Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

Winning Seasons Since 1995

Avatar

Posted: 7/16/2014 5:29 PM

Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Not too bad... now, we just need some playoff wins.

https://twitter.com/PatsGazett...9869953/photo/1
Reply | Quote
  • 1nDun
  • Chief Leader
  • 1716 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 7/16/2014 9:41 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/16/2014 10:09 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


On a negative note, which really speaks louder to me, we have not posted back to back winning seasons since 1997...Do that and we will certainly be making true progress towards a Lombardi...Andy Reids overall record suggests it will happen but is 2016 more likely than 2014?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/16/2014 11:03 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek

The Browns with 2 and the Texans with 3 haven't even played all of those years.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/17/2014 12:22 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


The crappy thing is that we gave them those 3 seasons when Marty/Carl chose Grbac over Gannon.  Worst Chiefs decision I can remember.

1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 3:03 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



mloe68 wrote: On a negative note, which really speaks louder to me, we have not posted back to back winning seasons since 1997...Do that and we will certainly be making true progress towards a Lombardi...Andy Reids overall record suggests it will happen but is 2016 more likely than 2014?
Right, the Eagles were 4th on the ranking with 12 winning seasons during that time, mostly all with Reid.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 3:04 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



BucNasty82 wrote: The crappy thing is that we gave them those 3 seasons when Marty/Carl chose Grbac over Gannon.  Worst Chiefs decision I can remember.

1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
dumbest decision ever.  cost us the SB.  I wouldn't say that if Rich Gannon didn't go on to win 2 MVPs and taking the Raiders to a SB either.

IMO, since I've been watching the Chiefs since 1989, KC should've won the SB in 1993, 1995, 97 and possibly even 03 had the rosters been managed just a little better.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 3:32 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


The Gannon Mythology is my least favorite Chief fan narrative.

The guy was a journeyman for a reason. Even with us, his stats were basically the same as Grbac's. Every time we handed him the starting job, he failed.

He only got to a Superbowl because he had a very good coach, system, and supporting cast around him.

Grbac was FAR more talented physically and it really wasn't the dumb decision people have made it out to be. Superficially, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do given the information we had at the time.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/17/2014 3:43 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


I agree with you. Haunts me to this day.
dksww wrote:
BucNasty82 wrote: The crappy thing is that we gave them those 3 seasons when Marty/Carl chose Grbac over Gannon.  Worst Chiefs decision I can remember.

1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
dumbest decision ever.  cost us the SB.  I wouldn't say that if Rich Gannon didn't go on to win 2 MVPs and taking the Raiders to a SB either.

IMO, since I've been watching the Chiefs since 1989, KC should've won the SB in 1993, 1995, 97 and possibly even 03 had the rosters been managed just a little better.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 3:54 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Not sure we should have won Super Bowls all those years but with all realistic contending teams at least one should have broken through. Winning in Buffalo in the early 90s just did not happen. Marty flat out gave it away in 1995. 1997 was a defense for the ages. Fact we had to play a dynasty Broncos team in our first playoff game was just bad luck. I think 2003 team was exposed and not a real contender. I actually think the 2005 team which didnt even make the playoffs would have been capable of winning a Super Bowl had they gotten in.


---------------------------------------------
--- dksww wrote:


BucNasty82 wrote: The crappy thing is that we gave them those 3 seasons when Marty/Carl chose Grbac over Gannon.  Worst Chiefs decision I can remember.

1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
dumbest decision ever.  cost us the SB.  I wouldn't say that if Rich Gannon didn't go on to win 2 MVPs and taking the Raiders to a SB either.

