Ranking Chiefs GMs, coaches, best-worst players 89-19

[Stargazer]

Pull up a chair and feel free to immerse yourself in all the highs and lows of the past 30 years of Chiefs history.

https://gasnsports.com/ranking-89-19...92Mr703Llpbd9E

[smithandrew051]

Veach should be number 1 in my book. I get that he took over a good situation, but look at our record in the playoffs since he took over. Look at the improvement in the defense in 1 offseason of cap hell.

No way in hell is Marty 1B. Reid has created separation there. Reid and Stram are the greatest coaches in franchise history...by a lot.

Kelce should be higher than 8. I’d have him ahead of Priest and Charles. Montana at 3 seems high too.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

Veach should be number 1 in my book. I get that he took over a good situation, but look at our record in the playoffs since he took over. Look at the improvement in the defense in 1 offseason of cap hell.

No way in hell is Marty 1B. Reid has created separation there. Reid and Stram are the greatest coaches in franchise history...by a lot.

Kelce should be higher than 8. I’d have him ahead of Priest and Charles. Montana at 3 seems high too.

Veach #1? Why? Because he came into a great situation that allowed him to overpay for a few players and win a SB?

He's been good so far but one year as a GM doesn't make someone #1.. That's crazy.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Veach #1? Why? Because he came into a great situation that allowed him to overpay for a few players and win a SB?

He's been good so far but one year as a GM doesn't make someone #1.. That's crazy.

(Glances at shiny new Lombardi trophy.)

I vote for Veach as #1.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

(Glances at shiny new Lombardi trophy.)

I vote for Veach as #1.

Pretty sure we had another GM when Chiefs won their first SB. You guys just don't remember him

[Kman34]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Pretty sure we had another GM when Chiefs won their first SB. You guys just don't remember him

Football was a lot different 50 years ago when Jack Steadman was running things... Lot less complicated...

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Pretty sure we had another GM when Chiefs won their first SB. You guys just don't remember him

Yeah, but the rules say that we're only talking about the 1989-2019 era.

I'm not really sure what the GM did in those days, though. I've read stories about guys in that era (with no agents at the time) going in and negotiating with the coach. I'm not sure when that responsibility shifted in the league from coaches to GMs.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Veach #1? Why? Because he came into a great situation that allowed him to overpay for a few players and win a SB?

He's been good so far but one year as a GM doesn't make someone #1.. That's crazy.

I don’t think there is any accomplishment by any Chiefs GM on the list as impressive as what Veach did with the defense in one offseason.

The 2018 defense was horrid. Horrid enough to prevent an all time elite offense from making the Super Bowl.

He nailed practically every move last offseason on the defense. And he made a shit load of moves. It was incredible.

[RollinWithMahomie]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

I don’t think there is any accomplishment by any Chiefs GM on the list as impressive as what Veach did with the defense in one offseason.

The 2018 defense was horrid. Horrid enough to prevent an all time elite offense from making the Super Bowl.

He nailed practically every move last offseason on the defense. And he made a shit load of moves. It was incredible.

I agree with the article... Veach can surpass him soon, but as for now he's #2

[Rain Man]

Lists like these really drive home how important the quarterback position is. If you're a GM or a coach, your legacy will be driven by your quarterback, and guess what? Your quarterback will be a result of your philosophy toward quarterbacks.

If you unwaveringly hitch your wagon to a guy who's not good (Pioli with Cassel), you'll be reviled. If you never take a chance to get a great quarterback, you'll never succeed (Peterson with retreads). And if you find and draft the greatest quarterback we've ever seen, you'll never buy a beer in this town again (Veach).

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Lists like these really drive home how important the quarterback position is. If you're a GM or a coach, your legacy will be driven by your quarterback, and guess what? Your quarterback will be a result of your philosophy toward quarterbacks.

If you unwaveringly hitch your wagon to a guy who's not good (Pioli with Cassel), you'll be reviled. If you never take a chance to get a great quarterback, you'll never succeed (Peterson with retreads). And if you find and draft the greatest quarterback we've ever seen, you'll never buy a beer in this town again (Veach).

It's fair to point out that Peterson just operated in a different time.

We use the rearview mirror to deify a LOT of mediocrity in the 90s. The Cowboys didn't win because Troy Aikman was a great quarterback. Troy Aikman is considered a great quarterback BECAUSE the Cowboys won.

Jim Kelly's the same way. Watch videos of the guy and he wasn't amazing - he was a glorified game manager. Mark Rypien is another.

There are LEGITIMATE arguments for somehow placing Bobby Hebert among the 10 best quarterbacks of the 90s, likewise with Randall Cunningham. I'd have taken Trent Green over Hebert, Cunningham, Rypien and probably Kelly. I'm not sure he was notably worse than Aikman, he just didn't have the defense the Cowboys had those years. And while Elvis Grbac was by no means a real success here, he was also not clearly worse than someone like Jimmy Grapes - he just didn't have the surrounding cast Garappolo had.

