PDA

View Full Version : Football Pats w/o Pioli


Cosmos
03-17-2009, 08:20 AM
Patriots don't seem to be missing Pioli.

Doing a great job signing free agents, managing the cap and bout ready to pull in Peppers.

I'm impressed.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-17-2009, 08:28 AM
....and I got poopy.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 08:30 AM
Once you establish an organization, then you are training people under you to do the job the way it should be done.

It is why winning teams tend to overcome injuries better. And, why teams who dedicate more emphasis on developing their own players than acquiring free agents do better.

There are tons of ways to do any job, the key is to have all the members of the organization going about the job the same way.

Cosmos
03-17-2009, 08:40 AM
Once you establish an organization, then you are training people under you to do the job the way it should be done.

It is why winning teams tend to overcome injuries better. And, why teams who dedicate more emphasis on developing their own players than acquiring free agents do better.

There are tons of ways to do any job, the key is to have all the members of the organization going about the job the same way.

I don't recall Pioli bringing any Pats staff with him.

He has a lot of work to do.

jAZ
03-17-2009, 09:02 AM
The Pats did alright without Brady. Unlike any team in modern NFL history, they have learned how to just reload.

jAZ
03-17-2009, 09:02 AM
I don't recall Pioli bringing any Pats staff with him.

He has a lot of work to do.

A lot.

Mr. Krab
03-17-2009, 09:28 AM
Pioli has the much harder job. It will take few years before the loss of Pioli will start to show for the pats, if it does.

ChiefMojo
03-17-2009, 09:38 AM
Also just because Pioli is here, DOESN'T mean FA players are going to WANT to come to KC. This is one thing that irks me off when fans think they can get whomever they want. The players have to agree to going to so and so place.

The difference between the Pats and Chiefs are night and day right now.

Darth CarlSatan
03-17-2009, 09:39 AM
I don't recall Pioli bringing any Pats staff with him.

He has a lot of work to do.

Who says the understudy has to be from NE?

ChiefsCountry
03-17-2009, 09:46 AM
Shows who the real brains behind the whole Parcells tree is.

Blindside58
03-17-2009, 09:53 AM
Must be a rough job to manage a franchise and attract players using the phrase "Did I mention our 3 championships and 4 trips to the big game in the past 7 years?"

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 10:23 AM
Also just because Pioli is here, DOESN'T mean FA players are going to WANT to come to KC. This is one thing that irks me off when fans think they can get whomever they want. The players have to agree to going to so and so place.

The difference between the Pats and Chiefs are night and day right now.

I think the Chiefs, with Pioli, can get just about anyone they want. They have a seasoned coaching staff. They have a young upcoming talent. They have a new GM. They have a great fanbase.

Remember, in 2000, when Bill Belichick took over, they didn't sign a ton of free agents. The Pats were prudent in assessing the talent that was there before they went on their huge free agent spree in 2001.

I imagine Pioli will due largely the same thing.

Kyle DeLexus
03-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Also just because Pioli is here, DOESN'T mean FA players are going to WANT to come to KC. This is one thing that irks me off when fans think they can get whomever they want. The players have to agree to going to so and so place.

The difference between the Pats and Chiefs are night and day right now.

Mr. Pioli has said as much in the limited interviewing he has done.

DaFace
03-17-2009, 10:27 AM
Must be a rough job to manage a franchise and attract players using the phrase "Did I mention our 3 championships and 4 trips to the big game in the past 7 years?"

Pretty much this. The Patriots have become the NFL's version of schools like USC/Oklahoma/LSU/whoever. When players are trying to figure out where to go, they're more willing to go to New England than anywhere else because they're 90% guaranteed to be competitive. When you've got that kind of leverage, it's easy to recruit new talent each year and keep going, where it's hard for the crappy teams (like the Lions) to recruit anyone without having to spend a fortune.

keg in kc
03-17-2009, 11:10 AM
I'm less interested in how the Patriots do without Pioli than I am in how the Chiefs do with him.

suds79
03-17-2009, 11:12 AM
I'm less interested in how the Patriots do without Pioli than I am in how the Chiefs do with him.

Exactly.

Who cares what they're doing now? They have Tom Brady. Something tells me they'll end up being pretty damn strong no matter what moves they make.

doomy3
03-17-2009, 11:14 AM
Shows who the real brains behind the whole Parcells tree is.

