Petro ripping the Chiefs...

[HemiEd]

To be objective, there is no question that a lot of the player changes have not proven yet to be upgrades. In fact, at this early time, many seem to be downgrades.
However, we do not know all the behind the scenes issues, that some of the former players may have had.
For the team to truly become a team, they need to all buy in, or it just won't work.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

To be objective, there is no question that a lot of the player changes have not proven yet to be upgrades. In fact, at this early time, many seem to be downgrades.
However, we do not know all the behind the scenes issues, that some of the former players may have had.
For the team to truly become a team, they need to all buy in, or it just won't work.

What's called for is more motivational propoganda posters.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

To be objective, there is no question that a lot of the player changes have not proven yet to be upgrades. In fact, at this early time, many seem to be downgrades.
However, we do not know all the behind the scenes issues, that some of the former players may have had.
For the team to truly become a team, they need to all buy in, or it just won't work.

I'm curious as to your assessment of the positions. The group that bitches about everything is useless for this, but you'll be able to offer some insight:

Other than the Gonzalez loss and, arguably, the L.J. loss now, what positions do you actually think have been downgraded from last season? Also, if you could point out any of those 'downgraded' positions that you think were replaced with long-term players, that would be helpful, too.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm curious as to your assessment of the positions. The group that bitches about everything is useless for this, but you'll be able to offer some insight:

Other than the Gonzalez loss and, arguably, the L.J. loss now, what positions do you actually think have been downgraded from last season? Also, if you could point out any of those 'downgraded' positions that you think were replaced with long-term players, that would be helpful, too.

The one that sticks out the most right now, is Mike Brown. I don't think any of those three (Goff, Brown, Vrabel etc.), or many of the other players Pioli has brought in, were thought of as being part of the long term plan. There are several others, but I will use Brown.

Prior to the addition of Brown, I think most of us felt this team was in pretty good shape in the secondary, compared to the other segments. It was about the only positive legacy that Herm left IMO. When Herm took this team over, the secondary was pathetic and had been for a while.

Now, they kick a recent 2nd round pick to the curb, in favor of Mike Brown? The same Mike Brown that was let go by the Bears. Why would they do that?

The only plausible explanation, it has to be something like leadership and creating a better climate for building this team. I have seen this same thing happen in the corporate world, short term, sometimes who have to let go of stars, or potential stars to create and atmosphere for team accomplishment.

I know they keep on saying they are trying to win now, and they probably are to an extent. But, I think the Vrabels, Goffs, etc. were brought in as stop gaps, so the atmosphere could be changed.

Oh, and I have no, none experience with football, but in the corporate world, any disrespect of leadership or direction by one of the "players" needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

The one that sticks out the most right now, is Mike Brown. I don't think any of those three (Goff, Brown, Vrabel etc.), or many of the other players Pioli has brought in, were thought of as being part of the long term plan. There are several others, but I will use Brown.

Prior to the addition of Brown, I think most of us felt this team was in pretty good shape in the secondary, compared to the other segments. It was about the only positive legacy that Herm left IMO. When Herm took this team over, the secondary was pathetic and had been for a while.

Now, they kick a recent 2nd round pick to the curb, in favor of Mike Brown? The same Mike Brown that was let go by the Bears. Why would they do that?

The only plausible explanation, it has to be something like leadership and creating a better climate for building this team. I have seen this same thing happen in the corporate world, short term, sometimes who have to let go of stars, or potential stars to create and atmosphere for team accomplishment.

I know they keep on saying they are trying to win now, and they probably are to an extent. But, I think the Vrabels, Goffs, etc. were brought in as stop gaps, so the atmosphere could be changed.

Oh, and I have no, none experience with football, but in the corporate world, any disrespect of leadership or direction by one of the "players" needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

Thank you very much for the thought out response.

[Oxford]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Thank you very much for the thought out response.

Amen to that. Remember that Clark Hunt owns this team, and he is a MBA and has been schooled in the business world. How long has HE thought what the direction of the organization should be and how he would get it there?

[blazzin311]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

To be objective, there is no question that a lot of the player changes have not proven yet to be upgrades. In fact, at this early time, many seem to be downgrades.
However, we do not know all the behind the scenes issues, that some of the former players may have had.
For the team to truly become a team, they need to all buy in, or it just won't work.

This.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So you're saying it is perfectly acceptable for someone as "decorated" as Pioli, to come in, bring in 30+ new players via FA, and none of them be significant upgrades over the player they replaced?

That's almost impossible to do.

People aren't panicking, and people didn't expect more than a few wins.

But they do expect that the so-called Executive of the Decade would hit on a player here or there, especially considering he's already turned over 65% of the roster.

No what I'm saying is it doesn't matter how many FAs and players were let go/ replaced on the roster this year with the scrubs they were bringing in. Their plan at least for this year it seems, was to keep the guys on the roster who were buying in and at the same time they thought had potential to become good players. While at the same time picking up some fillers and FAs off of the street, and not really any high profile players mind you. Now that they have a better idea of which of these guys they kept can be good players for this team in the future which right now doesen't seem like a ton, they can make bigger moves this offseason to get this roster straightened out a bit. But they had to know for sure what they were working with. It is very possible however, and even likely I'd say that they may have underestimated the state of the franchise and how far away the Chiefs truly are from contending when they first arrived. They wouldn't be the first GM and Coach to do so though. I'm willing to reserve further judgement to see what kind of moves are made in the offseason though. Any good fan would. Hell if we can tolerate all of the years mediocrity that King Carl put us as fans through I think we can be a bit more patient with Pioli and Haley. Good things take time. Hopefully Pioli and crew will bring the Chiefs good things but we're not going to find out this year. Judging them on the job they've done this year is kind like judging a book by it's cover. I don't have the answers though. This is all just my opinion. Take from it what you want.