Pioli offers an excuse

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I don't necessarily agree.

Pete Carroll did not have a system that was anywhere near "up and running". He was a joke, and his players knew it.

However, NE did have a lot of pieces left over from the previous system: McGinest, Bruschi, Law, Troy Brown, Ted Johnson, etc.

Yep and they inheirted a lot better team than what we have here.

I just don't see an excuse by Pioli. What he says about KC is absolutely true.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Yep and they inheirted a lot better team than what we have here.

15 of Pioli's 22 starters in the 2001 Super Bowl were not in New England when he arrived.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

15 of Pioli's 22 starters in the 2001 Super Bowl were not in New England when he arrived.

They were 9-7 and 8-8 the 2 years prior to BB\Pioli taking over. Compare that with the Chiefs 4-12 and 2-14 record.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

They were 9-7 and 8-8 the 2 years prior to BB\Pioli taking over. Compare that with the Chiefs 4-12 and 2-14 record.

Oh, and BB and Pioli's first season in NE was 5-11. I'm not saying that the Chiefs will win the Super Bowl this year, or even be within a year of the Pats second year W/L record..... but, the Chiefs are pretty close to where the Pats were going into their second year.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

They were 9-7 and 8-8 the 2 years prior to BB\Pioli taking over. Compare that with the Chiefs 4-12 and 2-14 record.

And yet the roster still had to be turned over.

Just like it does in Kansas City.

In fact, here are the seven starters Pioli inherited in Kansas City:

Charles, Flowers, Carr, Waters, Albert, Bowe and Dorsey.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Yep and they inheirted a lot better team than what we have here.

I just don't see an excuse by Pioli. What he says about KC is absolutely true.

Well, kind of.

I mean, let's be honest:

He did inherit a team with a young LT with all the upside in the world, a game breaking RB, a player who looked like a #1 WR, a future pro bowl CB, one of the best DT prospects of the decade, the greatest TE of all time, and the 3rd and 34th overall picks.

Now, if you look at what those assets were spun into, it's pretty underwhelming.

[keg in kc]

What the Chiefs are is a team that's been spiraling downwards for more than a decade - or "swirling 'round the bowl" as I like to put it. This is their 3rd complete rebuild in that time, and each one has involved a completely different approach to building a football team. They've gone from trying to retain the "glory" of the 90s (Gunther '99-'00) built around a defense that was already steadily declining, to trying to recapture the magical season the Rams had in '99 with a system Vermeil built around giving up picks for coaches and veteran players, to again building around defense with Edwards to now building around defense again, but with a drastically different scheme.

This has been one of the worst-managed franchises for years, as far as football goes. They've drafted poorly, they've never built a central core of talent, they've had little to no stability on the coaching staff, . That's where Pioli was starting from. And what he has to do is something their was a pretty lengthy article about during the coaching search last year (or was that even the GM search), when they were talking about how Clark wants to model the franchise around the Steelers. Not in terms of how they play, but how the organization as a whole is structured. They find the systems they want, which was apparently the 3-4 and a more pass-oriented offense, they find the coaches they want to execute that (which I think was Weis and Crennel all along), and then they stick with it...for years.

This has always been something that was going to take a while to turn around. 2009 was always the tear down and roster assessment year, sort of year 1a of the rebuild. 2010 is year 1b. If they're lucky they'll be competitive, although reality is they did win 4 games last year. Although on the other hand, they do play in one of the worst divisions in the game.

Fans are fickle. People are already turning on the 3-4, which is ironic after 10 years of hearing people talk about how they wanted the it. Now that they have it, they want the 4-3 again. I guess that's just how it goes; the grass is always greener. But what the franchise needs to do is stabilize, and that means Haley gets years to put it together. That means the defense doesn't change back to a 4-3 after a single year as a 3-4. Or two years. Or three. That means they stay on the course they're on.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

What the Chiefs are is a team that's been spiraling downwards for more than a decade - or "swirling 'round the bowl" as I like to put it. This is their 3rd complete rebuild in that time, and each one has involved a completely different approach to building a football team. They've gone from trying to retain the "glory" of the 90s (Gunther '99-'00) built around a defense that was already steadily declining, to trying to recapture the magical season the Rams had in '99 with a system Vermeil built around giving up picks for coaches and veteran players, to again building around defense with Edwards to now building around defense again, but with a drastically different scheme.

This has been one of the worst-managed franchises for years, as far as football goes. They've drafted poorly, they've never built a central core of talent, they've had little to no stability on the coaching staff, . That's where Pioli was starting from. And what he has to do is something their was a pretty lengthy article about during the coaching search last year (or was that even the GM search), when they were talking about how Clark wants to model the franchise around the Steelers. Not in terms of how they play, but how the organization as a whole is structured. They find the systems they want, which was apparently the 3-4 and a more pass-oriented offense, they find the coaches they want to execute that (which I think was Weis and Crennel all along), and then they stick with it...for years.

This has always been something that was going to take a while to turn around. 2009 was always the tear down and roster assessment year, sort of year 1a of the rebuild. 2010 is year 1b. If they're lucky they'll be competitive, although reality is they did win 4 games last year. Although on the other hand, they do play in one of the worst divisions in the game.

Fans are fickle. People are already turning on the 3-4, which is ironic after 10 years of hearing people talk about how they wanted the it. Now that they have it, they want the 4-3 again. I guess that's just how it goes; the grass is always greener. But what the franchise needs to do is stabilize, and that means Haley gets years to put it together. That means the defense doesn't change back to a 4-3 after a single year as a 3-4. Or two years. Or three. That means they stay on the course they're on.