What's that? The fact that they've signed a bunch of over the hill veterans that would have done the Chiefs no good? We are in completely different spots this offseason. Signing guys like Fred Taylor, Joey Galloway, etc wouldn't have done anything for us.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2009, 11:23 AM
What's that? The fact that they've signed a bunch of over the hill veterans that would have done the Chiefs no good? We are in completely different spots this offseason. Signing guys like Fred Taylor, Joey Galloway, etc wouldn't have done anything for us.

He's not saying it would have. That's a false choice. They still continue to make the best moves for their team in their situation.

His contention is that it's not a coincidence that Belichick is the prime mover. He was the guy with authority over personnel matters and it's not a coincidence that Bill Parcells has 0 playoff wins w/o him attached to his staff.

DaWolf
03-17-2009, 12:25 PM
I think it's well established that Belichick is a genius. That does not mean that Pioli isn't any good. Time will tell. The Pats were still good last year after Thomas Dimitrioff went to Atlanta, and Dimitrioff had his own success. So I really don't get this need for people to compare the teams. The Pats were not going to fall over and die because of a personnel departure, but that doesn't mean their personnel people aren't good. That's what great organizations do. And the Chiefs need to reach a level where if Pioli leaves or his lieutenants go elsewhere, we won't miss a beat...

DaneMcCloud
03-17-2009, 01:38 PM
I think the Chiefs, with Pioli, can get just about anyone they want. They have a seasoned coaching staff. They have a young upcoming talent. They have a new GM. They have a great fanbase.

I imagine Pioli will due largely the same thing.

Once again, you prove that you are among the most unrealistic Chiefs fans on planet Earth.

htismaqe
03-17-2009, 01:46 PM
I think it's well established that Belichick is a genius. That does not mean that Pioli isn't any good. Time will tell. The Pats were still good last year after Thomas Dimitrioff went to Atlanta, and Dimitrioff had his own success. So I really don't get this need for people to compare the teams. The Pats were not going to fall over and die because of a personnel departure, but that doesn't mean their personnel people aren't good. That's what great organizations do. And the Chiefs need to reach a level where if Pioli leaves or his lieutenants go elsewhere, we won't miss a beat...

:clap:

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 02:28 PM
Once again, you prove that you are among the most unrealistic Chiefs fans on planet Earth.

You left out the part about the Pats and what they did in 2000.

The Chiefs have a lot of things going for them. They have the stadium renovations. They have new training facilities. (I know most fans don't think about that, but it is a big deal.) They have a ton of money under the cap.

If they really wanted someone, they could have gotten him.

The Pats waited a year to go on their free agent shopping spree. In 2001, they signed 21 free agents. That was after a full year of evaluation.

In 2001, the Pats were coming off a 5-11 year. Bill Belichick had ONE winning season in entire coaching career. Yet, they managed to sign 21 free agents, including Colvin.

So, what exactly do you dissagree with and why?

Kyle DeLexus
03-17-2009, 02:34 PM
SensibleChiefsfan;5589617]You left out the part about the Pats and what they did in 2000.

The Chiefs have a lot of things going for them. They have the stadium renovations. They have new training facilities. (I know most fans don't think about that, but it is a big deal.) They have a ton of money under the cap.

If they really wanted someone, they could have gotten him.

The Pats waited a year to go on their free agent shopping spree. In 2001, they signed 21 free agents. That was after a full year of evaluation.

In 2001, the Pats were coming off a 5-11 year. Bill Belichick had ONE winning season in entire coaching career. Yet, they managed to sign 21 free agents, including Colvin.

So, what exactly do you dissagree with and why?

First 5-11 is bad but it's still not 2-14 bad.

Second of the 21 FA's they signed, who were the big names? I'm not familiar with who they signed, but I'm fairly confident none were. According to your post, we could bring in anyone we wanted. That is simply not true. Good vets want to go somewhere to win a Superbowl, not a rebuilding 2-14 team, no matter how appealing the situation might be.

keg in kc
03-17-2009, 02:34 PM
The stadium renovations won't be complete until 2010 and the league may be uncapped next year.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 02:39 PM
First 5-11 is bad but it's still not 2-14 bad.

