night game taught the fans how to affect the outcome of the game.  The awesome home field advantage the Chiefs held for 20 years was really born that night.  10/7/91 is still my favorite Chiefs experience and still the single greatest sporting event I've ever attended.

So again I ask:  how important is Monday night?  If the Chiefs and the crowd bring the pain to the Chargers and win in convincing style a game nobody gives them much chance to win, what does that do for the team?  For the fan base?  For the town?

Personally, I think Monday Night is extremely important because it has the potential to represent a turning point in the history of the franchise, much like that Bills game turned out to be in 1991.  It has the opportunity to completely re-energize the fan base in one night.  It has the opportunity to be that next step for the team as they learn how to win.  It's the season/home opener. It's the rededicating of the stadium, there will likely be a ton of former players on hand for pregame, a night time flyover,  It should be bedlam in the stands.  I hope it is.  

Monday night the Chiefs can take the field along with the fans and the community and say, "We're back!"

You know how Haley talks about the importance of creating competition in training camp? He's 101% right about that. In sports, competition is inherently good because it forces you to get better. Ever wonder why so many college prospects come from states that have big time high school football (Texas, Florida, etc)? It's because the level of competition they're playing against both on their own teams and the teams they play is forcing those kids to get better. I would argue that being one of the Right 53 means you want to compete. Competition makes you better. I saw some of the comments in the Dumervil post and people seem to love the idea of the Chiefs playing teams that are depleted in some way. I see guys on AP all the time who seem to root for injuries to other teams so the Chiefs will have an easier time with their opponents. This was a common theme last year: "We're playing (team name) the week after they played (team name) and they should be pretty beaten up and that can maybe be an easy win for us." Easy wins are for pussies and they don't make you stronger. That is not what you want. Competition extending from training camp into the regular season is inherently good for teams because (as noted above and constantly harped on by Coach Haley) competition makes you better. Playing in a tough division makes you a stronger team in the post season. And make no mistake, Pioli and Haley are building a team that wins in January. You don't win big time playoff games by hoping your division opponents get decimated by injuries so your schedule is easier. I said it last year, the best thing that could have happened to the '09 Chiefs was that brutal opening schedule where they played the NFC East four weeks in a row. That level of competition showed them where they needed to be in the long term. It made them better.

It also helps the rivalries in the division. I want the Chiefs to go 6-0 in the division, but I want the wins to mean something. I want the Raiders to be a competent organization again because for the past several years beating them has been meaningless outside of tradition (to be fair they could say the same thing about us). If the Chiefs and Raiders are both strong teams then the rivalry is relevant again outside of KC and the Bay Area. I despise the Broncos as much as anybody but I want them to be a good team so that when we beat them it's an accomplishment. Can you imagine week 17, Chiefs and Raiders playing a winner wins the AFC West game in Oakland? Thanks to the genius of flex scheduling it's the Sunday night game on NBC. The whole nation is watching. And the Chiefs walk into Oakland and kick their asses on national television? Or maybe it's a playoff game. The Chiefs go to Indy as underdogs and upset the Colts. That's the type of game that make dynasties. Competition makes you better. Here's an example: in the early 90s the Buffalo Bills went to the Superbowl four consecutive years. At that time the AFC in general was weak and the AFC East in particular was weak. The Bills' division opponent games were a cake walk, they played home games against weak teams in the playoffs and got embarrassed when they got to the Superbowl. Their competition was weak and that team was weak when they had to play big games against strong teams. Competition makes you better. I know there will be guys who respond to this post by arguing that they would love to see the Chiefs in the Superbowl any way they can take it but I can't imagine it was much fun for Buffalo fans to see their team being made a laughingstock of four years in a row. To see the team mocked on late night talk shows four years in a row. To be the butt of the joke for 4 years. Competition makes you better. When I was coaching I knew coaches who would go out of their way to schedule the easiest possible schools they could find. If their school district was growing faster than the other schools in their athletic conference they would stay in that conference so the wins would be easier. They were terrified of competing against schools that were the same size. Like Steinbrenner they feared a level playing field. Hell, if they could have scheduled a Special Olympics team for an easy win if they could have -- they were people who only wanted to win and were deep down afraid of really competing. . And then when their teams got to the playoffs they would get beaten in the first round and usually beaten badly by teams that sought out strong conferences to play in or went out of state to find the best competition to play against.  The best coaches I knew who consistently had the best teams tried to create the most competitive regular season schedules they could. Competition makes you better.

