Monday Magnificence: A Win for the Ages

I have spent much of the last two years inside this House of Georges being a crabby prick. That's not what I aimed for, initially. Honest. I'm not asking for any pity parties here, but life just ain't that easy when your sports teams seldom give you anything positive about which to write. When your Sunday is miserable, and that bleeds into your Monday, Tuesday, and sometimes Wednesday, and that happens in more weeks than not, you become a very miserable human being. There are two sides to yesterday's 24-27 overtime win against the Steelers at Arrowhead, and they are this: 1) It's important to not get too hyped up about one win. Period. Exclamation point. Etc. 2) As much as I'd like to pipedream about running the table, and stealing a division win, I know that the reality of the optimistic side of things is nothing more than this: That was, regardless of all details, a great win, the best victory this franchise has seen in a long damn time. A quick expansion of that second aspect, after the jump.


In 2006, the Chiefs lost to the Bengals in the home opener, gave a valiant effort in Denver in an overtime loss the following week, destroyed the 49ers in week three, and handled the Cardinals in week four. In the second quarter of the season, they had their Passion-Party embarrassment, defeated the Chargers, Seahawks, and Rams. For the third they dropped games to Miami and Cleveland, but beat the Raiders and Broncos, and in the fourth they lost to Baltimore and San Diego, but downed Oakland and fended off Jacksonville, in that epic New Year's Eve Day where no team has ever needed more help from more teams to get into the post-season, and gotten it.

There were some borderline good wins that season, but there were almost as many games lost that shouldn't have been.

Year two of the Herm Edwards regime went, uh, much worser:

After dropping two to Houston and Chicago, KC beat the Vikings and Chargers to even things up. They then lost to Jacksonville, but beat Cincinnati and Oakland before going on an epic nine-game losing streak, including a sweep at the hands of Denver, and season-concluding losses to the Lions and Edwards' former team in the Jets. All of those losses came after the bye.

The 2008 season is, of course, still fresh in everyone's memories: One home win against Denver, and one road win against the Raiders. Everything else was a loss, and most of them were not even close, save for the pair of San Diego games, which were both decided by a point. For the record, they got destroyed by Atlanta, Carolina, and Buffalo.

Through 10 games this year, the Chiefs have managed to contend in most every game, save the whooping dropped on them by Philadelphia, which was a 20-point loss, that, in my opinion, signified a lesson from Coach Haley for his players. One that can basically be summed up as "I don't care how bleak things look, this team will run the damn football."

Ultimately, it goes without saying that this run of 58 professional football games has been largely terrible. Not only is the number of losses overwhelming, but there aren't really any significant victories in there. You could make an argument for the final game of 2006, the win against Jacksonville that got the Chiefs into the playoffs, but what's the point, if you're just going to get embarrassed the following week to the eventual champions.

Yes, it's always fun to beat Denver, but nine years without a road win against them really takes the fun out of that.

So there's yesterday's game. Yesterday's overtime victory against the defending champions is, in my opinion, the most important win this club has earned in 58 tries. It's possible that we can look at the 2005 season, and make the stretch even longer, but that was a 10-6 season, so there's at least some positive in that fact alone.

Fifty-eight games, though. Fifty-eight games to get one significant win. I don't care who you are, that's darn brutal right there. Feels great to write about a win that means something, even if that something is on a scale smaller than winning Super Bowls.

(photo courtesy of The Kansas City Star)
Read more

Notes on the Enemy: Week Six, Chargers @ Chiefs

Back in the good ol' days, when the AFC West was about Chiefs, Broncos, and little more, I kind of felt sorry for the San Diego Chargers. They managed to put together a couple of good teams and make a couple of runs at a title, but they never really seemed to have an intense fan base. Now, in these dark ages where scrupulous Denver clubs are undefeated and Chiefs teams try to set records for consecutive losses, and everyone wants to uncork the Super-Charger champagne before the season even starts, I cannot, for the life of me, get a Chargers fan to commit to a Sleeping with the Enemy interview. In three years, I've had one person agree and actually show up for the gig. It makes no sense to suppose anything other than the fact that their fan base still is, in fact, pretty darn lame. But that's okay. Instead, I was able to talk -- as Joe Posnanski might say -- brilliant reader DKC into coughing up a few moments of his day.