Second of the 21 FA's they signed, who were the big names? I'm not familiar with who they signed, but I'm fairly confident none were. According to your post, we could bring in anyone we wanted. That is simply not true. Good vets want to go somewhere to win a Superbowl, not a rebuilding 2-14 team, no matter how appealing the situation might be.

In general, I agree that it is easier for a winning team to bring in free agents.

However, given the Chiefs current situation, I do think the Chiefs can land anyone they want.

As for 5-11, again this is when Bill Belichick was known as a loser, and the guy who was fired in Cleveland off a team that went on to win the Super Bowl the year before he was hired in NE.

And, they got Colvin, who was arguably, THE biggest name in 2000. He tore up his knee that year, and hasn't really been the same since, but he was a huge pickup.

The rest were role players. But, I think these moves are by choice. I have no doubt that if they could have had Haynesworth for a decent price, they would have done it. I just think they see more pieces here that they want a chance to coach before replacing them.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 02:41 PM
The stadium renovations won't be complete until 2010 and the league may be uncapped next year.

Sure, but most aren't signing one year contracts. And, it shows a committment by the owner and the city.

But, I think the practice facilities are the bigger deal there. There was certain equipment the Chiefs didn't even have up until the new training facility.

keg in kc
03-17-2009, 02:45 PM
My point was that I'd expect a big run on players by the Chiefs next year.

It also makes sense in that free agent signings are made to fill holes, and we're not that far into the process yet.

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:04 PM
You left out the part about the Pats and what they did in 2000.

The Chiefs have a lot of things going for them. They have the stadium renovations. They have new training facilities. (I know most fans don't think about that, but it is a big deal.) They have a ton of money under the cap.

If they really wanted someone, they could have gotten him.

The Pats waited a year to go on their free agent shopping spree. In 2001, they signed 21 free agents. That was after a full year of evaluation.

In 2001, the Pats were coming off a 5-11 year. Bill Belichick had ONE winning season in entire coaching career. Yet, they managed to sign 21 free agents, including Colvin.

So, what exactly do you dissagree with and why?

errr...no Colvin in 2001. 2001 was just cheap guys. Colvin joined in 2003.

Also, the Pats in 2001 were 4 years off a Super Bowl, three years off the playoffs, and had been a winning organization for 4 out of the past 5 years.

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
In general, I agree that it is easier for a winning team to bring in free agents.

However, given the Chiefs current situation, I do think the Chiefs can land anyone they want.

As for 5-11, again this is when Bill Belichick was known as a loser, and the guy who was fired in Cleveland off a team that went on to win the Super Bowl the year before he was hired in NE.

The team went on to win the SB FIVE years later. Not the next year or anything. Also, Belichick was also known as a defensive mastermind and the former coach of Lawrence Taylor, and had two SB rings in his pocket already as an assistant coach.

Nobody thought of him as Rich Kotite for God's sake...

And, they got Colvin, who was arguably, THE biggest name in 2000. He tore up his knee that year, and hasn't really been the same since, but he was a huge pickup.

2003. You're off by THREE YEARS man!

The rest were role players. But, I think these moves are by choice. I have no doubt that if they could have had Haynesworth for a decent price, they would have done it. I just think they see more pieces here that they want a chance to coach before replacing them.

All were roleplayers. Nobody was a "known" name except Larry Izzo, maybe, who was quickly making a name for himself as a very good ST'er. Vrabel was "just a backup", and Roman Phiffer was unwashed and unwanted, basically. They did great for us, but their doors weren't being beaten down by anyone...

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 03:09 PM
My point was that I'd expect a big run on players by the Chiefs next year.

It also makes sense in that free agent signings are made to fill holes, and we're not that far into the process yet.

Well, with it being an uncapped year, I wonder if the Chiefs will jump into that market much considering that many think that the NFL will lock out the players in 2011.

But, the second part is along the same lines of what I am thinking.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 03:13 PM
The team went on to win the SB FIVE years later. Not the next year or anything. Also, Belichick was also known as a defensive mastermind and the former coach of Lawrence Taylor, and had two SB rings in his pocket already as an assistant coach.

Nobody thought of him as Rich Kotite for God's sake...