This is probably going to be long-winded and unfocused, so apologies for that.

I am not an old man, not even a middle aged man, but I am old enough to remember 1989.  That was the year being a Chiefs fan shifted dramatically in Kansas City after a 15 year run of being consistently one of the worst teams in the NFL.  1989 saw the end of the Gansz era in KC, which itself had been predicated on a player-led mutiny of John Mackovic, the first Chiefs coach to get the team to the playoffs in over a decade.  The inmates were very obviously running the asylum and the asylum wasn't very well run to begin with.

In 1989 Carl Peterson came to KC and brought Coach Marty Schottenheimer with him.  Many fans may not be old enough to remember what a sea change that was to the Chiefs organization.  For a football club that had been lost in the wilderness for years, Carl brought an up to date professionalism to the Chiefs.  And the Chiefs became relevant again.  I remember as a kid in the 80s going to Chiefs games with my dad.  We would just go out to Arrowhead on game day and buy walk-up tickets as if it were a Royals game.  We'd get good seats, too.

If we can check our emotions at the door and be truly objective about it, Carl was mostly great for the Chiefs.  Most people in KC are Chiefs fans for what Carl did for the team.  He brought them out of the wilderness.  The team was competitive week to week -- if your bought a ticket to  a game (and the days of buying walk-up tickets were soon over) they were probably going to win.  As a consumer, there's not much more you can ask for.  Despite never getting to the Superbowl, the Chiefs played in an AFC championship game (I was there in Buffalo on that dark, dark day) and had two 13-3 seasons with home field advantage through the playoffs.  No Superbowl, but a decade of relevance to be sure.  I totally reject the idea that Carl only cared about selling out the stadium because you have to have a winning team in order to do that (for further evidence, see the 2009 Chiefs).

If we can continue to be truly objective, Carl overstayed his usefulness by several years.  (I'm not sure when he should have been dismissed, but if my last namer were Hunt I would have fired him after the "I know Willie Roaf filed his retirement paperwork way back in April but I don't think he really meant it so I'll send Will Shields to talk him out of it" incident decimated the Chiefs O-line, something we still haven't recovered from.)  Clearly the game had passed him buy.  Personally,  I have kind of a love/hate thing with Carl.  I love him for the 90s, but I am also glad he's long gone and his firing should have come a lot sooner than it did.  Lamar Hunt was loyal.

I think we are witnessing the Renaissance of KC Chiefs football like it's 1989.

I think Scott Pioli has come to KC twenty years after Carl and has been assigned the task of not only rebuilding the on field product but also rebuilding the entire organization.  Like Carl before him, Pioli must make the Chiefs relevant again.  Carl inherited a club that had lost for years but he also inherited a team with much more talent on it than Pioli was given.  I think we're seeing that next sea change.

There is a new kind of energy around this team now.

I don't live in KC any more.  I get my Chiefs info from AP and I realize that the vast majority of us are pathological optimists and Kool Aid drinkers.  But there's just something exciting going on that hasn't happened since 1989.  Pioli is taking over an irrelevant, broken program and building it into something special.

I am heartened by the throngs of people showing up to training camp practice.  I think Pioli is a genius for leaving Wisconsin (I am a veteran of three River Falls expeditions) and having the Chiefs train in the KC area is helping to reconnect the team to the city.  I think this will pay off in a major way in terms of fan loyalty.

Weird as it is, I love the improvements the Chiefs have made to their website and media, doing a much better job of getting information directly to the fans and away from the sports media.  

