Chiefs Whitlock LOLs at the Patsification of the Chiefs - Page 35

Hammock Parties · 01-14-2010, 01:33 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/col...y/1682402.html

Wake me when the Chiefs sign Tom Brady, the one with two healthy knees and fearless pocket demeanor.

Until then, I’ll take a wait-and-see approach with Scott Pioli’s New England Relocation Plan.

Right now, this smells like a Jackson Five reunion tour without Michael (Brady) or Janet (Bill Belichick).

Romeo “Tito” Crennel, the defensive coordinator, joins Pioli, Charlie Weis, Matt Cassel, Mike Vrabel and ex-Pats to be named later in what appears to be a lame attempt at recreating the New England Dynasty.

Let me apologize for being unimpressed with this lineup.

You’re tired of reading it, and I’m tired of writing it. Unfortunately, I’m paid to tell you what I really think. Romeo Crennel sounds great on paper. He won three Super Bowls while holding the title of “defensive coordinator” for Belichick’s Patriots.

Tito sold a bunch of records plucking a guitar and singing backup for Michael Jackson. Without The Gloved One, we never heard of Tito again until Michael passed.

Romeo flamed out in Cleveland as a head coach. Of all the Belichick assistants during the Super Bowl years, Crennel was the one with the least amount of responsibility on his plate. Belichick designed the defenses.

When Crennel got the Cleveland job, I asked a longtime Patriots defender what he thought of the hire, and the player told me flat out that he never envisioned Romeo as a head coach.

It’s just one player, one opinion. And not being head-coach material doesn’t disqualify someone from being a top-flight coordinator.

In fact, I touched base with the player again on Wednesday, and he assured me that Crennel installed the defensive game plan throughout the week without interference from Belichick and that Crennel called the game.

The player also assured me that Belichick had his fingerprints on everything that transpired with the team — special teams, offense, defense and front-office decisions.

I’m just not sold on Crennel. As a coordinator, Crennel has far more to prove than Charlie Weis. No one I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to create innovative game plans. (Everyone I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to control his ego.)

Crennel worked for Belichick, who specializes in defense. Bill Parcells never won a Super Bowl without Belichick working as his defensive coordinator.

Hey, maybe one day we will be saying the same thing about Belichick and Crennel.

Today, all I’m sure of is that Crennel’s hiring increases the likelihood that Todd Haley is in a make-or-break season in 2010.

If things go poorly next season, don’t look for Pioli, Weis and Crennel to take the blame. They have nine Super Bowl rings among them. In their mind, they know exactly what it takes to win at the highest level in the NFL.

Haley either has no political savvy, no interest in playing the kind of politics that enhances a coach’s longevity or zero leverage when putting together a coaching staff.

Given the previous working relationship of Pioli, Weis and Crennel — and Weis’ oversized ego — it would be a seamless transition for Pioli to install Weis as head coach midway through the 2010 season or at the start of 2011.

My gut says Haley’s ego and gambling nature make him unaware of the ramifications of his decisions. Firing Chan Gailey was a colossal error. With the offensive personnel provided to him by Pioli, Haley should’ve held on to Gailey for a season. There was no reason for the head coach to attach his reputation and credibility to a receiver-less offense.

Good coaches are paranoid. They perceive every move by ownership/management as a potential threat to their power. Paranoia is what drives a good coach to be great. Paranoia is what makes a coach sleep at his office and punt on fourth down.

Look at Belichick. He’s been spoiled by success. That’s why he went for it on fourth and 2 against the Colts. He’s losing his paranoia.

Haley’s background is extremely unusual for an NFL head coach. Golfers focus on a single obstacle, the course. A football coach worries about a million things, including what his assistants may or may not be plotting.

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

No, it won't take them 4 years to PICK those players.

But it might be 3-4 years before those players develop.

I would hope not.
There's usually a quicker return on your investment with the offensive skill positions.

keg in kc · 01-14-2010, 06:37 PM

Rodgers was 24 (and that wasn't a strong class). Flacco was 18.

The QBs in general haven't done well recently, high picks or low. I don't know if that's a temporary trend or a sign of the future.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

There's always Free Agency.

It's worked for the Saints, Cardinals, Panthers and Vikings.

Define "worked."

If making the fans happy by making the playoffs occasionally but falling short, then sure, it worked for them

**DeezNutz** · 01-14-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

I think next year is the year to pick the QB.

