Pioli actually sired Tom Brady. You know, like Palpatine and Anakin?

Uh Oh. Things aren't looking good for either McDaniels or Pioli.

McDaniels has given us the funniest and most entertaining offseason ever.

The moves occuring at 1 arrowhead drive don't exactly promote the idea of a stable and successful organization either.

Lolz. This shit gets better every week.

Anyone watch #91 from the Pats? Watch him play, watch our d-lineman play, and compare where they were drafted. That should effectively destroy any and all doubts of who was in charge in NE.

All this time hasn't made the Chiefs any better, or you any smarter. Congrats!

See my avatar.

I have no problem with skepticism of Pioli, but I'm a little wary of the "he hasn't won anything without Belichick" argument. By that argument, Belichick as a head coach hasn't won anything without Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel.

The Pats had the perfect team and coaching chemistry in their title years, and through player acquisition and coaching evolution, let's hope Pioli and Haley find it for KC.

Pioli shit-canning Herm will always earn him a special place in my heart

Pioli also went 5-11 year 1 in New England, where they inherited an 8-8 team. So to assume his style is to make things worse before they get better would be accurate, but we'd also be wise to give him more than 3 regular season games before passing judgment...

It doesn't have anything to do with coaching. The idea is according to the media and many here Pioli was largely responsible for Belichik's success as talent evaluator and decision maker and not the other way around. My skepticism of that was the reason for the OP.* By now I think it's become fairly clear that Pioli has been more hype than substance. I think a fair question at this point is whether he's even done a single thing right since he's been here.

* For evidence look at the drafts - Pioli drafted a DE/DT #3 overall that isn't even as good as Belichiks 6th rnd draft choice.

Not only that, but the Pats were in rebuilding mode. The plan went perfect, as it took a few years to build a solid team, and they won the '03 and '04 SBs. But the '01 SB? Really, that was kind of a fluke that the team made that run. The Pats' plan was probably to milk another season or two out of Bledsoe, and find another QB through the draft or trade, and maybe see what the Brady kid could do. Mo Lewis escalated that plan. If Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt, that team maybe flounders half a season before Belichick pulls the plug on Bledsoe and puts Brady in, and maybe they don't make the playoffs. Point being, I wouldn't even expect great things from the Chiefs next season, or even 2011. It takes time to build a solid team--and I don't just mean on the field. Shit, any team can get lucky enough to get to the SB. Look at the '02 Raiders and Bucs. How'd that work out in the long run? There are very few stable organizations: the Pats are one, Pitt is another, the Colts as well. You want to build a juggernaut, not a flash-in-the-pan.

Granted, after the seasons of suffering, you probably wouldn't mind a flash-in-the-pan out there. And Pioli probably could've kept Gonzalez, and made a few other moves to make the Chiefs very viable in '09--you know, sign a proven veteran QB, pay top-dollar for a pricey FA, etc.,. And maybe the Chiefs are a solid 8-8, 9-7, maybe even make a wildcard spot. Win a SB this year? Probably not. But the season sure would've made him look good, no? But instead Pioli and Haley seem to be choosing to build a solid foundation, clean out the closets, start from the ground up, to try to build a winning organization that will last a decade, not a season.

That's absolutely, unequivocally false.

Both men contributed to the other's success, and that's all that anyone here has ever said. There have been a vocal few who have said it was ALL Belichik, but there hasn't been a SINGLE person that have said Pioli was responsible for BB's success.

That 6th round pick is a nice pickup, but to act like he's a better player than Tyson Jackson seems pretty silly to me.

Except when you start from the ground up you need to make the right personnel decisions otherwise you set your franchise back even further (see Millen, Matt). I think it's fair to say that thus far Pioli's personnel, contract, and coaching decisions (compared to the alternatives) are mediocre if that.

Watch the tape. He's at least TJ's equal from a quickness standpoint and is bigger and more versatile. Can play all 3 positions in a 3-4. Hell, even Alex McGee isn't all that far behind TJ and is better on 3rd down.

I think it's fair to say that unless you have a glorious NFL resume as a coach, GM, or owner, then your opinion is worth jack shit. Pioli spent almost a decade partnered with one of the best coaches in NFL history. On top of that, his father-in-law is ALSO one of the best coaches in NFL history. I'm pretty sure Pioli has a good football mind. Bob Kraft thought so, too.

But I'm sure Pioli is worried that online fans think he's mediocre after three games into a serious rebuilding of an entire franchise. It probably keeps him up at night.