I believe in Todd Haley.  We are all outsiders, but insiders know the truth.  And if Haley were a screaming buffoon instead of a good coach who happens to scream there's no way the Chiefs would have landed Weis and Crennell and Thomas Jones (all three of those guys had other options -- they didn't have to come to KC but they chose to).  There's no way they would have retained Chambers and Vrabel.  Yeah, I think the guy may need to tone down some of the histrionics but I don't think there's a doubt that Haley's a good coach.  And I am really excited by his own accepting of responsibility and his growth as a coach.  I think the corner has been turned and Haley and Pioli have turned the organizational culture in the other direction in about year.

I think the most exciting thing about the Chiefs now is the buy-in.  I don't know if we can all wrap our minds around the 100% OTAs thing.  That's really an amazing number.  Even both of our union reps attended all the OTAs and union reps usually don't attend them on general principle (you know, the "optional" part).  I was reading about that piece of shit Albert Haynesworth and his inability to pass a conditioning test with the Redskins.  This is how it works with the Redskins apparently:  Haynesworth had to take a conditioning test because he attended 0% of the offseason program.  Haynesworth apparently thought spending the offseason asking for a trade and whining about playing nose tackle would get him in football shape.  It didn't.  But here's the amazing thing.  Shanahan required a conditioning test be passed by all the players who attended less than half of the offseason program.  In One Eyed Shanny's world, 50% is pretty darn good.  And One Eye won two Superbowls.  I used to teach high school and if memory serves, 50% is still an F.  The buy-in we are seeing at One Arrowhead drive is pretty amazing compared to others in the league.  It's the "right 53" concept coming to fruition.

I posted a piece a few weeks ago about the Lakers winning the NBA finals (I am a west coast Chiefs fan) and how the town was affected by the championship.  The response sort of devolved into praising or bashing the NBA and key players and that wasn't my point at all.  Winning is good for cities.  KC hasn't had a winner like that is 25 years.  I really believe a team of that caliber is on the horizon and there isn't a fan base more deserving of it.

From the ashes the Chiefs are reborn.  Won't it be fun to see Herm Edwards on ESPN talking about it?

I see a lot of posts on AP relaying things being said about the Chiefs in the national sports media.  We are relieved when somebody from ESPN or wherever says something encouraging about the team.  We are outraged when somebody else from similar outlets says something bad.  And more than anything else, sports fans in Kansas City (and other small market cities for that matter) get really irate when the national media pays them no attention at all.  

At this time I would call on all Chiefs fans to just pay them no regard.  Ignore them.  Don't worry about them.  What they think about the Chiefs, the city or the Midwest have absolutely no bearing on anything.  Do not let what any of these geeks says (or doesn't say) upset you at all.  

The national sports media is filled with people who simply have no idea what they're talking about.  ESPN and their counterparts at Fox Sports and elsewhere view sports simply as  an extension of American pop culture.   There is no difference to them between sports and movie and TV.  If you don't believe me, just look at the ridiculous ESPY awards show ESPN just perpetrated.  Is there anything more absurd than having a Hollywood-style awards show giving out trophies to athletes who have already proven who's best on the field of competition?  ESPN is to sports what the E! channel is to the arts.  Watching these media drones hover around athletes is simply sad.  Remember a few years ago when Andy Reid sent TO home from Eagles training camp?  And TO was doing pushups in his driveway.  And those sad, bloated middle aged men hovered around him like moths to a flame?  How embarrassing.  The more obnoxious the behavior of an athlete, the more the national media stoops to lick their boots.  I couldn't be the only person out there that was embarrassed for Jim Grey in that drooling "interview" he did of LaBron James a couple of weeks ago.    Look at ESPN's commercials for SportsCenter, which usually depict A list athletes hanging out with the dorks in Bristol.  