Steve Bono was the only egregiously stupid decision he made at quarterback when you consider the majority if the era he operated in. By the end of his run, the worm had started to turn but through most of his Chiefs career, he made decisions that were reasonable when they were made. And even then, can you imagine a scenario in the modern draft when "These two quarterbacks are vying for 1.1!" yields the loser a slide all the way down to 24?

In 2020 the 4th best quarterback in the draft was taken at 26 to replace a guy many thought was the single best player in the draft when he was taken at 24 in 2005. Tua will never be taken at 24 again. I don't imagine there will be many years where Herbert slides out of the top 20 going forward and he was never truly in the mix for a top 5 selection. Rodgers was a legit possibility at 1.1 and went into free-fall when a single team passed on him.

Even at the end of Carl's run, an elite quaterback was considered a luxury, especially when the prototype of an elite quarterback over the previous 25 years or so never won a championship.

Carl operated in an era when you could create the myth of greatness for a quarterback by surrounding him with talent. Marty is in a similar boat. What they did at the time wasn't absurd or unheard of - in fact it was largely conventional wisdom.

[AdolfOliverBush]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And while Elvis Grbac was by no means a real success here, he was also not clearly worse than someone like Jimmy Grapes - he just didn't have the surrounding cast Garappolo had.

You bastard.

Grbitch was and is a wart on the face of humanity. He should feel blessed for never being tossed into a acidic rape fire by Chiefs fans.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Steve Bono was the only egregiously stupid decision he made at quarterback when you consider the majority if the era he operated in. By the end of his run, the worm had started to turn but through most of his Chiefs career, he made decisions that were reasonable when they were made. And even then, can you imagine a scenario in the modern draft when "These two quarterbacks are vying for 1.1!" yields the loser a slide all the way down to 24?

Bono decision in 1995 was one where Montana kind of put them in a pickle. Montana didn't officially retire until April of that year. Kind of hard to go out in free agency or trade for a QB if you don't really officially know what Montana was going to do. Then kind of hard to replace a QB that just went 13-3 unfortunately. Takes a lot of stones to do that and most personal types won't do that do.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Bono decision in 1995 was one where Montana kind of put them in a pickle. Montana didn't officially retire until April of that year. Kind of hard to go out in free agency or trade for a QB if you don't really officially know what Montana was going to do. Then kind of hard to replace a QB that just went 13-3 unfortunately. Takes a lot of stones to do that and most personal types won't do that do.

Fair, but I also remember Montana being something of a Roaf situation (and Shields for a bit) where he didn't officially retire until fairly late in the game but the feeling around the organization and the city was that it was all but inevitable.

Dude was 38 years old and was clearly in sharp decline. He'd had significant injuries in like 4-5 straight years. You simply cannot feign shock when he retires. They had to have a backup plan in place and just...didn't. How do you NOT have a guy like Chris Chandler on hand? Or draft a Todd Collins or Rob Johnson since you know that Montana's gone in a year tops? Those were successful major college QBs who could've been had in the 2nd and 4th rounds.

I mean....I guess I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that was their plan with Steve Stenstrom but...Yikes.

Ultimately I don't fault him for most of what went on at QB for those years. But man, the Bono thing was just so !@#$ing awful and with even moderately credible QB play, they could've nabbed a ring in there. Any team that goes 13-3 w/ Bono under center could've won a SB with Chris Chandler. And I guess it's also fair to point out that we had Gannon, but that was on Marty. I think that was HIS major misstep. And not because he didn't play him, but because he simply didn't know how to use him. Gannon wasn't actually all that great here, but that was because Marty couldn't figure out what to do with him.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Fair, but I also remember Montana being something of a Roaf situation (and Shields for a bit) where he didn't officially retire until fairly late in the game but the feeling around the organization and the city was that it was all but inevitable.

Dude was 38 years old and was clearly in sharp decline. He'd had significant injuries in like 4-5 straight years. You simply cannot feign shock when he retires. They had to have a backup plan in place and just...didn't. How do you NOT have a guy like Chris Chandler on hand? Or draft a Todd Collins or Rob Johnson since you know that Montana's gone in a year tops? Those were successful major college QBs who could've been had in the 2nd and 4th rounds.

I mean....I guess I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that was their plan with Steve Stenstrom but...Yikes.

Ultimately I don't fault him for most of what went on at QB for those years. But man, the Bono thing was just so !@#$ing awful and with even moderately credible QB play, they could've nabbed a ring in there. Any team that goes 13-3 w/ Bono under center could've won a SB with Chris Chandler. And I guess it's also fair to point out that we had Gannon, but that was on Marty. I think that was HIS major misstep. And not because he didn't play him, but because he simply didn't know how to use him. Gannon wasn't actually all that great here, but that was because Marty couldn't figure out what to do with him.

To also be fair to Carl, he did have a major woody for a college QB at that time who didn't fit in the era but would certainly have now. Would have been trend setting. Carl loved him some Charlie Ward. But Ward had legit NBA backup plans and wanted guarantied first round draft pick status. Tough pickle to be in for Carl.