So what exactly has Pioli done?

[B_Ambuehl]

On his own, that didn't involve Bill Belichik having influence and final authority?

Just remember a lot of fans from Notre Dame, NY, and Cleveland were going ape shit wild over Weiss, Mangina, and Crennel and without Belichik all 3 were basically flops. Josh McDaniels and Pioli could very easily be added to that list as well.

I'll remain skeptical until he proves himself.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

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.

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.

[Brock]

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.

[B_Ambuehl]

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.

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.

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.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

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.

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.

[Christofire]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

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.

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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by JD10367

On top of that, his father-in-law is ALSO one of the best coaches in NFL history.

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.

[B_Ambuehl]

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.

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.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

I suppose thus far you think . . . blah blah blah

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.

[googlegoogle]

Nothing works without an Oline in football.

Our rushing defense is respectable now.

[B_Ambuehl]

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?

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.

[Skip Towne]

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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

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.

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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

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

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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

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.