While some have competitive backgrounds, the vast majority of people in the sports media are not athletes themselves -- those who can do, those who can't go to ESPN.  While many former players do commentary, the lion's share of sports journalists  have never competed at anything a day in their lives.  And yet they are allowed to sit in judgement on people who have worked their asses off the excel at something, who take a risk at being the hero or the goat every time they set foot in the arena.  I really don't think most guys (and girls) in the sports media gets it.  I think they believe that pro athletes are simply people with superhuman physical gifts, not people with gigantic wills to succeed and work ethics to match.  The worst offender for me has always been Jim Rome.  I wonder why a guy like Rome follows sports since he seems to hate it so much and have such a disdain for athletes in general.  How easy it is for a guy like Rome to ooze snark from the safety of the broadcast both while actual athletes risk public failure.  Jim Everett was right to throttle the guy.  But Rome has so many imitators.  ESPN's mocking tone has filtered down to the local sports news guys.  Talk radio douchebags deal in ripping on people who take the risk to fail in public while the radio guys sit in anonymity behind a microphone.  (I love the guys like Joe Posnanski who seem to really "get it," to celebrate what sports can do and how hard athletes word.)

The national media guys are also beholden to reporting things based on geography and market size.  No matter how bad certain NY area teams are, they are simply always going to get more coverage from Connecticut-based ESPN.   It's just a business to them. 

I really enjoy this site.  As a Chiefs fan relocated to the West Coast it's an invaluable source of information.  I can't imagine being an out of town fan in the age before the internet. How could people follow their teams from such great distance?  

I honestly believe that the information and analysis provided on AP both from the site administrators and the fans who post articles is above and beyond anything ESPN could possibly give us.  People who post on AP are fans, yes.  Hell, they're total homers.  But nobody contributing to APis  trying to curry the favor of the flavor of the month.

Like most Chiefs fans, I am very excited about the direction of the team.  I don't think this is a playoff team this year (2011 will be the breakout year, I think) but it's definitely vastly improved.  As fans, we don't need the media to affirm our affections for the Chiefs.  Pay no attention to what they say or don't say.  They simply don't matter.  If Pioli has the success in KC that he had in Boston, if the Chiefs win three titles this decade it won't matter what ESPN has to say about it.  I'd rather win the Lombardi trophy than a fucking ESPY any day.

From the FanPosts. Good Friday afternoon topic. -Joel

Having moved from Kansas City to Los Angeles four years ago, I have slowly started to become a Laker fan.  As such I am starting to (almost grudgingly) follow the NBA.  As a fan who no longer lives in Kansas City, sites like AP are a godsend, keeping people out of town abreast of what's going on with the team, nearly in real time.  

I can't imagine what fandom of an out of town team would have been like prior to the internet.

So it's been interesting over the past couple of weeks to watch the train wreck involving LeBron James' decision to leave Cleveland and look at how starkly contrasting the way a lousy team like the Clipper operates with the way Scott Pioli is directing the Chiefs.

Continue reading this post »

I am a KC native and Chiefs fan and I moved to Los Angeles about four years ago.  It took me a while, but I am now feeling an emotional connection to the Lakers, and last night's win over the Celtics was just awesome.  ABC has to be thrilled with a 7 game series and ecstatic with the last quarter of the game.  The NBA must be equally satisfied with the ratings the series has generated.  

Being from KC, my tendency is to associate sports fandom with pain and disappointment.  Our championship moments are so few and far between.  I was a kid in 1985, so I barely remember the Royals World Series win.  The Chiefs of the past 20 years have been (until the past 3) competitive but always heartbreaking.  When I moved to L.A., becoming a Laker fan just seemed too easy for me.  Too convenient.  Where would all the suffering come from?  Plus I hate bandwagon-jumping fair weather fans with all my heart (75% of the Who Dat Nation springs immediately to mind).  So four years later, I now feel really emotionally invested in the team and would really call myself a true Laker fan.  

Last night was great but today was really cool.  Everybody was sporting their Laker gear today.  Everybody seemed to be energized by the win.  Everybody seemed a little bit happier.  I am not making this up:  I have seen at least a half dozen homeless guys wearing Laker shirts today.  Everybody is in the spirit of things.  It was also very cool to hear Kobe speak last night of the team really wanting to rally and win the title for the city.  As Kobe put it, the city was really calling out for it.  

I realize KC is not nearly as diversified ethnically as L.A. is, but today everybody is united as Laker fans.  As Angelinos we have the love of the team in common.  The parade on Monday should be great as well as a diverse city comes together to celebrate.

