Carl Peterson or Scott Pioli?

[Deberg_1990]

Your the proud owner of the NFL's newest expansion team the Portland Pythons! You have narrowed down your GM search to two finalists, Carl Peterson and Scott Pioli. Each man comes with a solid resume. Pioli with his 3 Super Bowl rings. Peterson with his USFL championships and long and distinguished history with the KC Chiefs. Who would you choose to run your franchise?

[Epic Fail 007]

Originally Posted by lcarus

I am here now. I voted Peterson. Until Pioli proves me wrong, I don't give a shit. Peterson had more success when he was first hired by the Chiefs. I'm able to look past the last 10 years of his time here. Pioli has pissed me off with his moves, what else can I say?

Peterson got us closer to a Super Bowl team (a few times) than the dogshit Pioli has placed in our lap. All the good players on this team are Peterson picks. It's ****ing sad. Pioli hasn't done a god damn thing yet, but I'm willing to give him more time.

I voted perterson to.He would of got us to a sb if he would not of messed up and hired Herm.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by eric007

I voted perterson to.He would of got us to a sb if he would not of messed up and hired Herm.

This is who you are agreeing with, Icarus. Think about that for a minute.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think Pioli builds a terrific scouting network. Peterson was a complete boob when it came to the draft. Whereas Peterson seemed to rely on a few of his buddies giving him draft advice and then showing preferential treatment to his Pac-10 cronies, Pioli seems to really get great due diligence from his area scouts and his personnel guys. If you matched Pioli's drafting and gave him license to spend freely the way Peterson did, no doubt Pioli's teams would clobber Peterson's. For some reason, Pioli isn't spending. I personally believe it has more to do with arrogance than it does with Clark Hunt tightening the purse strings. We get all riled up over a few picks here and there, but the fact is that the 2010 draft was effective, and I think the 2011 draft will go down as a very good one as well.

If he can learn to temper his arrogance, he has potential to be very good. But that's a very big "if."

I don't think we can say that Pioi's drafts have been hits just yet.

The 2009 draft was an unqualified disaster. Further, the 2010 draft was only mediocre. Berry was a no-brainer, he gets no credit from me for that one. All he had to do was not be an idiot there. McCluster was a jackson-esque ****up. Arenas was an okay pick at best (still way too high to take a kick returner and nickle corner). Moeaki fell as far as he did because of injury concerns, now he's injured.

Lewis and Asomoah were nice picks, Lewis especially so (as Asomoah was another one of those guys with a 2nd roundish grade that we were fortunate to see fall to the 3rd). Lewis was absolutely a scouting victory, I'll give him that. Then again, Peterson found Tongue and Page in similar situations. Page is actually in incredibly similar comparison, so it's not as though Peterson has no 'scouting wins' in the defensive backfield either. And this is not giving him any credit at all for the 2008 draft, which was a damn gold mine (and it's probably not fair to give Herm all the credit for that draft).

2011 is just an unknown. I personally love the draft and Baldwin, if he pans out, is a scouting win. Hudson was a lot like Asomoah in that he just fell to where he was a definite value pick, ditto Houston (but credit is due to Pioli for having the balls to take the chance). Bailey is likely to be a bust, IMO. Jalil Brown hasn't impressed. Stanzi and Powe were good selections, but I'd have been absolutely furious had he not taken them where they were availabe, so doesn't that mean they weren't exactly 'tough' calls? And besides, he's burying both of them now anyway.

Look at his draft record his last 4-5 years in NE and there's nothing to write home about.

The jury is very much out on Scott Pioli as a draft expert. All I know is that we're almost 50 games into his tenure as a GM and virtually every impact player on this roster came from the previous regime. That's not an appropriate timeline for a draft wizard, IMO.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

This is who you are agreeing with, Icarus. Think about that for a minute.

Perhaps I should kill myself.

[Epic Fail 007]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

This is who you are agreeing with, Icarus. Think about that for a minute.

No im agreeing with myself and the facts.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think we can say that Pioi's drafts have been hits just yet.

The 2009 draft was an unqualified disaster. Further, the 2010 draft was only mediocre. Berry was a no-brainer, he gets no credit from me for that one. All he had to do was not be an idiot there. McCluster was a jackson-esque ****up. Arenas was an okay pick at best (still way too high to take a kick returner and nickle corner). Moeaki fell as far as he did because of injury concerns, now he's injured.

Lewis and Asomoah were nice picks, Lewis especially so (as Asomoah was another one of those guys with a 2nd roundish grade that we were fortunate to see fall to the 3rd). Lewis was absolutely a scouting victory, I'll give him that. Then again, Peterson found Tongue and Page in similar situations. Page is actually in incredibly similar comparison, so it's not as though Peterson has no 'scouting wins' in the defensive backfield either. And this is not giving him any credit at all for the 2008 draft, which was a damn gold mine (and it's probably not fair to give Herm all the credit for that draft).