Bankmeister: For starters, allow me to take a moment and say congratulations on the newest addition (Editor's Note: baby Kelly arrived 12 days ago.) to your family. Moving onto football: Give me the first three things that pop into your head when you hear the words "San Diego Chargers."

DKC: Actually, the things that pop in my head are images associated with the team. The first image is one from the good old days. It is the image of a bow-legged, hobbily(from what I remember) Dan Fouts. Ugly yellow pants wearing guy chucking the ball all over the place. Imagine him as a fantasy QB. Another is the late-nineties nightmare draft of Ryan Leaf. Am I right, could they have picked Peyton? I remember locker-room footage of silly-little men with microphones chasing him around in his underwear trying to ask him why he sucks so bad. My last image is one a little paranormal in nature, in this halloween season. It is an apparition of a man roaming the sidelines, microphone on head, clipboard in hand and stupified look on his face. Yes, it is the Schottenarition. Arms crossed and big-ole-glasses wearing Marty S. His creepy sweater-wearin' spirit still flows through the league. More on MS in a moment.

B: Interesting. Not at all what I'd imagined you'd say. My colleague Old No. 7 has said that, without a doubt, " Norv Turner has killed any chance this team had at success." Is this a fair assessment? Explain.

DKC: I agree with 7 about Norv and must add that I've found myself agreeing with your colleague a lot lately. I must be turning into a crazy old man....Oh well.
Norval's hire didn't really "kill" this team's chance of winning, but it does put it in a bit of a vegetative state. If you look at Norv and Marty's Wikis (Yes, I Wiki), you can certainly notice that although he doesn't have the time spent and attempts of Marty, he does posess the young Marty-like resume. Never the bride and always the bridesmaid....you know...that kind of stuff. You also can't help but notice that the same 15 guys, taught by the same three guys, have coached the league since I have been able to turn on the TV.

B: Okay. Well, we know what many bloggers think, but what, do you imagine, is the general-football-viewing opinion of Philip Rivers?

DKC: Well, I'll put it like this... from my seat he appears to be a graceless winner and loser. He became grossly overpaid with his last contract. I also have friends who spent some time chatting with him within the last year (alcohol was involved). His sideline charm runs sidecar with his barside demeanor. I'm sure his momma may like him, though.

B: Talk about the oft-assumed decline of a late 20s-something running back. Is this the case for LaDainian Tomlinson? Is he, as they say, done? Will Darren Sproles ever be considered an elite back in this league?

DKC: Since LT is approaching NFL running back social security age (30) during the era of the internet-fantasy, where production is center-stage, he is, in fact done. He is done as the LT of the early and mid 'oughts. That doesn't mean he can't be a serviceable player in the league though. The emphasis of the owners/coaches, you can't help but notice, in the last couple of years is to shy away from sending your top dollar RB into the belly of the beast 30 times a game. They have created kind of hybrid positions, I guess they called them slots before. Reggie Bush is one. Sproles is sort of another. I say sort of because Sproles appears that he can/could do both. He is fast, agile and he also looks like a mini-hulk running between tackles when asked. So to answer, he may be an elite back someday.

B: What about tight ends? Who would you say are the best active three? Two-three years ago, many voices in football were certain that Antonio Gates was bar none the best. Will he ever statistically pass Shannon Sharpe? Tony Gonzalez?

DKC: It's hard to measure a TE's worth cause they do things away from the TV's eye(read: blocking). I'll throw these three TE's, in no order, assuming that they are all capable part-time offensive linemen. Jason Witten, Tony Gonzalez and Dallas Clark. Witten is a bit off this year offensively, TG is having a quiet, good year and Dallas is reaping the benefits of "showtime" in Indy. Gates is next. He is great now. He is no less great than he was three years ago, when they made him his own video game. People on the TV are in such a hurry to lionize someone. They love to do it and have everyone pat them on the back and whisper in their ear: "Way to Go. Smart Guy." These are the same people who said that Drew Brees couldn't play in the NFL. Oh Yeah, If old Marmalard can't get the rock to Gates a little better, he will not break TG and Sharpe's records.

B: How does the AFC West shape up this year? What, do you imagine is the immediate (next two-three seasons) for Denver, Kansas City, Oakland, and San Diego?

DKC: 2009 AFC West:

Kansas City 9-7
Denver 9-7
San Diego 7-9
Oakland 5-11

Yes, you read that right. KC: 9-7. It starts today with San Diego. Kansas City playoff bound due to their season sweep of Denver.

The future, you ask? For Denver I see losses, many losses. I see plagues and pestillence on the front range. Liver disease, that's what I see at Invesco Field.
For the rest, I see puppy dogs, lilly fields and free candy.

B: Give us a score prediction for this contest.

DKC: Today's game: KC 28, SD 21. All TDs today, with KC on top, at home. Why all TDs you ask? DKC picked up Succop for FF. DKC need FGs. DKC = bad FF player. I must share this final experience on the ways of Martyball. Back in early '96 when I was living, and was new to, Chicago, I met a nice young lady in an establishment. This was post-Lin Elliot loss, pre-Broncos/Elway loss. Things were proceeding nicely and plans were being made for her to accompany me somewhere in the future, unbeknownst to her. She was from Clevleand and football was the discussion. Somewhere the mini-courtship went awry. I swear to this day, it was when I told her I was from KC and Marty was my coach. She said things like, "he'll never get it done" and "he'll screw your team in the post-season". What little did she know...

B: Interesting tale. Thanks so much, DKC. Looking forward to getting on the 9-7 train. I like lilly fields and candy, too, it turns out.
Read more

But This One Goes To Eleven

Your Colorado Rockies play a baseball game tonight, and if they win that baseball game it will be their twelfth straight victory.

This is a pretty big deal. The Rockies have never won 12 games in a row, even during their fluke mystical magical 2007 Series run. Only three teams since 1900 have won 20 straight, and one of those--the 1916 Giants--mixed in a tie during their streak. That's right, a tie. Streaks this long don't happen every day.

So as well as they're playing, Colorado ought be breathing right down the necks of the NL West-leading Dodgers, right? Sure, if you consider third place, 10 1/2 games out to be hot pursuit. In fact, should the Rox take their dirty dozen tonight they'll run their season record all the way to 32-32. You have to be incredibly shitty to win 11 consecutive games and still be under .500. These Rockies were that shitty, so shitty that their previously untouchable manager, Clint Hurdle, got canned. Now Jim Tracy has Hurdle's club playing like the 1906 Cubs. What, exactly, has been the difference?

I'd argue that there is no difference, and that Colorado is neither as bad as they played before this run nor as good as they've been amidst it. They've pitched, by franchise standards, spectacularly well the last two weeks, and that will eventually regress. Jorge De La Rosa and Jason Hammell have the ability to win in the bigs, Jason Marquis is a focused veteran, and Aaron Cook and Ubaldo Jimenez can serve as low-grade aces. But this staff, especially the youngsters, is incapable of sustaining the 2- and 3-run outings they've produced under Tracy.

The timely hitting and stellar defense that have rounded out the streak are even more puzzling. Where, exactly, were these position players when Hurdle was trying to stay employed? Specifically, what in the world got into Troy Tulowitzki? How can this shortstop fucking stink for his entire sophomore campaign and two months of the '09 season then morph into the Cal Ripken clone we all envisioned back in 2007? To play that poorly, then that well, with no environmental change other than a new manager, this to me says that Tulo is immature and prone to distraction. Not qualities you want in a supposed leader during a 162-game season.

As for the other alleged leaders on this team, why has no one ever singled out Brad Hawpe or--especially--Todd Helton for the Rockies' underachievement the past year and a half? Helton has a pristine image in the game and is the face of the entire franchise. And don't misunderstand me, I love Todd Helton's approach to the game of baseball. But a 13-year veteran has to be more accountable for the stretch of ineptitude displayed by the Rockies until June 4. Don Mattingly, another sweet-swinging first baseman who toiled for a mostly inept club his entire career, was judged by his team's won-loss record. Todd Helton should bear the same burden.

Why does it have to be this way? Why does this team have to be either historically awful or historically hot? Why can't they just be pretty good, or average, or at least competent? It's well documented around here, I am not a full-blooded Rockies fan. I do care about this franchise, however. I care very much about the viability of professional baseball in this state, and I've pondered at length what it will take to consistently win at altitude. I've happily ridden all these winning streaks and suffered through all the busted pitchers and prospects. I want this team to be legitimate.

I must acknowledge, for the record, that the franchise is run far better than it once was. The rosters and farm systems of the 90s and early years in this decade were comically stuffed with free-swinging sluggers and one-note arms. There was no organizational philosophy, no low-minor development, and a shocking failure rate of player development. Before the current regime, Shawn Chacon was arguably the best pitcher the franchise had ever produced.

That's changed for the better. These Rockies draft better and develop better. The average kid coming up from Tulsa or Colorado Springs is fairly polished and ready to play. Seth Smith, Dexter Fowler, Ian Stewart--in previous years these guys would have been wasted or lost. Now they contribute.

On the mound, the combination of the Coors Field humidor and the same developmental standards have produced an amazing result: the Rockies' starter pitches a decent game almost every time out. Sure, there are occasional blowups, but it's no longer a given that this club is last in the NL in ERA every single year. They've found ways to deliver guys like Cook, Jimenez and Jeff Francis to the bigs. They've identified castoffs like Marquis and Josh Fogg who can come in cheap and not kill the team. And the bullpen has been more than acceptable the past few years, a testament to the Rockies' attention to detail.

I'm sorry, though, these improvements are not good enough. The results on the field bear that out. There are LOTS of teams that are well-run, and only a few anymore that are not. Income is not an excuse, the combination of revenue sharing and new sources of cash put teams like the Rockies on a firm business footing. You can win with what they have. What's needed is a commitment from the top, which is where this team falls short.

I know, I blame the Monforts for everything wrong with the Rockies in every piece I write about the team. Guilty. It simply cannot be overstated how much negative impact their approach has on the franchise. They will never convince me that they own this team simply to impress their hayseed rancher buddies. They like the seats. I implore you, Dick and Charlie, sell the team. Sell it to someone who cares about winning, someone who'll instill a philosophy of success at every level. You can keep your fucking seats.

I'll never forgive the Monforts for wasting the 2007 World Series. Flush with the cash of postseason gate receipts and the goodwill of an entire region, they had the opportunity to take a suspect division and grab it by the throat. San Diego had faded, Arizona was not yet ready to grab the mantle, and Los Angeles was still in flux--Torre was not yet hired and Mannywood was not yet built. They had the pieces to get better, yet instead they stood pat. They allowed the Diamondbacks to trade for Dan Haren, thinking that their young (and cheap) rotation could be good enough.

Haren cost the D'Bags some of their best prospects, of course. Rockies fans know these prospects well, because Oakland sent the same guys (Carlos Gonzalez and Greg Smith) to Denver in exchange for Matt Holliday a year later. The kids are OK, but the move was a salary dump and an attempt to get something out of Holliday, who's scheduled to hit free agency this winter. Tell me this: if the same players were traded for Dan Haren in 2007 and Matt Holliday in 2008, why didn't the Rockies simply trade Matt Holliday for Dan Haren?

I'll tell you why, it's because the Monforts were scared of Mike Hampton. Hampton was one of a slew of big-money free agents the club inked a decade ago who went bust in the pre-humidor elevation at Coors. The Monforts are afraid of signing pitchers as a result.

They also gave a $126 million contract to Helton, who subsequently stopped doing steroids and hitting home runs. That contract is now an albatross, and therefore the Monforts are afraid of signing hitters as well.

They also hired one big-time manager, Jim Leyland in 1999. Leyland took their money, smoked a lot of Winstons and literally mailed in the season. Seriously, he watched most games from a post office on Champa Street. The Leyland experience made the Monforts reluctant to go after a name manager, and in my opinion kept Clint Hurdle on the job well past his expiration date.

So if you're afraid to pay any good pitchers, good hitters or good managers, how exactly do you run a good baseball team? Heck of a question, and something to chew on while watching the Rockies go for No. 12 tonight.
Read more