"I'm just like Parcells or Belichick...only without the winning." 

via www.everyjoe.com

Let's face it, Chiefs fans...it's been a long and miserable season so far.  The Chiefs are 1-7, the team just cut ties with Larry "2.7" Johnson (and ate his disgusting contract) after seven miserable performances and yet another embarassing off-field incident from the jerkoff, our team has stayed firmly mired in the crapper on both offense and defense, we don't even have Tony G to root for any more and the season's only halfway over.  In short...the 2009 football season has been one gi-normous suckfest.

As many of you know I, UCrawford, started up the "Fire Todd Haley" bandwagon last week after the locker room sign incident. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed ad nauseum on this site.  Haley dumped Bernard Pollard for Mike Brown, he kept playing 2.7 until 2.7 finally threw him under the bus on a worldwide social networking site, he fired Chan Gailey two weeks before the season and scrapped the offense only to watch his new offense fail miserably, he hired Clancy Pendergast, he's almost as inept a game manager as Herm, he makes pathetic motivational signs, Todd is an asshole name, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Ultimately, the two biggest reasons why I gave up on Todd Haley weren't any of the oh-so-numerous errors he's made but the two simple observations that a) there isn't a heck of a lot that anyone can point to that Haley's done that has shown positive results while he's been here, and b) the man is easily one of the most unsympathetic individuals I've ever seen coach over two decades of watching pro football.  Because, let's face it...while it's fairly easy to give a guy who's a bad coach but a nice guy multiple chances to turn it around (Herm), or to overlook the distasteful personality of someone who wins games (Belichick), there's really not a hell of a lot of motivation to give a complete jerk who constantly screws up, loses games, and points fingers at everyone but himself much of a chance.  So yes...after watching Haley do his best Eric Mangini/Mike Nolan impersonation for seven games, I decided after those seven games that the guy is a clueless douche who is the Chiefs' biggest impediment to success and that he has to go.

But, was I too hasty, and how does this translate into an offer for you?

Continue reading this post »

via siponthis.today.com

From the files of "Bullets The Chiefs Dodged", ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that former Texas Tech All-American wide receiver Michael Crabtree is planning to sit out the entire 2009 NFL season and re-enter the 2010 draft.  The reason for Crabtree's decision apparently revolves around the 49ers' refusal to give Crabtree (the number 10 selection) a contract equal to or greater than the one Darius Heyward-Bey (the number 7 selection) received from the Oakland Raiders.  The 49ers, in a rare bit of foresight, have declined to pay Crabtree a number that deviates greatly from the NFL's slotting system, which is probably the smart move for a WR who 1) was recuperating from an injury, 2) has yet to run a 40 time, 3) has a somewhat questionable work ethic and so-so NFL receiver tools, and 4) seems to be taking his advice from morons and manipulators.

There continue to be questions about when Crabtree will sign and the only certain answer is, "Not anytime soon." But there's a strong feeling right now that he won't sign all season long, and he will aim to get drafted in April by a team willing to pay him more than the 49ers. San Francisco has offered Crabtree a slotted deal with a value somewhere between picks No. 9 and picks No. 11. Crabtree wants to be paid more like a top pick. San Francisco hasn't relented, nor has Crabtree and now the holdout looks like a repeat from 1987, when first-round pick Kelly Stouffer refused to sign with the Cardinals before his rights were traded to Seattle.

There was quite a bit of buzz on AP about the idea of the Chiefs taking Michael Crabtree with the third pick in the 2009 draft.  It's probably safe to say that if he's demanding a slot-busting contract as the number 10 pick he'd probably be asking for more than Matt Stafford got if he'd gone third.  And he probably still wouldn't be in uniform going into the season, as Pioli doesn't strike me as someone who's going to break the bank to sign a guy with that many question marks.

