I bring this up for a couple reasons. One, the fact that you die die DIE is one of the genuine appeals to the game. The fight itself is much more meaningful because there is so much on the line. The fact that the Chiefs have died died DIED so often right when they get into the postseason means it is that much more meaningful when we win. We've won one playoff game since 1994, that against the Texans after the 2015 season, and it was memorably exhilarating. Yeah, that was it, and while anyone could've beaten the Texans that day the fact is it was really really fun. Sure the Patriots have around 8,000 playoff wins in that same time period, but how fun was any given one of those? Don't get me wrong, I'd trade the Patriots success for the Chiefs any day, but still.
The other reason is that recently after my son had in succession a good Fortnite win then a tough loss, he asked me, "Dad, do you know what my favorite Fortnite win is? The next one. That's what we all tell each other at school." This sentiment struck me, it is much like one that has always resonated with me from a fine collegiate softball player from a few years ago, Michelle Granger, who when asked if she actually does enjoy the game replied, "It is fun while you're in it." What a simple yet extremely wise statement. Enjoy the game, but when it is done move on with the next game and other things in life.
I share this because I've spent a lot of blog space analyzing the current Chiefs situation in light of the fact that I am doing what could be considered the most ferocious naval-lint-extraction about what it could possibly be that's afflicting the Chiefs so gruesomely when it comes to trying to win a playoff game. I do this a lot for the therapy -- I've said this a number of times before, but it is true -- it is just a way to process it all. More on that later.
I also share it because it may be reasonably broached: "Why do you spend so much energy going over all this past stuff? Let's move on with what we've got and hope for the best -- it actually looks pretty good right now! What's done is done -- just like the Fortnite players say, 'The best Chiefs game ever is the next win!'" Please, don't misunderstand me -- I got you. I'm with you. I do understand. I do have extraordinarily high hopes for our team. I really actually truly do.
And I will go over some of the things that comprise Chiefs greatness, I will, with the sincerely earnest enthusiasm about our future chances, seriously. I will get to that, even a bit of it in this very post.
But I also do all of this because I have this idea, yeah, maybe it is a totally misled wayward ridiculous idea, that identifying the insane things that have afflicted the Chiefs in the past may be judiciously addressed -- my last blog post went into great detail about the specific and identifiable ways the NFL itself does indeed put the hurt on the Chiefs. Yes, maybe there is nothing that can be done about any of that. Okay...
But I'm still going to call it out. We should know about it. We should be poised to even say something about it. We should hope to see things made right. Even if nothing gets done about it we can have a stronger affection for this thing The Kansas City Chiefs, being able to appreciate the genuinely endearing things about it in spite of those unjust assaults.
And yes, I do believe one of those debilitating things is Hunt. Again, it isn't Clark or Lamar or any of what they've been about per se. Lamar was a giant in the illustrious legacy of pro football and Clark has done his difficult work above board with the Chiefs first and foremost in his heart.
As I think about the past injustices from the NFL itself, I couldn't help but think about Lamar's history with it from day one. I wondered about Hunt originating from the simple and very gracious request Lamar made to the NFL when he asked to add his team to the league. The league said "F*** off" and Lamar went and started the AFL. If you've read the history you should know.
The NFL was a major league aye-hole about the whole thing.
They really couldn't stand Lamar Hunt.
Lamar persevered. He vigorously encouraged the other owners to hold on when the AFL floundered in its early years. He introduced a number of splendid innovations to make the AFL more exciting without affecting the purity of the pro football game. He even went out of his way to abandon his beloved Dallas and move his team to Kansas City in extremely gracious deference to the NFL when it deliberately tried to undermine his efforts by putting the Cowboys franchise there right after Hunt had earlier asked to have his team there!
What was it about all of this that formed this thing Hunt? Was Lamar far too conciliatory? Yes there were a lot of other things in the mix, but Lamar's AFL enterprise in and of itself was not one of them no matter what the NFL thought about it. Was the NFL even more resentful that they were pressured into the merger? How much animosity did Tex Schramm have towards Lamar when they secretly met in a car on that airport parking lot to begin arranging the merger? I honestly believe Schramm was respectful of Hunt and all the two parties wanted to accomplish.