I understand that your argument is "Pioli's early moves don't seem brilliant, so I'm skeptical," which is perfectly logical. I don't have an issue with that, though I think it's premature to say he's going to crash and burn.

The only reason I brought up the comparison to the coaching situation was to illustrate the weakness of the "What has he done without Belichick?" argument.

There is no bigger fraud in NFL history than Bill Parcells.

That ****ing jabroni is canonized by the media, when all the bitch titted **** has ever done without Belichick is run his ****ing mouth.

He has 0 playoff wins w/o Belichick as his D coordinator. ****ing 0. Dallas, NYJ, Miami...****ing 0.

The great thing about football is the passage of time virtually proves all decisions one way or the other.

I suppose thus far you think:

A: Passing on Sanchez was a good idea? (That ones not looking good so far)

B: Drafting a 5 technique #3 was a good idea? (Neither is that one)

C: Leaving your right tackle position in the hands of practice squad fodder was a good idea? (That surely isn't looking good)

D: Giving a backup QB a $60 million extension when you had an entire year to evaluate him was a good idea? (Nope)

E: Forcing an offensive coordinator on your head coach even though you knew their philosophies differed was a good idea? (Definitely not)

F: Hiring the statistically worst defensive coordinator in the NFL over the past 3 years to run your defense was a good idea? (We'll see, but it ain't looking good so far)

G: Forcing a defensive scheme that none of your existing talent had played in was a good idea? (Perhaps)

H: Taking over the worst pass rushing team in NFL history and not bringing in a single pass rusher was a good idea? (I suppose Hali has proved himself a viable threat, hasn't he?)

Those are just off the top of my head.

Some may pan out. But I think it's fair to say there are enough major question marks that skepticism need not be defended.

I never said Pioli was infallible. I said he's got a good track record in the NFL and deserves some time and leeway to clean house and try building a team his way. And for him to be questioned after three games by armchair quarterbacks on the Interwebz is frigging reeruned.

It's one thing for people on a message board to argue that their opinion is more valid than someone else's. But to think your opinion is more valid than Pioli's? Remind me again, which NFL team have you worked for?

You need more than three games before breaking out the tar and feathers. Rome wasn't built in a day... and Rome wasn't as f**ked up as the Chiefs were when Pioli came aboard.

Nothing works without an Oline in football.

Our rushing defense is respectable now.

So all the people that questioned and question Matt Millen, Carl, Al Davis et. al. were and are absolutely wrong to do so?

Like I said before, all decisions are proven 1 way or the other and plenty of people make plenty of very obvious mistakes despite their resumes' and it doesn't take some type of special talent to recognize them.

Nobody bats 100% or should be expected to, but they shouldn't be averse to questioning when the batting avg. is closer to 0% either.

He locked down Arrowhead so other teams can't steal our valuable secrets.

Evidently it's not fair to look at what he's actually done here.

We're only allowed to look at those Super Bowl rings and kiss them if possible.

I said it then, I'll say it now: The Steelers are the organization we should've attempted to emulate. Gimme Doug Whaley or Ron Hughes; guys that have won with different coaches and different QBs.

Don Pioli has been beyond underwhelming thus far.

There's one problem, however. He's not being evaluated after three games; he's being evaluated after, approximately, 9 months.

I say Baltimore is the better organization at knowing talent, they just never had the QB play or the coach like Pittsburgh did earlier when they didnt have Big Ben.

That's fair. I think Pioli can handle the criticism. He'd just better deliver in the long run or his "legacy" with the Pats will be irreparably diminished.

Absolutely.

If he sucks in KC, history will say that the NE dynasty was 100% Hoodie, which doesn't seem too far off when you consider the Parcell's factor.

I give Savage most of the credit for Baltimore, though he didn't have a hand in Flacco. That's why Savage was on my list of guys I really liked along with Polian and Whaley.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...39&postcount=9

I just don't understand this rush to follow the Patriot model when it's pretty damn clear that the Patriot model requires Bill Belichick and we don't exactly have one of those on hand.

And Weiss. And Crennel. And Mangini. And possibly McDaniels (though I'd rather have him than Psycho T).

At least in the short term, I'm convinced he erred in evaluating the quality of our offensive line. There's no other plausible explanation for this. There was no evidence to suggest that any of our current linemen (including the ones released) could adequately protect the QB and open any kind of lanes for the RB. Now we don't know what efforts he's made since then to acquire other people, but it's hard to believe with the cap room, money, and waiver position we have that we couldn't have done better.