I have great faith in Scott Pioli as the GM of the Chiefs.  And I really wish for a Superbowl win for the Chiefs sooner than later.  It's been so long since KC has been able to have a day like the one I've experienced over the past 24 hours.  Too long.  I don't want this to sound mean, but I've always kind of hated KC's resentment at being overlooked in the national media.  But if you win the Superbowl they can't overlook you.  

Kansas City deserves a Champion.  

I was thinking about this the other day decided to look into it a little bit.  Obviously, there's no way of projecting any of this, but I was curious about what might have been.

When Marty Schottenheimer took over the Chiefs in 1989, he was handed a team with some talent (a far more talented team than Haley inherited), especially on the defensive side of the ball.  This is not to ignore inheriting guys like John Alt and Christian Okoye on offense, but the Chiefs defense was pretty stacked when Marty arrived:  Albert Lewis, Kevin Ross, Deron Cherry, Neil Smith, Dino Hacket, Bill Maas, Kevin Porter and Jayice Pierson.  Of course the Chiefs would draft the great Derrick Thomas with the first pick of the Peterson era and Marty would make that talent the #2 defense in the NFL in his first season in KC.  

So in the 1990 draft, with a rock solid defense and a very suspect offense that basically hinged on an aging quarterback with a masterful way with the play action pass, Carl used the Chiefs first round pick to draft Percy Snow, a linebacker from Michigan State.  Snow, who was ironically born in Canton, Ohio,  had a solid rookie year with the Chiefs.  And then it all went very wrong.

For those of you too young to remember this, during the 1991 training camp, Snow was injured with riding a scooter on the UWRV campus.  You didn't misread that.  He was injured while riding a scooter.  He injured his knee badly, missing the entire 1991 season and for all intents and purposes ending his career.  Snow would return in 1992 but only start one more game in his NFL career.  This winds up being the first in a series of gigantic first round busts for Carl Peterson.  Harvey Williams, the Montana trade, Greg "The Real Deal" Hill, Trezelle Jenkins, Victor Riley, Sylvester Morris, Ryan Sims, and Junior Siavii (technically a second round pick) would all follow.

So I present three "what if" scenarios:  

1.  What if Percy Snow was never been injured and developed into a Pro Bowl linebacker?  How might that have affected the 1990s Marty era Chiefs?  Could that have led to an '85 Bears level defense that got us to the Superbowl?

2.  What if the Chiefs had drafted offense with the first pick that year instead?  Whitlock favorite Jeff George was the overall #1 pick in 1990.  By drafting Percy Snow at #13 the Chiefs passed on drafting Emmitt Smith, who would of course become the all time leading rusher in the history of the National Football League .  Rodney Hampton was available as well.  Yes, the Chiefs had a Pro Bowl running back in the Nightmare who had just become the first Chief to lead the league in rushing.  However, the Chiefs would go on the draft a running back in Round 1 in 1991.  So what if?  What if the Chiefs had taken Smith instead of Snow?  

3.  What if George Bailey had never been born?  Keep in mind, George Bailey was no ordinary yokel.

If the Percy Snow pick had worked out differently, how might the fortunes of the Chiefs have differed in the 1990s?

I think I wrote about this show once before on AP in an attempt to get people to tune into it.  It amazes me that nobody watches this show when it's one of the best things on television and I would think guys (and ladies) who are football fans would eat it up.  It's won the Peabody Award, which is one of the highest awards given in television.  I know we've discussed sports movies on here before, but this show gets it right.  If you played high school football or grew up in a small town or both, you will immediately recognize things.  The book is one of the best non-fiction books I've read.

Last night's episode was one of the single best episodes of television I have ever seen.  It's a shame something of this quality that takes football seriously goes overlooked.  

If you've never watched the show, the new season is available legally on Hulu.com  And if you have a Netflix account you can stream all fours seasons on your computer.  I have yet to recommend it to somebody and have them not like it.  I think readers of AP would go nuts for it.