From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: The Chiefs learned nothing from Parcell's Giants
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:27:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.171049.15537@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>
>Traditionally -- and I'll admit that doesn't mean much lately -- teams trade 
>for a 35+ year old QB only if 1) they've been a playoff contender for 
>a few years and 2) they think that all they need to put them over the 
>top is a QB.
>
>IMHO, the team that fits this the most seems to be KC.  I don't know 
>anything about KC's GM.  Is Schottenheimer the GM?  I can't remember 
>hearing about any other trades like this involving KC so maybe they're 
>not inclined to make trades.  (The team with which I am most familiar, 
>Green Bay, has a GM who likes to make trades but GB doesn't need a 
>QB.)
>

The Chiefs simply blew it four years ago when they went for the quick
fix of going with a veteran quarterback on the downside of his career
instead of developing their own young prospect.  And now they're
trapped.  By the time they can groom a young quarterback, their current
crop of stars on defense will be past their prime.  

Many believe that the Chiefs can be the AFC's West version of Parcell's
Giants.  But if we look at those Super Bowl Giants teams, we see that
the Chiefs are not following the blueprint.  Where's the quarterback?
The Giants patiently waited for Phil Simms to develop, despite several 
years when his season was cut short by injury.  He got the experience
of playing in the NFC Championship against the Bears in 1985, 
led the Giants to several come-from-behind victories in 1986, and had
the game of his life in the Super Bowl against Denver.

In 1990 Simms was injured near the end of the season, but the Giants
had kept the same back-up quarterback on the bench for several years,
so that when the time came Jeff Hostetler was ready, much as the Bills
had Frank Reich in reserve.  In contrast to a veteran starting 
quarterback slowed by past injury, Hostetler still had the ability to
scramble.

What I remember about these Giants teams is that not only did they
have the defense to keep the game close, but they had the CLUTCH
offense to pull the game out at the end.  Take away the close
victories such as the 49er-Giants 1990 playoff game and the Giants
don't win the Super Bowl.  And in order to make the last minute
drive for the winning score, an offense needs a quarterback it can
count on.  It needs the tradition of having come back from similar
situations.  It needs to KNOW that the quarterback will make the
right decision and hit the receiver on fourth down.

A quarterback that has been with the team for less than a year
cannot inspire this same confidence, because he and the team simply
do not have the history of having succeeded before.  It takes some
time for a quarterback to learn a new offense, and he must also
identify who will be his clutch receiver.  The Giants had the great
tight-end Mark Bavaro--with him the Giants win the championship in
1990, without him the next year they collapsed.

In the last four years, how many times have the Chiefs rallied to win
against a good time?  And in contrast, how many times have the Chiefs
faced a little adversity only to collapse in utter chaos, as in their
games this year against Steelers, the Giants, and the Raiders in LA?

The Chiefs are the bullies of the NFL.  They can beat a good team
only if the game is in Kansas City, and only if the Chiefs don't
fall behind by more than a touchdown.  They can beat a poor team on
the road, but if a team with some talent gets ahead the Chiefs quit.
The Chiefs don't resemble Parcell's Giants in any of the ways that
matter.