Yep.

FAX

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

What the Chiefs are is a team that's been spiraling downwards for more than a decade - or "swirling 'round the bowl" as I like to put it. This is their 3rd complete rebuild in that time, and each one has involved a completely different approach to building a football team. They've gone from trying to retain the "glory" of the 90s (Gunther '99-'00) built around a defense that was already steadily declining, to trying to recapture the magical season the Rams had in '99 with a system Vermeil built around giving up picks for coaches and veteran players, to again building around defense with Edwards to now building around defense again, but with a drastically different scheme.

This has been one of the worst-managed franchises for years, as far as football goes. They've drafted poorly, they've never built a central core of talent, they've had little to no stability on the coaching staff, . That's where Pioli was starting from. And what he has to do is something their was a pretty lengthy article about during the coaching search last year (or was that even the GM search), when they were talking about how Clark wants to model the franchise around the Steelers. Not in terms of how they play, but how the organization as a whole is structured. They find the systems they want, which was apparently the 3-4 and a more pass-oriented offense, they find the coaches they want to execute that (which I think was Weis and Crennel all along), and then they stick with it...for years.

This has always been something that was going to take a while to turn around. 2009 was always the tear down and roster assessment year, sort of year 1a of the rebuild. 2010 is year 1b. If they're lucky they'll be competitive, although reality is they did win 4 games last year. Although on the other hand, they do play in one of the worst divisions in the game.

Fans are fickle. People are already turning on the 3-4, which is ironic after 10 years of hearing people talk about how they wanted the it. Now that they have it, they want the 4-3 again. I guess that's just how it goes; the grass is always greener. But what the franchise needs to do is stabilize, and that means Haley gets years to put it together. That means the defense doesn't change back to a 4-3 after a single year as a 3-4. Or two years. Or three. That means they stay on the course they're on.

That's all well and good but out of seven draft choices and 38 free agent acquisitions, the Chiefs were unable to find something they sorely lacked:

A game-changing, playmaking, difference maker.

Pioli can bring everyone that's even been associated with Parcell, Belichick and himself but until he drafts or signs some playmakers on both sides of the ball, this team will continue to falter.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's all well and good but out of seven draft choices and 38 free agent acquisitions, the Chiefs were unable to find something they sorely lacked:

A game-changing, playmaking, difference maker.

Pioli can bring everyone that's even been associated with Parcell, Belichick and himself but until he drafts or signs some playmakers on both sides of the ball, this team will continue to falter.

I don't disagree with that. They do need playmakers. But the reality is, as I mentioned, that it's one offseason. And they need(ed) literally dozens of players across the board. I thought before they even started it was going to take three years to put the team together. Which doesn't mean that I'm saying last offseason was somehow unimportant or that it should be written off; the players they drafted last year have to be good. They have to be pieces of the puzzle, so to speak.

There have to be more this year, and eventually they have to add some playmakers to the bunch.

This is just my own (oft-stated) opinion, but I think the way the draft fell last year was primarily luck. Really, really bad luck. Because the Chiefs were in a position to draft a primetime player but, unfortunately for them, it was a draft without any, at least not once Stafford was off the board. I didn't want Sanchez any more than I wanted Cassel (and it's not because I'm shy about drafting a QB; I just didn't like Sanchez...). I didn't want Curry. Or Crabtree. I didn't want one of the offensive tackles after the way Albert played in 2008. I didn't want Orakpo (which may or may not be a mistake in the long run). I didn't want Jackson, either, but he actually fit exactly the kind of player I expected them to draft, so it didn't really come as any surprise. But, really, looking back at that list, what playmaker was there, especially if you look at it with April 2009 eyes...

I think this draft will ultimately be a lot more telling. And you won't find anybody more disappointed or disgusted than me if the first name called ends up being an offensive tackle. This is a much stronger class, and I think this draft as a whole is a better one, as deep as last year's was after you got past the weak-as-hell top of the first round. I think they have an opportunity to really land some talent, and they'll perhaps be more able to do so because they addressed some of the more workmanlike positions in 2009.

But that's just a guess...

Maybe in the end they'll just keep taking more linemen in every round.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

He did inherit a team with a young LT with possible upside, an unknown unused RB, a player who played like a #2 WR with the dropsies, a CB with all the upside in the world, a DT that had been underwhelming, one of the best TE that wanted out and was near retirement, and the 3rd and 34th overall picks.

Now, if you look at what those assets were spun into, it's not surprising it was underwhelming.

Here's what I know you meant to say

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Here's what I know you meant to say

No.

Branden Albert handled Richard Seymour and Joey Porter thoroughly in his rookie year. You don't do that if you're not really talented.

Bowe's production was right in line with a future top 10 WR.

Charles had already shown game breaking ability and ungodly speed. There wasn't really much of a difference between he and Felix Jones running up to the 2008 draft, but people forget that.

Gonzalez was an "over the top" piece, and the one transaction it looks like Pioli absolutely nailed.

We had the #3 overall pick and #34 in what is looking like a pretty ****ing underrated draft class..

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

We had the #3 overall pick and #34 in what is looking like a pretty ****ing underrated draft class..

With a ****ing franchise QB sitting at #3. Thats the hardest pill to swallow.