IMO, since I've been watching the Chiefs since 1989, KC should've won the SB in 1993, 1995, 97 and possibly even 03 had the rosters been managed just a little better.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 5:03 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



mloe68 wrote: Not sure we should have won Super Bowls all those years but with all realistic contending teams at least one should have broken through. Winning in Buffalo in the early 90s just did not happen. Marty flat out gave it away in 1995. 1997 was a defense for the ages. Fact we had to play a dynasty Broncos team in our first playoff game was just bad luck. I think 2003 team was exposed and not a real contender. I actually think the 2005 team which didnt even make the playoffs would have been capable of winning a Super Bowl had they gotten in.


---------------------------------------------
--- dksww wrote:


BucNasty82 wrote: The crappy thing is that we gave them those 3 seasons when Marty/Carl chose Grbac over Gannon.  Worst Chiefs decision I can remember.

1nDun wrote: Only 3 for Raiders in 18 years???eek
dumbest decision ever.  cost us the SB.  I wouldn't say that if Rich Gannon didn't go on to win 2 MVPs and taking the Raiders to a SB either.

IMO, since I've been watching the Chiefs since 1989, KC should've won the SB in 1993, 1995, 97 and possibly even 03 had the rosters been managed just a little better.

---------------------------------------------
I agree completely, but in the early 90's the Chiefs blew a few lay up games that would've given them homefield throughout the playoffs instead of going through buffalo.

the 95 and 97 teams were good enough to win the sb.

05 team was better than 03 team and you're right, they could've made a run with LJ, Trent Green and the defense was by far better than it was in 03 and 04.

we've been watching the Chiefs since the same year.

Last edited 7/17/2014 5:19 PM by dksww

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 5:20 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



Adamixoye wrote: The Gannon Mythology is my least favorite Chief fan narrative.

The guy was a journeyman for a reason. Even with us, his stats were basically the same as Grbac's. Every time we handed him the starting job, he failed.

He only got to a Superbowl because he had a very good coach, system, and supporting cast around him.

Grbac was FAR more talented physically and it really wasn't the dumb decision people have made it out to be. Superficially, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do given the information we had at the time.
I disagree.

Gannon had all those things in KC as well, good head coach, great team around him, he was the hot hand at the time of the Donks playoff game and in today's NFL, Grbac would've never came off the bench after missing 7/8 games due to injury to start a playoff game cold. 

Marty made the wrong decision for that one game, not necessarily for the long term.  It's completely conceivable that he could've kept the hot Gannon in for the playoffs, won the SB and then went with Grbac in the next season.

Of course Grbac was projected as the better qb based on age, size, arm strength, etc., but as time played out it was proven Gannon was the better QB because Grbac flopped badly with the Chiefs and Ravens while Gannon went on to win 2 MVPs and take the Raiders to the SB.  Remember, Gruden was in TB when the Raiders made the SB led by Gannon.

Last edited 7/17/2014 5:22 PM by dksww

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 7:10 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



I could not disagree more...Gannon had an IT factor that made him dangerous even when his numbers were only average. When combined with a system and head coach who knew how to use him, Gannon became NFL MVP! That 1995 team was carried by its defense and running game. But I feel very confident that had Rich Gannon started that playoff game, we win handily. He was finally put in late in the game and drove us down the field for another Lin Elliott miss. In 1997 the team was completely rolling and there was simply no reason to make change. In fact I ran into Mike Shanahan in Lake Tahoe a few months later and he ended our brief conversation by saying "I was just happy you guys didnt start Gannon." We let him walk and two years later he goes to multiple Pro Bowls, wins an NFL MVP and gets the Raiders to the Super Bowl. It still stings. Pure revenge for Marcus Allen.

---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

The Gannon Mythology is my least favorite Chief fan narrative.

The guy was a journeyman for a reason. Even with us, his stats were basically the same as Grbac's. Every time we handed him the starting job, he failed.

He only got to a Superbowl because he had a very good coach, system, and supporting cast around him.