See, in a vacuum, this is about Cassel vs. Sanchez.

However, this could very well end up being a few years of Cassel and a career of Gabbert/Locker/Barkley/etc. vs. Sanchez.

In that scenario, I think we're better off in the long run, as I don't ever see Sanchez as more than a game manager.

I still think this came down to one thing: Pioli didn't like Sanchez enough to use the #3 overall pick on him. The trade for Cassel for a second rounder was still a good move, IMO. Perhaps you hit on someone who can be a viable QB for you for only a second rounder. If not, you get to pick from a much better crop of QBs in a couple years.

Just my opinion.

Pioli is going to have to have a great draft in '10 for me to start giving him the benefit of the doubt in this area.

It's hard for me to reconcile just how badly he drafted in '09.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

I would hope not.
There's usually a quicker return on your investment with the offensive skill positions.

Like Dwayne Bowe?

Mecca · 01-14-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

There's always Free Agency.

It's worked for the Saints, Cardinals, Panthers and Vikings.

If the Panthers are a barometer then we're fine because Matt Cassel and Jake Delhomme really aren't that far apart.

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Define "worked."

If making the fans happy by making the playoffs occasionally but falling short, then sure, it worked for them

Two of the four have been to the Superbowl.
One more could join that list this season.

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Like Dwayne Bowe?

I think we've already seen a return from Bowe.
He hasn't stepped into the upper echelon just yet, but...
2,000+ yards in his first two seasons? I'd say that qualifies.

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

If the Panthers are a barometer then we're fine because Matt Cassel and Jake Delhomme really aren't that far apart.

My point wasn't specific to any one of those four QB's listed.
Just that Free Agency's an option.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

I still think this came down to one thing: Pioli didn't like Sanchez enough to use the #3 overall pick on him.

After reading the stories about Pioli freezing out the old scouts, and relying solely on a guy that had been fired by the Pats, I'd be willing to say he never bothered scouting Sanchez to begin with.

He had his man picked from the outset.

The guy needed the entire year to evaluate the roster according to some here, yet he traded for a QB a month after being hired.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-14-2010, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

I think we've already seen a return from Bowe.
He hasn't stepped into the upper echelon just yet, but...
2,000+ yards in his first two seasons? I'd say that qualifies.

But still not on the level of the guys you listed earlier.

Colston, Wayne, Ocho, Fitz, Boldin, etc.

**doomy3** · 01-14-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

After reading the stories about Pioli freezing out the old scouts, and relying solely on a guy that had been fired by the Pats, I'd be willing to say he never bothered scouting Sanchez to begin with.

He had his man picked from the outset.

The guy needed the entire year to evaluate the roster according to some here, yet he traded for a QB a month after being hired.

Perhaps, who knows. Certainly you or I don't know that.

With Cassel, if he didn't make the move when he did, he would have ended up in Denver or somewhere else. I get that he made them move quickly, but he kind of had to if he didn't like Sanchez at 3, and wanted to make a move at QB.

Like I said, if Cassel doesn't have a good year in '10, then we should be in a position to take a guy like Gabbert, Barkley, or Locker, assuming they come out. And, IMO, those guys all have more upside than Sanchez, and will most likely have less question marks due to more playing time and game film to gauge them on.

Reerun_KC · 01-14-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Pioli is going to have to have a great draft in '10 for me to start giving him the benefit of the doubt in this area.

It's hard for me to reconcile just how badly he drafted in '09.

Or what? You going to walk into Clarks office and throw a temper tantrum?

Micjones · 01-14-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

But still not on the level of the guys you listed earlier.

Colston, Wayne, Ocho, Fitz, Boldin, etc.

No, not yet. But he's perfectly capable of producing in a comparable fashion.
It should be noted that only Colston and Fitzgerald had a better opening two seasons.

SDChiefs · 01-14-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Whether you take it seriously or not... That trio accounted for two-thirds of Brees' passing yardage and about half of his TD passes. If you factor in Tomlinson's numbers it jumps to about three-fourths of his offensive output. They made a SIGNIFICANT contribution in his 2nd year.

I'm not drawing a comparison to what he has now (in Nola) to what he had in his sophomore season as an NFL QB. I'm debunking this idea that he had nothing to work with. As his career wore on in San Diego he had an all-world Antonio Gates AND Tomlinson. With good complementary pieces all along.