2003. You're off by THREE YEARS man!



All were roleplayers. Nobody was a "known" name except Larry Izzo, maybe, who was quickly making a name for himself as a very good ST'er. Vrabel was "just a backup", and Roman Phiffer was unwashed and unwanted, basically. They did great for us, but their doors weren't being beaten down by anyone...


#1) You have revisionist history regarding Bill Belichick. Many, MANY columnists were raking the Pats over the coals for trading a first round pick for him. And, after his first year at 5-11, he was catching a ton of heat.

#2) You are right. I was completely off on Colvin. Sorry for that.

But, the point is that the Pats didn't bring in a ton of free agents in that first year. They waited until they had a good handle on what they already had. And, that is my main point.

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:25 PM
#1) You have revisionist history regarding Bill Belichick. Many, MANY columnists were raking the Pats over the coals for trading a first round pick for him. And, after his first year at 5-11, he was catching a ton of heat.

Yes they were. I'm not saying people thought he was the second coming of Vince Lombardi. Far from it.

But I think there is a significant difference between Belichick in 2000/2001 and a Rich Kotite or whomever. Also, the Patriots in 2001 had gone 11-5 and to the Super Bowl in 1996, 10-6 and playoffs (second round loss IIRC) in '97, 9-7 and first round loss in '98, and 8-8 in '99. They had Drew Bledsoe who was overrated by the rest of the NFL at QB.

I don't see the comparison to the Chiefs of 2009. Sorry.

But, the point is that the Pats didn't bring in a ton of free agents in that first year. They waited until they had a good handle on what they already had. And, that is my main point.

Yes, but it's impossible to say WHY they didn't do that. I'll give you one possibility -- the huge delay in BB/SP joining the club. The wrangling with Parcells and the Jets took a very long time and, IIRC, Belichick only became the HC of the NEP in something like February. They had no front office in place or anything. It took quite some time for them to get up to speed, and they basically "lost" the 2000 draft, which sucked for us other than that 6th round QB we took, and the free agency period.

AND MORE -- we had HUGE cap issues. We were either way over or about ot go way over. That idiot Bobby Grier had completely hosed the team with huge contracts to marginal players.

You're comparing apples to oranges dude. Sorry.

Kyle DeLexus
03-17-2009, 03:29 PM
In general, I agree that it is easier for a winning team to bring in free agents.

However, given the Chiefs current situation, I do think the Chiefs can land anyone they want.

As for 5-11, again this is when Bill Belichick was known as a loser, and the guy who was fired in Cleveland off a team that went on to win the Super Bowl the year before he was hired in NE.

And, they got Colvin, who was arguably, THE biggest name in 2000. He tore up his knee that year, and hasn't really been the same since, but he was a huge pickup.

The rest were role players. But, I think these moves are by choice. I have no doubt that if they could have had Haynesworth for a decent price, they would have done it. I just think they see more pieces here that they want a chance to coach before replacing them.

Are you serious? Of course they would have and that is my point exactly. Haynesworth would never come here for a decent price because we were a 2-14 team with rebuilding years ahead of us. We would have had to make what he got look like monopoly money for him to have seriously considered coming here. If we were in the Pats situation, you have a chance on a powerhouse discount if the player wants a ring. Of course almost every NFL player has a price and would play anywhere for an insane amount of money, but you made it sound like our situation people would seriously consider us over many other teams for the same money, thats simply not the case.

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:29 PM
Timely.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/03/the-draw-of-playing-in-new-england/

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 03:31 PM
Yes they were. I'm not saying people thought he was the second coming of Vince Lombardi. Far from it.

But I think there is a significant difference between Belichick in 2000/2001 and a Rich Kotite or whomever. Also, the Patriots in 2001 had gone 11-5 and to the Super Bowl in 1996, 10-6 and playoffs (second round loss IIRC) in '97, 9-7 and first round loss in '98, and 8-8 in '99. They had Drew Bledsoe who was overrated by the rest of the NFL at QB.

I don't see the comparison to the Chiefs of 2009. Sorry.



Yes, but it's impossible to say WHY they didn't do that. I'll give you one possibility -- the huge delay in BB/SP joining the club. The wrangling with Parcells and the Jets took a very long time and, IIRC, Belichick only became the HC of the NEP in something like February. They had no front office in place or anything. It took quite some time for them to get up to speed, and they basically "lost" the 2000 draft, which sucked for us other than that 6th round QB we took, and the free agency period.