What was it that moved the NFL to bend? I wonder if it wasn't as much Lamar as it was someone else with the ganas to make it happen. I'm loathe to admit it but I think the seminal point in the AFL's gravitas -- and ironically in the perpetuation of Hunt -- came in the brief tenure of AFL Commissioner ::gulp:: the Raiders Al Davis.
 |
| Al Davis (on the right) pictured with Bills owner Ralph Wilson |
The tricky thing about all this was that while Davis wanted the AFL to go its own way, Hunt, Schramm, and the NFL were working out a deal behind his back. Davis was livid, but really, Davis was legitimately called on to take one for the AFL so it could have the leverage it needed to make the merger deal. In that sense, Davis sacrificed himself and his terrific leadership skills for the good of the entire pro football world, and I can't believe he wasn't aware of the value of that contribution.
(As a side note, the NFL's commissioner, Pete Rozelle, simply took over the AFL after the merger fundamentals were hammered out. For an AFL purist like Davis -- bless his heart -- it was not surprising he was constantly embroiled in conflict with Rozelle throughout the next couple of decades. The Raiders and the NFL themselves did not have the most wholesomely amicable relationship, to say the least.)
Davis was the guy with the got-it. Over the 16 years following his brief stint as pro football's game-changer, his got-it put the Raiders into four Super Bowls -- they won three of them. Davis was one of the best managers of a pro football franchise ever, deftly putting lots of players with got-it on the football field. In the early 1990's when he started making it about himself, almost to a pathological degree, he lost his "got-it" touch, and the Raiders suffered (I'd say there are a few Chiefs fans who aren't complaining a whole lot about that).
The AFL benefited from Davis' efforts tremendously, and Lamar, well, didn't. The Chiefs didn't. Yes the Chiefs won a Super Bowl shortly after that, and yes Lamar arranged the merger and did a dozen other magnificent things for pro football, but it just wasn't the same as what Al did -- as much as it pains me to say that. And to that extent, how much of all this turned itself into Hunt?...
I've only shared much of the surface stuff that may reveal things about it all, but I'm always wondering what is much deeper. I've tried to delve there but I confess I'm not the most intrepid investigative reporter in all this -- I have neither the time nor the wherewithal. As I've said there is much I don't know, and I want to presume nothing. I only want to sincerely confront that which is true. I'm also encountering 97% of Chiefs fans who insist, "Fugheddaboudit, let it go. We've lost games only because of bad bounces." I understand that.
I still can't help but think. What if I did go deep? What if I did ask around -- are there any people somewhere somewhat in the organization, in the arena -- perceptive, insightful, authentic, observant, holding the truth about things in the highest regard and eminently respected for it. Those who see this, who'd talk about it articulately, meaningfully...
I've thought about this kind of thing before, written about it in this blog: What would we find out if we asked the playoff opponent players about what it was like playing really good Chiefs teams and the beating them? There are so many of them. What would they tell us about what they saw in the Chiefs, what happened with the Chiefs on the field that was just not like it was during the regular season?
What would we find out? What would we find out if we heard from those who know about Hunt?
Could it be nothing much? Yeah, maybe.
I just don't think so, however. I think there's something.
So what does it take to overcome Hunt?
Much of it means addressing all the things I've talked about already, especially that stuff with the NFL. With that in mind I'd like to add another thing I'd do as commissioner, something I hadn't thought about adding, but now I think is just as important. Related to it is a key component of Chiefs success, one which gives great meaning to the whole "The best Chiefs game ever is the next win" attitude.
First, that important NFL dynamic I would comprehensively address as commissioner:
- Radically modify what happens with free agency. I have been reluctant to bring up the whole free agency thing because for one, I am fully on board with players making as much money as they can. I share this disclaimer because for years I have raged against what free agency does to competitive integrity. It may then seem I'm against the players, but I am not.
I am only against what these kinds of things do to my team.
I've also held back because -- at least from what we see on the surface -- the NFL actually works to be fair and above board with the draft and strict rules about player movement. It is far better than what major league baseball allows, which results in teams like the Yankees and Dodgers having far more success than the other teams. (Don't think the Yankees and Dodgers have had far more success than other teams in light of the fact neither team has appeared in many World Series recently? Just look at the number of winning seasons or instances they've qualified for postseason play over the past several years. They far outdistance any other major league team.)
Yes, some will revile parity and enthusiastically appreciate when these kinds of teams experience much more success -- it is indeed no different than favoring a New York-New England Super Bowl matchup happening more often than not. As I shared in my last blog post, this philosophy is a slap in the face of every other team's fans. And yes, far too many people have this "larger market team success is best" mentality, especially powerful people who are always seeking ways to make it more likely to happen.
