[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by findthedr

I want to know how much credit for drafting goes to coaches, GMs, and the head of personell.

The drafts have gotten better since Herm has been the coach, but it has also gotten better since Kuriach replaced Lynn Stiles. Who gets the credit for success?

I obviously don't work in Arrowhead, but my understanding is that Peterson has always given his coaching staffs almost free reign in the draft room. And there's no question that it was that way with Vermeil and company, Larry Johnson aside. Kris Wilson was widely publicized as an Al Saunders pet project, so we know he was involved.

Maybe it's Stiles, but my personal theory is that the previous staff was too hands-on for Day 1, which is why most of our picks in the first 3 rounds were busts. They didn't listen to the scouting staff (Chuck Cook and the rest), they picked their guys themselves, based on personal contact through the coaching network, what they saw at pro days and the combine and the Senior Bowl. That's how we ended up with the likes of Ryan Sims and Eddie Freeman and Junior Siavii. And then when the scouting staff was allowed to do their job and direct day two of the draft, the team did better.

Herm listens to his scouts, has a better relationship and degree of trust with them, and that's why I think the drafts are better now...

Another thing to keep in mind is that Trent Green and Terry Shea would likely still be with this team if Saunders was head coach, and Huard probably would be with another team. Ty Law probably would not have signed with us.

I don't think Green would make much of a difference at this point. I think our issue is the line, and we'd see play out of him exactly like we got in 2001. That's assuming he hadn't been knocked out with concussions. I think that may have happened, because I think the line would have been just as bad.

Doubt our defense would be as good as it is now, or if we would have won as many games (or gone into the playoffs last yr), but I think we would have a better offense based on playcalling alone.

I don't entirely agree with that. I believe Saunders benefitted from the presence of Roaf as much as anyone, and while I believe the offense might be better with him calling plays, I don't believe the difference would be all that significant. I don't think the guys we have on the right side of the line can block, and there's not really any way to scheme around that.

I'd also note that Saunders has been mediocre at best in Washington, and I think that's a more talented offensive unit than we have, at least in terms of line play.

For me, 2002-2005 was sort of a perfect storm. A lot of things went perfectly. But the team was showing signs of decline in '05, and I don't think Saunders would have stemmed that tide in '06 and this year. Because to me, the issue of the offense is personnel even more than coaching, and we're suffering due to the fruits of our '01-'05 drafts. Which gave us no depth, no offensive personnel to take the reigns from retiring players, left us with virtually nothing for the future of the Chiefs offense.