Painfully, the Chiefs are not out of the playoff picture yet. With the Bengals' loss, the Chiefs are basically at the bottom of what seems like a 100-team pile at either 7-7 or 8-6. The Kansas City Star details what needs to happen for the Chiefs to make the playoffs (scroll to the bottom), and while somewhat complicated, it's not impossible to figure out.But Joe Posnanski, who, in my opinion, is always a good read, posits what a lot of Chiefs' fans must be feeling: does it really matter? In his opinion, these Chiefs are simply not that good, and he may be right. Within his piece, he notes that the Chiefs have made the playoffs only once in the last nine years. As Posnanski also aptly notes, that fact comes as an initial shock, but you realize that it is absolutely correct without needing to look it up.
What happened? Why do the Chiefs still sell tickets? Why are they always considered a potential playoff team? Here's Posnanski's theory:
I think the answer is more complicated than "he [Carl Peterson] isn't trying" or "he doesn't care." My quick explanation is that the hardest thing to do in football is a build a team with the right balance between offense and defense, and Peterson has never found that balance. Good teams can beat you more than one way. The Chiefs, under Peterson, have not had that variety.
But what Peterson has done - I think better than anyone in sports - is convince everyone that his mediocre teams are actually good and promising. How? He has kept the Chiefs from having one of those comical 3-13 seasons. He has always found players with star quality - Derrick Thomas to Joe Montana to Marcus Allen to Tony Gonzalez to Priest Holmes to Larry Johnson. And the Chiefs have just missed the playoffs enough times to keep everybody coming back for more.
I think Posnanski is spot on. Nobody could say that Peterson doesn't try. Some say that he doesn't spend the money, but that would be false as well. Peterson's strength has always been his ability to manage the salary cap well, which is why you don't see the Chiefs constantly cutting good players from their roster every year.
But the mistakes are piling up, and soon Peterson is going to have to take full accountability. Being "just good enough" gives the Chiefs problems every offseason. The Chiefs consistently draft somewhere in the 15-25 range (a notable exception being a wasted 6th overall pick on Ryan Sims), meaning they are not able to get that impact player. While they usually have some money to spend, they usually cannot afford to splurge on one superstar, because they have several needs, nor can they fill every need with great players.
I really thought this team was a Super Bowl team three years ago. Gunther Cunningham came back and was given a hero's welcome. But the defense once again underachieved, and we still had that imbalance Posnanski refers to, where the offense was left defending the defense's performance. This year, perhaps there actually is more of a balance, but not of the good variety-- both sides have been inconsistent, and rarely have they both been great in the same game.
Where, then, do the Chiefs go from here? They will try to win their final two games, as they did last year. If they finish 9-7, but miss the playoffs, they will complain once again that winning teams should go to the playoffs (not a petty complaint, mind you, because the Chiefs have advocated expanding the playoffs for years). They will probably have a pick in the 18-22 range, and they will probably draft a wide receiver who, while not the next Marvin Harrison, will at least be good enough for Chiefs' fans to think that the offense can make a comeback. They'll also probably pick up a defensive tackle, maybe an offensive tackle as well, but nobody to open their eyes. And they will probably be picked by some to be a playoff team, and picked by others to just miss the playoffs.
Will that be good enough for Chiefs' fans? Depends on your definition of "good enough." It's a great question, Mr. Posnanski, and it is one that no Chiefs' fan wants to answer.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-19-2006 @ 10:58PM
up to my waist and sinking in chiefs red said...
At 14 and living in Iowa you either were a viking fan or a chiefs fan. I have been a chiefs fan ever since they crushed the purple people eaters. Ever since then I have cried so much more than been happy with the chiefs. The first loss to the colts when we had all games coming thru ArrowHead. I think that was our last time in the playoffs. I don't care how they do it but for goodness sake do it before I die. I'm 52 now
Reply
12-19-2006 @ 9:51PM
up to my waist and sinking in chiefs red said...
At 14 and living in Iowa you either were a viking fan or a chiefs fan. I have been a chiefs fan ever since they crushed the purple people eaters. Ever since then I have cried so much more than been happy with the chiefs. The first loss to the colts when we had all games coming thru ArrowHead. I think that was our last time in the playoffs. I don't care how they do it but for goodness sake do it before I die. I'm 52 now
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 10:41AM
Mo' Mike said...
While the fans at Arrowhead can take the credit for making Arrowhead the "most difficult stadium in the NFL" to play in for visiting teams, the fans inadverntly have been part of the problem with Peterson giving us "just average football teams." The fans in KC have enabled the Chiefs. Just as a well meaning parent can enable bad behavior in a misbehaving child, the fans in KC have also enabled "less than average performance" from the Chiefs.
A very ggod friend of mine who is the VP of Finance for an NFL team (not in the AFC) told me that the Chiefs are the envy of most of the NFL teams because of their lease agreement, the ability to generate revenue from 15,000 parking places, the concession agreement with General Services and a stadium that seats 79,000 fans. The shared revenue program in the NFL (2/3rds of the gate) does not include concessions or parking - those funds stay with the Chiefs, and 2/3rd's of the gate for a 79,000 seat stadium is larger than 2/3rd's of a 60,000 seat stadium (duh!).
He aslo states that the tailgating that has developed in KC has taken on a social aspect that has a life of its own and will continue to fill the staium even though the Chiefs performance is average at best.
The Chiefs are making an "end result profit" of $32 million a year over the last 3 years.