He had talent around him.

We already have Charles and Bowe.
Add in another talented WR. Maybe a TE in Free Agency. And someone to spell Charles...

A good front office doesn't need 4 more years to acquire 3 playmakers.

They had Chambers for half the year. Bowe, Chambers, Charles and Cassel still amounted to nothing.

01-14-2010, 01:33 AM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $930478	Whitlock LOLs at the Patsification of the Chiefs http://www.kansascity.com/sports/col...y/1682402.html Wake me when the Chiefs sign Tom Brady, the one with two healthy knees and fearless pocket demeanor. Until then, I’ll take a wait-and-see approach with Scott Pioli’s New England Relocation Plan. Right now, this smells like a Jackson Five reunion tour without Michael (Brady) or Janet (Bill Belichick). Romeo “Tito” Crennel, the defensive coordinator, joins Pioli, Charlie Weis, Matt Cassel, Mike Vrabel and ex-Pats to be named later in what appears to be a lame attempt at recreating the New England Dynasty. Let me apologize for being unimpressed with this lineup. You’re tired of reading it, and I’m tired of writing it. Unfortunately, I’m paid to tell you what I really think. Romeo Crennel sounds great on paper. He won three Super Bowls while holding the title of “defensive coordinator” for Belichick’s Patriots. Tito sold a bunch of records plucking a guitar and singing backup for Michael Jackson. Without The Gloved One, we never heard of Tito again until Michael passed. Romeo flamed out in Cleveland as a head coach. Of all the Belichick assistants during the Super Bowl years, Crennel was the one with the least amount of responsibility on his plate. Belichick designed the defenses. When Crennel got the Cleveland job, I asked a longtime Patriots defender what he thought of the hire, and the player told me flat out that he never envisioned Romeo as a head coach. It’s just one player, one opinion. And not being head-coach material doesn’t disqualify someone from being a top-flight coordinator. In fact, I touched base with the player again on Wednesday, and he assured me that Crennel installed the defensive game plan throughout the week without interference from Belichick and that Crennel called the game. The player also assured me that Belichick had his fingerprints on everything that transpired with the team — special teams, offense, defense and front-office decisions. I’m just not sold on Crennel. As a coordinator, Crennel has far more to prove than Charlie Weis. No one I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to create innovative game plans. (Everyone I’ve talked to doubts Weis’ ability to control his ego.) Crennel worked for Belichick, who specializes in defense. Bill Parcells never won a Super Bowl without Belichick working as his defensive coordinator. Hey, maybe one day we will be saying the same thing about Belichick and Crennel. Today, all I’m sure of is that Crennel’s hiring increases the likelihood that Todd Haley is in a make-or-break season in 2010. If things go poorly next season, don’t look for Pioli, Weis and Crennel to take the blame. They have nine Super Bowl rings among them. In their mind, they know exactly what it takes to win at the highest level in the NFL. Haley either has no political savvy, no interest in playing the kind of politics that enhances a coach’s longevity or zero leverage when putting together a coaching staff. Given the previous working relationship of Pioli, Weis and Crennel — and Weis’ oversized ego — it would be a seamless transition for Pioli to install Weis as head coach midway through the 2010 season or at the start of 2011. My gut says Haley’s ego and gambling nature make him unaware of the ramifications of his decisions. Firing Chan Gailey was a colossal error. With the offensive personnel provided to him by Pioli, Haley should’ve held on to Gailey for a season. There was no reason for the head coach to attach his reputation and credibility to a receiver-less offense. Good coaches are paranoid. They perceive every move by ownership/management as a potential threat to their power. Paranoia is what drives a good coach to be great. Paranoia is what makes a coach sleep at his office and punt on fourth down. Look at Belichick. He’s been spoiled by success. That’s why he went for it on fourth and 2 against the Colts. He’s losing his paranoia. Haley’s background is extremely unusual for an NFL head coach. Golfers focus on a single obstacle, the course. A football coach worries about a million things, including what his assistants may or may not be plotting.
Posts: 296,992

01-14-2010, 06:37 PM	#512
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Rodgers was 24 (and that wasn't a strong class). Flacco was 18. The QBs in general haven't done well recently, high picks or low. I don't know if that's a temporary trend or a sign of the future.
Posts: 58,682