Thing is, the NFL does do a decent job of at least working to make sure every team has equal footing, and I genuinely appreciate that. They've also done a number of things to mitigate the debilitating impact of free agency on teams like the Chiefs -- offered compensatory picks, allowed franchise tags -- I think the NBA has something called a "mid-level exception," I don't know if the NFL does -- any of a number of rules and restrictions related to how teams may use free agency to take advantage of their large market status.
What I don't like is the salary cap. It isn't as much that it limits what players may earn -- as I've said it is no big deal to me that players make millions, that's cool. The problem is the cap hampers teams particularly when they want to retain their own fine players.
This is why if I had my way, I'd get rid of free agency all together. After a player is drafted by a team and the team spends a gob of time and energy developing him, they should be able to keep him if they want -- and pay him as much as he should get. I know some will say this "reserve clause" makes it so teams won't pay them, but a natural monopsony model where the teams and the union together work out salaries for players on whichever team they are on goes a long way to solving this.
This then means the teams that do the best drafting and developing will be the most successful -- and this is the way it should be. Who cares if a given team is full of superstars getting paid a lot of money simply because the team did a fine job of drafting and developing them? I agree there'd have to be certain rules and restrictions in place so teams don't take advantage of this, such as a team preventing a fine player from being on the field when he could be with another team out there showing his abilities -- I'm great with those kinds of things.
Bottom line here? Before the last season why did the Chiefs have to choose between Dontari Poe and Eric Berry? Why? It was only about the money. We drafted both, we developed both, we committed to both, why couldn't the Chiefs just pay both? We let Poe go and to replace him we picked up Bennie Logan as a free agent. Good try, but I'm sorry, Dontari was way better.
We just watched Marcus Peters get dealt away -- for several reasons but what was one of the most prominent ones? It was that in a couple years Peters was likely to ask for $20 million a year and we didn't want to mess with that. Let's get something for him now was the thinking. Why? Why can't we pay him? He is indeed one of the most talented and fiercely competitive players in the league, and we got squat for him much because of this salary cap crap.
There are other examples of the decisions the Chiefs have to make simply because of the money -- simply because we must "manage the cap." That stinks.
Why does any team have to get rid of its good players under these conditions? I do believe much of it comes from this benighted idea: Should a team like the Chiefs become dominant it simply would not be good for the NFL. The Chiefs would be getting all that money to pay all its terrific players from the broadcasting contracts of the media world led by execs always hoping for much more success from the New Yorks and Los Angeleses and Chicagos. What? they'd cry, All that money going to the Chiefs? Look at that, what a revenue-stream KILLER: that podunk Midwest town's team has just appeared in four straight Super Bowls! What's with that?
So in a very real sense, this thing parity is sustained not as much to make sure the small market Chiefs have a little boost and can at least compete a little, but to make sure a phenomenally good Chiefs team doesn't keep a Patriots or Giants or Rams or Cowboys from appearing in Super Bowls often enough.
Yeah, more complicity even in the apparent "fairness" of it all.
Okay, I know, this is what we've got. Moaning and groaning about it won't change that. Deal with it. The Chiefs have a challenge, greater than many other teams. So what must happen in this environment? What do you need to navigate through it?
You need a skilled navigator.
This then is the transition into one of the most critical elements to overcoming Hunt. Yes there are a lot of factors involved in this, but this is one of the most important. You can say it in two words.
Brett Veach.
We're finding out that Veach has a wealth of football experience under his belt, being with Andy Reid for years, cutting his teeth with John Dorsey. It's fun to watch him work right now, watch him take advantage of the opportunity -- and so far he's been looking pretty good. He's been boldly moving on important matters, taking care of business -- unloading Peters (controversial move), dealing Alex Smith (outstanding move), and doing everything he can with little room under that abhorrent cap as well as within the confines of the NFL's soft disdain for his small market Chiefs.
The most important factor of all, and we just have to see...
Does Brett have enough got-it to translate into Chiefs postseason wins?
Really, let's cut to the chase. Will Brett bring those things to the football field that overcome Hunt? I know it is a tall order. There are certainly a dozen other things Brett is doing as a high-energy very youthful GM. That may seem like a liability, having little experience, but again he does have the experience. There must be a reason a 39 year-old is our GM.
I'd like to think his got-it becomes Chiefs got-it.
We will definitely need a lot of it to get going on richly enjoying some magnificently delightful postseason winning.
___
(Episode VI)
___
No comments:
Post a Comment