I'll say this now...if Michael Crabtree holds out, he'll be lucky to get drafted on the first day in 2010.  He certainly isn't going to get a $40 million contract in 2010, which Deion Sanders (one of Crabtree's "mentors") apparently thinks he's worth.  He will, in fact, be lucky to get a contract equal to half of what he'd receive with this year's tenth slotted pick.  And if he sits out a year there's an excellent chance he never turns into anything special or even useful as a pro player...as happened with notable delayed draft entries Mike Williams and Maurice Clarett (who are better comparison points than Stouffer).  In short, Michael Crabtree looks for all the world like a guy whose pro career will fall victim to both his own youthful arrogance and the manipulations of world-class hustlers like Deion Sanders and Eugene Parker (Sanders' and now Crabtree's agent).  And unless Parker has made arrangements with Crabtree to personally make up the difference in salary between what he'd get in slotted money and what he'll get in 2010, it looks like Parker is willing to throw away Crabtree's future in a likely futile attempt to challenge the NFL's slotting system...a challenge that will only lose leverage as the season goes on and the questions about Crabtree's abilities increase.

Can't say as I've got a lot of sympathy for Michael Crabtree (who deserves what he gets if he's not asking if his agent is looking out his best interests), but I do wonder if the NFL will perhaps start asking themselves whether they should look to distance themselves from NFL Network fixture Sanders and his increasingly shady role as "advisor" to young players and prospects.

I'm definitely glad Pioli kept the Chiefs out of this circus sideshow.

According to the National Football Post, the Kansas City Chiefs are apparently shopping three year starting strong safety Bernard Pollard for a trade in order to create playing opportunities for Mike Brown.

The Kansas City Chiefs are exploring options to trade strong safety Bernard Pollard, a move that would create an opening for veteran Mike Brown to move into the starting lineup, sources said.

The 24-year-old Pollard, a fourth-year pro from Purdue, has made 31 starts the last two seasons. He had 98 tackles and one interception last season. But Brown was signed in late June to push both Pollard and free safety Jarrad Page.

I'm going to go on record now as saying that I don't get this at all unless it's being used as a motivational tactic for Pollard.  Reportedly Pollard had an altercation with new defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast, which would explain if Pollard were in the doghouse, and Pollard's preseason has been underwhelming (to be kind).  But you're talking about the team trading away a guy who's probably going to net maybe a 3rd or 4th round pick, if that, in order to free up playing time for a SS who's hardly played better this preseason, who's finished the season on the IR twice in the last three years and who's played double digit games in only one season over that time.

Seriously...what the hell?  I can understand souring on a player, but does Haley think Brown's got five or six more years in him like Pollard may have?  Extremely doubtful.  And what are the odds Brown actually plays a full season for this team?  He hasn't played 16 games since 2003 and he wasn't particularly impressive in the 15 games he played last season.  I was happy the Chiefs signed the guy...as a possible reserve...but to be the starter?

That's just nuts.

Just a heads-up, but it appears that SB Nation has a function that will, without the intervention of moderators, automatically ban a user for posting comments with too many links (apparently five or more), which it considers spam.  It's called a throttle violation and apparently it results in a ban from all SB Nation blogs.  I just found out about it when one of Arrowhead Pride's regulars, who has no previous history of issues, showed up on the moderators' banned list tonight.  It appears that he's been reinstated by one of the SB Nation moderators, so there shouldn't be an issue for him, but if any of you find yourself getting booted from AP and you hadn't been warned off by a moderator (we warn every poster before a ban is issued) then please contact Chris via his e-mail to let him know.  Here's the piece I found that discusses it and the text of the article:

The system (unaided by mods) will flag a comment as spam if it contains more than five links. It's called a "throttle violation". I've been ignoring those flags, as the ones I see on BE are informative, not spam. However, this morning someone (not a BE regular) has been banned by the system for having too many throttle violations. I don't know how many are too many, but those of you who tend to put lots of links in one comment may want to keep those to five or below. You can always add more later. (This doesn't apply to Ben's front page stories.) Update: Sorry; they are links in replies, not in the original fanshot, fanpost, or story. I don't know if Dave can undo a system ban; I would hope so.

For the limit itself, it's not unusual for commenters to use frequent hyperlinks in their comments to back up their arguments.  Obviously, we don't want you guys to have to limit your sourcing and potentially compromise your arguments, but we also don't want you getting booted for being a spammer when you're not, so be mindful of the five hyperlink limit in comments and if you encounter a problem with your account, again please notify us immediately.  Thanks.