AND MORE -- we had HUGE cap issues. We were either way over or about ot go way over. That idiot Bobby Grier had completely hosed the team with huge contracts to marginal players.

You're comparing apples to oranges dude. Sorry.


Now, the one glaring difference between Pats 2000, and the Chiefs in 2009 is that the Chiefs have no cap issues.

Which means that if they are not signing guys, is likely by choice.

Haley wasn't hired until February. Heck, up until last week, the defensive coordinator wasn't named.

I see a ton of similarities.

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 03:35 PM
Are you serious? Of course they would have and that is my point exactly. Haynesworth would never come here for a decent price because we were a 2-14 team with rebuilding years ahead of us. We would have had to make what he got look like monopoly money for him to have seriously considered coming here. If we were in the Pats situation, you have a chance on a powerhouse discount if the player wants a ring. Of course almost every NFL player has a price and would play anywhere for an insane amount of money, but you made it sound like our situation people would seriously consider us over many other teams for the same money, thats simply not the case.

The Chiefs don't have a history of losing, or a cheapskate owner. I just think it is a more attractive situation than you realize.

Clearly, they would have to pay more for a guy if the choice was between NE and KC...

But, what about Seattle and KC? What about Cleveland and KC? What about Oakland and KC? What about San Fran and KC?

I think KC is more appealing than several NFL cities.

Ultra Peanut
03-17-2009, 03:37 PM
http://j.photos.cx/Apple_and_Orange_-_they_do_not_compare-af7.jpg

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:37 PM
Now, the one glaring difference between Pats 2000, and the Chiefs in 2009 is that the Chiefs have no cap issues.

Which means that if they are not signing guys, is likely by choice.

Haley wasn't hired until February. Heck, up until last week, the defensive coordinator wasn't named.

I see a ton of similarities.

I gotta say, I don't. A team with recent success and fixtures at many positions but huge cap problems, versus an absurdly young team that hasn't won in the playoffs in a generation with no cap troubles at all.

None of that much matters, however. I think that SP will get you guys going in the right direction. It's just a matter of time.

Darth CarlSatan
03-17-2009, 03:38 PM
The Chiefs don't have a history of losing, or a cheapskate owner. I just think it is a more attractive situation than you realize.

Clearly, they would have to pay more for a guy if the choice was between NE and KC...

But, what about Seattle and KC? What about Cleveland and KC? What about Oakland and KC? What about San Fran and KC?

I think KC is more appealing than several NFL cities.

God damn you, Nonsensical!!! Just STIRRIN' SHIT UP! :cuss::D

The FA acquisitions have hit the Planet. See "Lounge" page.

Amnorix
03-17-2009, 03:42 PM
I gotta say, I don't. A team with recent success and fixtures at many positions but huge cap problems, versus an absurdly young team that hasn't won in the playoffs in a generation with no cap troubles at all.

None of that much matters, however. I think that SP will get you guys going in the right direction. It's just a matter of time.

Let me follow up.

1. Ty Law
2. Lawyer Milloy
3. Drew Bledsoe
4. Tedy Bruschi
5. Willie McGinest
6. Troy Brown
7. Terry Glenn
8. Ted Johnson
9. Chris Slade

Each of the above was, I believe, at least a 4 year vet by the end of the 2000 season. Most or all had played in the 1996 Super Bowl. They were talented, season veterans and most would go on to form hte core of the team that would win the Super Bowl in 2001.

You guys basically have a bunch of kids. I don't know how many Pro Bowls the above 9 guys had by the year 2000, but I would bet a fair bit that it's more than the entire Chiefs 2008 roster.

Again, I'm not trying to say you guys are on the wrong path, or that free agents dont' want to go to KC, I'm just saying that comparing the 2000 Patriots to the 2009 Chiefs isn't very valid in my mind.

Then layer on top our cap troubles, and your cap freedom....

SenselessChiefsFan
03-17-2009, 03:43 PM
God damn you, Nonsensical!!! Just STIRRIN' SHIT UP! :cuss::D

The FA acquisitions have hit the Planet. See "Lounge" page.

Well, the shit's not going to stir itself.