2011 is just an unknown. I personally love the draft and Baldwin, if he pans out, is a scouting win. Hudson was a lot like Asomoah in that he just fell to where he was a definite value pick, ditto Houston (but credit is due to Pioli for having the balls to take the chance). Bailey is likely to be a bust, IMO. Jalil Brown hasn't impressed. Stanzi and Powe were good selections, but I'd have been absolutely furious had he not taken them where they were availabe, so doesn't that mean they weren't exactly 'tough' calls? And besides, he's burying both of them now anyway.

Look at his draft record his last 4-5 years in NE and there's nothing to write home about.

The jury is very much out on Scott Pioli as a draft expert. All I know is that we're almost 50 games into his tenure as a GM and virtually every impact player on this roster came from the previous regime. That's not an appropriate timeline for a draft wizard, IMO.

Spot on.

[DaWolf]

I think it's still too early to judge Pioli. We had two decades to judge Carl.

Even Ted Thompson, who I think anyone would take right now, started off in Green Bay as follows:

2005: 4-12
2006: 8-8
2007: 13-3
2008: 6-10

So that's 1 winning season in his first four years, and that was with both Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers running the show. So even with all that, it took him 5 years to really get that team to start looking ready to compete every year. And I use that allusion because Green Bay is another team like us who looks to build through the draft rather than free agency.

So is Pioli looking bad now? Yeah, he probably is. But is this team a completed product? No way. Now the biggest knock I have with Pioli right now is that I'm not sure his first hire as head coach was the right one. But then again, would Haley have looked better if he had inherited Brett Favre at the beginning? Probably. The other issue is we don't have a franchise QB to build around, and I think it's evident Cassel isn't going to be that guy. So Pioli needs to find that guy for any of this to really work, because that really was Peterson's biggest failure while he was here. If we had ever been able to get that top guy instead of trading for other team's backups every few years, it might have been a better ending. And the only thing we have to go off of with Pioli right now is that he traded for another team's backup. So until we get ourselves that franchise guy, both Pioli and Carl's tenures will end the same way: no trophy...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think we can say that Pioi's drafts have been hits just yet.

The 2009 draft was an unqualified disaster. Further, the 2010 draft was only mediocre. Berry was a no-brainer, he gets no credit from me for that one. All he had to do was not be an idiot there. McCluster was a jackson-esque ****up. Arenas was an okay pick at best (still way too high to take a kick returner and nickle corner). Moeaki fell as far as he did because of injury concerns, now he's injured.

Lewis and Asomoah were nice picks, Lewis especially so (as Asomoah was another one of those guys with a 2nd roundish grade that we were fortunate to see fall to the 3rd). Lewis was absolutely a scouting victory, I'll give him that. Then again, Peterson found Tongue and Page in similar situations. Page is actually in incredibly similar comparison, so it's not as though Peterson has no 'scouting wins' in the defensive backfield either. And this is not giving him any credit at all for the 2008 draft, which was a damn gold mine (and it's probably not fair to give Herm all the credit for that draft).

2011 is just an unknown. I personally love the draft and Baldwin, if he pans out, is a scouting win. Hudson was a lot like Asomoah in that he just fell to where he was a definite value pick, ditto Houston (but credit is due to Pioli for having the balls to take the chance). Bailey is likely to be a bust, IMO. Jalil Brown hasn't impressed. Stanzi and Powe were good selections, but I'd have been absolutely furious had he not taken them where they were availabe, so doesn't that mean they weren't exactly 'tough' calls? And besides, he's burying both of them now anyway.

Look at his draft record his last 4-5 years in NE and there's nothing to write home about.

The jury is very much out on Scott Pioli as a draft expert. All I know is that we're almost 50 games into his tenure as a GM and virtually every impact player on this roster came from the previous regime. That's not an appropriate timeline for a draft wizard, IMO.

This is all spot-on, but I'm comparing that to the 20-ish years of Carl Peterson. A while ago, I think I did a count that less that in his last 10 years, I think it was something like over 90% of players didn't see a full-time roster after 3-5 years. I think it's quite possible that Carl Peterson was one of the bottom 5 when it comes to draft track record. I credit most of the 2008 draft success on Bill Kuharich (Herm deserves credit not for the draft, but it seems clear that he crowded Peterson out of the draft and gave the power back to Kuharich and the scouts). And a big part of that is process. You can see that Pioli is a lot more aggressive in terms of getting himself and area scouts out to watch and to talk to people. A huge departure from the Carl Peterson "let's call a few guys I know and trust" approach.

I don't think we can assess draft impact on just impact players. I know this will get me shit, but I do think it was smart to build a team around high character guys. Even though the team loses, they do play hard and they seem to quickly diffuse distractions (e.g. Thomas Jones / Baldwin scuffle). And at least the majority of the draft picks in the last 2 years at least contribute, even if that's only in special teams or specialty packages. From a personnel standpoint, think we've done a pretty good job the last 2 years for a team that hasn't spent a lot of money.

But his ego has absolutely crippled this team. The Cassel decision. The insistence on running 2-gap 3-4. The arrogance to insist on building on the cheap. The insistence on forcing Haley to run the Patriot Way instead of adapting to the coach. Again, I think you place a very good QB on this team, and I think we'd see that this team is actually deeper and more complete than we give it credit for.