Other than that, I'm pleased with his work. He fired Herm Edwards. He upgraded the QB position with a guy that has shown me a decent improvisational ability and good accuracy when not throwing under constant assault. He hired a guy that I think will be a very good head coach in the league, and is confronting years of raw sewage for talent.

Obviously the jury's still out...but man it's been 3 games.

And Tom Brady.

This.

Tom effing Brady is the reason the "Patriot Model" works/worked.

if the chiefs were a house, they'd be old, run down, fixed with cheap fixes like duct tape, and super glue. the quality ac unit was really too much for such a beat up old house with so many places for a draft to come through, so you sell it on craigslist for whatever you can get. even if you take payments on it. when you get the house, the first thing to do, is gut the house and start rebuilding it. maybe take the plastic off the windows, and board them up to keep the weather out, until you can get those triple pain energy efficient jobbies. point is, it takes a while to clean out the crap the previous owners did to get by. i'm willing to give both the coach and gm 3 years, rather than just 3 games.

That's where we have to disagree.

I don't believe for a minute that Haley will be a good coach, ever. People keep comparing him to Parcells but did you ever see Parcells go nuts like that? Can you ever imagine Parcells pulling these BS High School football tricks? Parcells treated his players like men and demanded they hold themselves to that standard. Haley treats his players like children and he will lose them, if he hasn't already. Sure, it's only been 3 games, but we've seen what Haley is. That kind of personality isn't going to be able to change. It'll be phoney and players will see right through it.

In any event, I don't think you can have an 'explosive' head coach with an offensive background anyway. Offense is cerebral and he tries to coach from emotion. That emotion won't carry as well when it's coming from an offensively oriented HC. A defensive HC can get away with it (though not to the level of batshit crazy that Haley is taking it); an offensive one can't. I think Haley is doomed to failure, in all honesty. Blah blah, give him a chance, blah...but I don't see what more time will do here. He is who he is, he is who he's always been. I have no idea why we think time will change him.

Beyond the coaching hire, Pioli used a 2nd rounder on a QB that has the ceiling of Kyle Orton. I really see very little distinction between the two. Both of those guys can throw a fairly accurate ball when not under pressure. Both of those guys can operate an offense if things are going well. I've yet to see anything from Cassel to suggest he can carry a team. You don't turn your franchise over to a game manager without trying to get an elite QB first.

We had the chance to at least roll the dice with Sanchez and instead we took a MFing 3-4 DE with the #3 overall pick. That will never EVER be defensible and that sits directly on Pioli. Even if you don't think we should've taken Sanchez, the NFL is a playmakers league and a 5 technique will never be a position you build a club around. Yet we took one at #3 and paid him franchise player money. That's like drafting a TE at #3 and giving him QB pay. It was just astronomically stupid.

Sorry, but outside of firing Herm, he's !@#$ed up every decision he's made as the GM of the KC Chiefs and firing Herm didn't exactly take Football Jesus.

Yeah, check out Parcells first year for the Giants. He benched Phil Simms and went 3-12. They were thinking about replacing him with Howard Schnellenberger.

I mean in terms of his outward handling of players.

I was young, maybe I just missed it. But I can never remember Parcells being this over the top in my more formative years. He had particular players he'd lay into (I think he called Galloway "she" didn't he?), but he'd never spend entire weeks laying into anyone and everyone that came near him.

I've never been more disgusted to be a Chiefs fan than I was when I saw his conduct on the sidelines during the Oakland game. Even after the Elliot game and the 0 punts game or any of the other times we just came up short, I was disappointed but never ashamed.

I was embarassed 2 Sundays ago.

To be fair, McDaniels thought the world of Cassel as well.

Don't lump McDaniels with your POS.

Denver is 3-0

Terry Glenn.

When Parcellls was coach of the Patsies.

That's a good thing?

Remember, McDaniels evidently insisted on Orton being included in the Cutler talks.

So the guy that coached the QBs in NE seems to see many of the same things in Orton he saw in Cassel or at least has an affinity for both QBs.

I'd say all that really suggests is that McDaniels also saw a whole lot of Cassel in Orton (and Orton could've been had for peanuts).

That's one way to look at it I suppose.:spock:

The Pats love him so much they signed Terdell Sands.

ROFL

LMAO

Is had to bump this and laugh at myself.

Don't make me bump my shitty "Carl Peterson: Part Deux" thread. :D

I wonder if I said anything, someone look through the thread and see

I didn't see you in there anywhere, but it is full of hilarious (yet sad) comments. Definately worth the 5 minutes to skim through.

Yes.

Something about wanting to pleasure Pioli...