Grbac was FAR more talented physically and it really wasn't the dumb decision people have made it out to be. Superficially, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do given the information we had at the time.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 7:40 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 



mloe68 wrote:
I could not disagree more...Gannon had an IT factor that made him dangerous even when his numbers were only average. When combined with a system and head coach who knew how to use him, Gannon became NFL MVP! That 1995 team was carried by its defense and running game. But I feel very confident that had Rich Gannon started that playoff game, we win handily. He was finally put in late in the game and drove us down the field for another Lin Elliott miss. In 1997 the team was completely rolling and there was simply no reason to make change. In fact I ran into Mike Shanahan in Lake Tahoe a few months later and he ended our brief conversation by saying "I was just happy you guys didnt start Gannon." We let him walk and two years later he goes to multiple Pro Bowls, wins an NFL MVP and gets the Raiders to the Super Bowl. It still stings. Pure revenge for Marcus Allen.

---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

The Gannon Mythology is my least favorite Chief fan narrative.

The guy was a journeyman for a reason. Even with us, his stats were basically the same as Grbac's. Every time we handed him the starting job, he failed.

He only got to a Superbowl because he had a very good coach, system, and supporting cast around him.

Grbac was FAR more talented physically and it really wasn't the dumb decision people have made it out to be. Superficially, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do given the information we had at the time.

---------------------------------------------
I live in Denver and M. Shanahan to this day still says that playoff game was the hardest hitting game he's ever coached or been a part.  still makes me sick to this day that we lost.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/17/2014 7:59 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


The thing a lot of people don't realize is Marty knew that Gannon was the better QB for that season. He just had the stupid "you can't lose your job because of an injury," rule. It cost us a freaking SB.

That 1997-1998 Chiefs D does not get the respect it deserves because of Marty's dumb decision..Rather than the 2000 Ravens and last years Seahawks I have not seen a better D. That was a special group. They held a very good Broncos offense to just 14 pts in that playoff game.

They also didn't give up one 2nd half TD all regular season if I remember correctly.
dksww wrote:
mloe68 wrote:
I could not disagree more...Gannon had an IT factor that made him dangerous even when his numbers were only average. When combined with a system and head coach who knew how to use him, Gannon became NFL MVP! That 1995 team was carried by its defense and running game. But I feel very confident that had Rich Gannon started that playoff game, we win handily. He was finally put in late in the game and drove us down the field for another Lin Elliott miss. In 1997 the team was completely rolling and there was simply no reason to make change. In fact I ran into Mike Shanahan in Lake Tahoe a few months later and he ended our brief conversation by saying "I was just happy you guys didnt start Gannon." We let him walk and two years later he goes to multiple Pro Bowls, wins an NFL MVP and gets the Raiders to the Super Bowl. It still stings. Pure revenge for Marcus Allen.

---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

The Gannon Mythology is my least favorite Chief fan narrative.

The guy was a journeyman for a reason. Even with us, his stats were basically the same as Grbac's. Every time we handed him the starting job, he failed.

He only got to a Superbowl because he had a very good coach, system, and supporting cast around him.

Grbac was FAR more talented physically and it really wasn't the dumb decision people have made it out to be. Superficially, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do given the information we had at the time.

---------------------------------------------
I live in Denver and M. Shanahan to this day still says that playoff game was the hardest hitting game he's ever coached or been a part.  still makes me sick to this day that we lost.

Last edited 7/17/2014 8:17 PM by NiceGuy890

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 8:33 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Oh, I totally forgot about his "it" factor. The same "it" factor that led us to a 1-2 record in 1996 when he took over for Bono, and 5-5 in 1998 before we let him go in favor of Elvis. Yeah, he was 5-1 in 1997 when the team was really good, and when Elvis went 8-3 (including playoffs).
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 8:59 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


NFL MVP....4 straight PRO BOWLS...and even Shanny saying he is really glad we didnt start him as part of our best team in the last 3 decades. Gruden targeted him for a reason. And it paid off huge for them while we didnt make the playoffs again in the Gannon era...