[Okie_Apparition]

Where is the CoMo & KnowMo in PR option
so much win

[Rausch]

Not even close...

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But his ego has absolutely crippled this team. The Cassel decision. The insistence on running 2-gap 3-4. The arrogance to insist on building on the cheap. The insistence on forcing Haley to run the Patriot Way instead of adapting to the coach. Again, I think you place a very good QB on this team, and I think we'd see that this team is actually deeper and more complete than we give it credit for.

I think you're overstating Peterson's reliance on 'cronyism' and understating Pioli's. I also think you're giving more weight to the end of the Peterson regime than the beginning. There may be a difference, but I believe its fairly nominal. Pioli has absolutely shown a willingness to 'fall back' on old networks in his picks, just as Peterson did.

As to the rest of it - that sounds a hell of a lot like Peterson, only without the decade of sustained winning that came with Carl's early years.

Scott Pioli walked through the door as the 1999 Carl Peterson. When last I checked, we didn't win a hell of a lot with that guy at the top.

[Epic Fail 007]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

I think it's still too early to judge Pioli. We had two decades to judge Carl.

Even Ted Thompson, who I think anyone would take right now, started off in Green Bay as follows:

2005: 4-12
2006: 8-8
2007: 13-3
2008: 6-10

So that's 1 winning season in his first four years, and that was with both Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers running the show. So even with all that, it took him 5 years to really get that team to start looking ready to compete every year. And I use that allusion because Green Bay is another team like us who looks to build through the draft rather than free agency.

So is Pioli looking bad now? Yeah, he probably is. But is this team a completed product? No way. Now the biggest knock I have with Pioli right now is that I'm not sure his first hire as head coach was the right one. But then again, would Haley have looked better if he had inherited Brett Favre at the beginning? Probably. The other issue is we don't have a franchise QB to build around, and I think it's evident Cassel isn't going to be that guy. So Pioli needs to find that guy for any of this to really work, because that really was Peterson's biggest failure while he was here. If we had ever been able to get that top guy instead of trading for other team's backups every few years, it might have been a better ending. And the only thing we have to go off of with Pioli right now is that he traded for another team's backup. So until we get ourselves that franchise guy, both Pioli and Carl's tenures will end the same way: no trophy...

hmmmmmmmm good point

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think you're overstating Peterson's reliance on 'cronyism' and understating Pioli's. I also think you're giving more weight to the end of the Peterson regime than the beginning. There may be a difference, but I believe its fairly nominal. Pioli has absolutely shown a willingness to 'fall back' on old networks in his picks, just as Peterson did.

As to the rest of it - that sounds a hell of a lot like Peterson, only without the decade of sustained winning that came with Carl's early years.

Scott Pioli walked through the door as the 1999 Carl Peterson. When last I checked, we didn't win a hell of a lot with that guy at the top.

From a personnel standpoint, yes. From a draft standpoint, I don't agree. He is heavily reliant on the SEC, but who wouldn't be? We saw him pass on Bulaga and McClain for Berry. We saw him pass on Clausen, even though he was a Weis guy. The three guys that seem to be crony guys are Moeaki, Arenas, and Stanzi, and all three of those guys have played fine for us (Arenas being the only one that was a slight reach).

And Peterson's drafting was never particularly strong, even in the early years. Marty has a way of making a lot of GMs look like personnel masterminds.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

So is Pioli looking bad now? Yeah, he probably is. But is this team a completed product? No way. Now the biggest knock I have with Pioli right now is that I'm not sure his first hire as head coach was the right one. But then again, would Haley have looked better if he had inherited Brett Favre at the beginning? Probably. The other issue is we don't have a franchise QB to build around, and I think it's evident Cassel isn't going to be that guy. So Pioli needs to find that guy for any of this to really work, because that really was Peterson's biggest failure while he was here. If we had ever been able to get that top guy instead of trading for other team's backups every few years, it might have been a better ending. And the only thing we have to go off of with Pioli right now is that he traded for another team's backup. So until we get ourselves that franchise guy, both Pioli and Carl's tenures will end the same way: no trophy...

If he shows a concerted effort to actually fix the quarterback problem, I'll get off his case.

I don't have a problem riding his ass because I said from the moment the Cassel trade was made that this was a Peterson move; a trade designed to get an adequate quarterback that wouldn't be an obvious bust. It was a risk-averse, chickenshit maneuver from Pioli.

Sure enough, it failed. To me, he still looks a lot like a guy that simply will not take the necessary risks to get this team over the top.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

From a personnel standpoint, yes. From a draft standpoint, I don't agree. He is heavily reliant on the SEC, but who wouldn't be? We saw him pass on Bulaga and McClain for Berry. We saw him pass on Clausen, even though he was a Weis guy. The three guys that seem to be crony guys are Moeaki, Arenas, and Stanzi, and all three of those guys have played fine for us (Arenas being the only one that was a slight reach).

And Peterson's drafting was never particularly strong, even in the early years. Marty has a way of making a lot of GMs look like personnel masterminds.

I recall McCluster also being a 'crony' guy. He has a source at Ole Miss, IIRC.