The "enabling fans" of KC (and I am one of them) have sold out Arrowhead for 16 straight years. The Chiefs even led the NFL in attendance during the decade of the 90's.
The "enabling fans of Jackson County" (and I am one of them) approved the stadium improvements to the tune of around $500 million.
So let's think about this - great profit, great fans, great tailgating that manitains attendance, great county support with a friendly lease and $400 million in stadium improvements, and the loudest outdoor stadium and fans in the NFL. And what do the Chiefs give the fans in return? Average teams, average coaching and just enough wins to keep the hopes alive for next year. Where is the incentive for Peterson or the Chiefs to improve their teams? Will having a better team make them any more money? No.
The famous home field advantage in Arrowhead is the result of the fan support and not the play of the Chiefs. Marv Levy was ushered out of town as the coach of the Chiefs when only 14,000 fans showed up for a Dec. game in Arrowhead. The only voice that the Chiefs wll listen to is one of ecomonics. The boo's from the stands don't really matter to the Chiefs - just as long as the fans are in the stadium and are buying tickets.
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 10:54AM
Phil said...
I disagree with you to a certain extent, Mo\' Mike. I don't think the Chiefs' problem is in spending money. The best teams don't go out and spend exorbitant amounts of money. They spend it wisely.
The Chiefs are not cheap. They're cautious, but they're not cheap. When they've identified a true need, they've generally gone out and addressed it. 15 years ago, they needed veteran leadership, so they got Joe Montana and Marcus Allen. 5 years ago, they needed a makeover, so they spent money on Dick Vermeil and traded for Trent Green, then later snapped up Willie Roaf. 3 years ago, their defense was a laughingstock, so they changed coordinators. When that didn't make a difference, the next year they got several star defensive players.
What all this signals isn't cheapness on the Chiefs' part. To me, it's simply a trend of bad strategic planning. The primary problem with Carl Peterson is perhaps that he's TOO focused on the short term. Rather than mixing long-term stability with immediate needs, he tries to address only immediate needs. The problem is that, if even one part of that plan doesn't work, then the whole system goes awry.
So, I wouldn't advocate telling Chiefs' fans to stay away. They deserve better, but as Posnanski said, Peterson's problem isn't a lack of trying. It's how he tries.
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 1:03PM
Robert Harvoy said...
I also mildly disagree.
1) I think over the last several years, even though they have failed to make the playoffs, the Chiefs have put a entertaining product on the field. The fans have for the most part enjoyed going to games.
2) staying away, does not work unless your looking to cause management changes. The risk is that you end up making the Chiefs more like the Royals. A smale market team deciding wether to lose money or just be bad.
3) the Chiefs are trying, the problem is that 32 other teams are as well. They also happen to be in a tough division and a tough conference. But they do go out and pursue their needs every off season. They have spent money, now bringing in vets is a short term deal. Their biggest problem is that they are just good enough to be picking outside the top 15 every year, while not good enough to make the playoffs. So you do not have the picks where the pick has the biggest chance of success. Their drafts look better the last 2 years before that they had a string of flops for their top picks. (SD success was getting LT with a top pick, trading a top pick for Rivers merriman) But you need superstars on both sides of the ball to win. The Chiefs do not have a super star on defense and will not get one in the free agent market.
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 1:05PM
Mo\\\' Mike said...
Phil - I don't think that we are very far apart in philosophy we just might be saying what we feel differently.
There have been 3 constatnts in the foundation of the Chiefs and their history for the last 16 years -
1) The ownership
2) Peterson
3) The fans
The coaches and players come and go but the above 3 elements remain the same. 1) As long as the team makes money they are happy. 2) As long as Peterson keeps making the $ for the owner he is safe. 3) As long as the fans keep spending their $, 1) & 2) are happy. A message needs to be sent to the owners that the fans are unhappy.
I am not stating that the Chiefs are cheap, I'm stating that the ownership has no "dire need" to direct Peterson to win or else. The fans and their $ keeps the ownership thinking that the fans are Ok with this, that they will take not making the play-offs this year beause they accept it every year. It is strange that other NFL teams talk about winning the Super Bowl. We in KC have been reduced to saying just make the play-offs.
You mentioned Montana, Allen, Vermeil, Green and Roaf. That's a total of 5 major moves in 16 years - be still my heart! New Orleans made that many moves this year. Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while, but the Chiefs can't make the play-offs.
In your closing paragraph you state that you don't advocate telling the Chiefs fans to stay away - that they deserve better. Who deserves better? The fans or the Chiefs? If they fans deserve better then you are right - if the Chiefs deserve better then the fans are rewarding bad performance and that once again "enables" the ownership to think that we are going to take the less than average performance once again. I don't advocate staying away but there has to be some way to make our voices heard. What do you think we can do?
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 1:04PM
Bassett said...
As a longtime Jets fan, enjoy the next few years with Herm ...
You are in for ball-control offenses with bend don't break defenses culminating in a borderline playoff teams for the foreseeable future.
Enjoy.
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 1:24PM
Robert Harvoy said...
There are a lot more then 5 moves lets not forget Preist. Besides you get the role players in Free Agencey, and trades. Unless you want to take guys with baggage like Owens/ Javon Walker or over pay for an Edgerien. Those are not getting you to the Super Bowl.
Reply
12-28-2006 @ 12:25PM
John Mesawitz said...
I think it would be a good idea to alternate Green and Huard each quarter to confuse teams like Baltimore. Right now the Chiefs are just to predictable in play calling.
Reply