---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

Oh, I totally forgot about his "it" factor. The same "it" factor that led us to a 1-2 record in 1996 when he took over for Bono, and 5-5 in 1998 before we let him go in favor of Elvis. Yeah, he was 5-1 in 1997 when the team was really good, and when Elvis went 8-3 (including playoffs).

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 9:13 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Ironically, I've heard some Niner fans tell me that if they had kept the "you can't lose your job because of an injury," rule intact with Smith/Kaepernick, they would have won that SB in 2012/13. (Wouldn't have gotten the big deficits against Atlanta or Baltimore with a game plan with Smith as QB.) Smith wouldn't have insisted on throwing to Crabtree over the open TE on the last play. Kaepernick said he owed Crabtree in the third so he went 3-4 straight times to him at the end of the game.

Not saying it's true, just relaying what the other side of the injury rule looks like. Win and it's ok, don't and it's not, I suppose. Depending on what you think of Smith, we might not have had him if they observed that rule. Even if they went with Kaepernick, they may have traded Smith to a different team later and we could've picked Geno Smith. Good thing we didn't, in my opinion (although I think Geno will improve over 2013).

NiceGuy890 wrote: The thing a lot of people don't realize is Marty knew that Gannon was the better QB for that season. He just had the stupid "you can't lose your job because of an injury," rule. It cost us a freaking SB.

Last edited 7/17/2014 9:19 PM by KCSLC2008

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 10:51 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Even if I put stock in any of those things (the media voting on MVP, etc.), it wouldn't change that he never showed any of that in Minnesota, Washington, or here.  And for the record, that's just an urban legend spread by a poster around here (I don't remember who; maybe you?) about Shanahan, and I don't care what rat-face says anyway.  He also believed in Brian Griese and Jake Plummer.

mloe68 wrote: NFL MVP....4 straight PRO BOWLS...and even Shanny saying he is really glad we didnt start him as part of our best team in the last 3 decades. Gruden targeted him for a reason. And it paid off huge for them while we didnt make the playoffs again in the Gannon era...


---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

Oh, I totally forgot about his "it" factor. The same "it" factor that led us to a 1-2 record in 1996 when he took over for Bono, and 5-5 in 1998 before we let him go in favor of Elvis. Yeah, he was 5-1 in 1997 when the team was really good, and when Elvis went 8-3 (including playoffs).

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/17/2014 11:09 PM

Re: Winning Seasons Since 1995 


Urban myth? Its a simple fact Shanny told me that. Video Poker Bar at Caesars Palace Lake Tahoe 1998.

So an NFL MVP, 4 straight Pro Bowls, 2 time All Pro, 4700 yards passing in 2002, averaging 26 TD passes per season his first four years....is just more myth as well? Thats comical.

Had he started the 1996 playoff game against the Colts...I think we go to the Super Bowl...Had we started Gannon two years later...I think we go to the Super bowl as well...instead he is jettisoned off to our biggest rival where they did go. Just horrendous decision making by Marty and Carl.



---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

Even if I put stock in any of those things (the media voting on MVP, etc.), it wouldn't change that he never showed any of that in Minnesota, Washington, or here.  And for the record, that's just an urban legend spread by a poster around here (I don't remember who; maybe you?) about Shanahan, and I don't care what rat-face says anyway.  He also believed in Brian Griese and Jake Plummer.

mloe68 wrote: NFL MVP....4 straight PRO BOWLS...and even Shanny saying he is really glad we didnt start him as part of our best team in the last 3 decades. Gruden targeted him for a reason. And it paid off huge for them while we didnt make the playoffs again in the Gannon era...


---------------------------------------------
--- Adamixoye wrote:

Oh, I totally forgot about his "it" factor. The same "it" factor that led us to a 1-2 record in 1996 when he took over for Bono, and 5-5 in 1998 before we let him go in favor of Elvis. Yeah, he was 5-1 in 1997 when the team was really good, and when Elvis went 8-3 (including playoffs).

---------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >