Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
From all of the reports, Clark was concerned about Dorsey and had a cold relationship with him for at least 2 years. But, since the Chiefs were winning and drafting well, he overlooked the situation.
After Ballard was hired by the Colts, it became glaringly evident that Dorsey was a mess. He was unorganized, not a good communicator and made baffling decisions on his own. After the Maclin debacle, he pulled the trigger and fired Dorsey.
I think the entire situation is a Catch-22. Clark obviously wasn't fond of Dorsey the person or his management style but the Chiefs have had the type of success that he and the fans have yearned for since the early 90's. I'm sure it was difficult to reconcile his dislike of Dorsey while simultaneously, the Chiefs were experiencing great success.
Reportedly, Clark was able to overlook those issues until Ballard left, which exposed the dysfunction. In many ways, it sounds as if Ballard was covering Dorsey's tracks, per se. I'm just happy that Veach wasn't hired by Buffalo, as the Chiefs might be in real trouble after losing their #1, #2 and #3 guy.
All that said, people have accused (myself included) Lamar Hunt from having a "Hands Off" policy, as evidenced by a 15 year playoff drought and the final 10 years of Carl Peterson's tenure. Now, the Chiefs have a more "Hands On" owner and it appears that Clark will continue, if not expand, his role in the organization.
If things were iffy between them then Clark should have done this analysis before Ballard left. I can't believe it was all roses before he left and then over a few months it went from loving the guy to firing him. So if Clark had issues, this epic audit of the team should have happened before your #2 got job offers.
This is not about putting down Veach or predicting doom. But to me if the sequence of events is true, then Clark did this wrong. I don't know what happens with Ballard, but the timing by Clark is a mistake on his part. Doesn't even matter who turns out best, the fact that he didn't give himself a choice is poor management. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pawnmower:
playing devil's advocate: if you care more about dress code or communication than results, that could make you a pussy in some people's eyes
I don't think that's what it was.
I think Clark realizes what was going on with pioli and how much a control freak the guy was and how it negatively effected the organization. maybe even after the fact.
Then he sees Dorsey drafting guys early just to cut them, cutting vets a coupe yards after paying them big, drafting guys no one knew about, firing front office guys, cutting a player by voice mail, etc... And decides he's not going to let out get to that point again. Good or bad? We will see.
But he obviously had the best in mind when he did it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan:
This is not about putting down Veach or predicting doom. But to me if the sequence of events is true, then Clark did this wrong.
I agree with this, although I have had to fire people and even for a lesser job its not easy...but I mean like RIGHT before trainign camp?
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan:
If things were iffy between them then Clark should have done this analysis before Ballard left. I can't believe it was all roses before he left and then over a few months it went from loving the guy to firing him. So if Clark had issues, this epic audit of the team should have happened before your #2 got job offers.
This is not about putting down Veach or predicting doom. But to me if the sequence of events is true, then Clark did this wrong. I don't know what happens with Ballard, but the timing by Clark is a mistake on his part. Doesn't even matter who turns out best, the fact that he didn't give himself a choice is poor management.
Once again, I think it was a difficult reconciliation. As someone that as been put in that type of situation, I can sympathize.
Once again, Dorsey did a great job with talent but not so great with communication and management. That became ever more apparent after Ballard left and even more so after the botched releases of Howard and Maclin.
It is what it is. Now, it's time to move on. [Reply]
The move is just about as Amateur Hour as anything I've ever seen the Chiefs do, and I believe we ALL have seen the Chiefs perform THAT trick with regularity over the course of DECADES.
It's in the blood of that family, and its absolutely one( if not the only reason needed )more prime example of why absentee ownership is a horrible practice.
You're hilarious man. Clark Hunt fired Carl Peterson, then went out and got Pioli, who was thought to be the best GM candidate out there. Then he fired Pioli and went out and got the perceived best coach and GM available. Now, because he fired Dorsey he is a horrible, absentee owner?? Please. Hunt has been doing whatever he could do bring a championship to KC. If you can't see that, then you are just letting your frustrations blind you from the truth. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pawnmower:
playing devil's advocate: if you care more about dress code or communication than results, that could make you a pussy in some people's eyes
I think people are latching on to dress code but what Clark didn't like was Dorsey's style. I've been in a similar situation before. I was part of a leadership team of a political organization and our style was so different than what they were used to it created massive problems despite everything we accomplished was overly sucessful.
When I read about Dorsey's behavior, it takes me back to those days. Some people just can't handle it. They want process and predictability. Frankly Clark likely often was caught of gurard by a Dorsey decesion. But in Dorsey's mind if Clark wanted to know everything he needs to be their on a daily basis. If he's around nothing would suprise him.
There are some people in this world that fu@king hate process and meeting about future meetings. I think that was Dorsey. He was the GM, and when he made a decision he acted. It's not a corporate style that would work with Clark. I think it's unfortunate more than anything. [Reply]
So is Dorsey free to take other job or does he just sit and get paid to do nothing the rest of his contract?
Does Clark owe him money if he takes another job?
Teams have got to think he is prime candidate if they aren't all ready happy with their own GM so I'd think he is on the for front and a team may want snag him up sooner than later.
Or does he just vy his time to go to Green Bay? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Cochise:
All BS aside, I think it's very concerning that we fired one of the league's better executives without any warning and after letting the best replacement candidate go just months earlier, with the owner claiming it was about money/contract extension.
That would make anyone concerned about the direction of the team. What teams let quality executives go over money? What teams fire GMs in the middle of the summer? This is Bills/Browns type of stuff, not what we aspire to.
We can all hope that Veach doesn't turn out to be a Reid stooge, and turns out to be a great executive but this situation played out pretty similarly in Philadelphia after Reid's team fell off a cliff following the Super Bowl and it didn't end well. In Reid usual fashion he was not good enough to get over the hump, but not bad enough to get fired and it took 5 or 6 more years to play out.
Hopefully that scenario isn't going to play out here.
I think Andy's problem in Philly was that he had dual roles as coach and GM. That's not the case here. Nor will it be with Veach. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
You're hilarious man. Clark Hunt fired Carl Peterson, then went out and got Pioli, who was thought to be the best GM candidate out there. Then he fired Pioli and went out and got the perceived best coach and GM available. Now, because he fired Dorsey he is a horrible, absentee owner?? Please. Hunt has been doing whatever he could do bring a championship to KC. If you can't see that, then you are just letting your frustrations blind you from the truth.
Some people are going to bitch no matter what. Especially when they take every move and put it in a silo. If Clark were hands off in any way Carl would still be the GM here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
You're hilarious man. Clark Hunt fired Carl Peterson, then went out and got Pioli, who was thought to be the best GM candidate out there. Then he fired Pioli and went out and got the perceived best coach and GM available. Now, because he fired Dorsey he is a horrible, absentee owner?? Please. Hunt has been doing whatever he could do bring a championship to KC. If you can't see that, then you are just letting your frustrations blind you from the truth.
This all day long. People can bitch about Clark Hunt all they want and say that he doesn't care, but the evidence says that all he cares about is winning. [Reply]
