i still want Pioli

[Mr. Laz]

we've had a good offseason but i still want to seperate the GM and CEO responsibilities.

Conflict of interest IMO

PATS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR "PIOLI RULE"?

Per Tom Curran of The Providence Journal, a league source has denied that the New England Patriots are responsible for a proposal to prevent movement of the No. 2 man in an organization.

The measure, first reported last Friday by ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, is known as the "Pioli rule" -- a reference to New England V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli, who lacks the last word over personnel with the Pats and who therefore could leave the team for a "final say" gig prior to the expiration of his contract.

Curran says that, per his source, the Pats weren't the "prime proponents" of the proposal. Curran then identifies three facts that support this contention: (1) Pioli's contract expires in April 2006, after the draft; (2) Pioli has said that he will honor his contract; and (3) such a rule would limit the Pats' ability to find a replacement, if Pioli leaves in April 2006.

We've got a lot of respect for Tom, but we've got a funny feeling that his "source" is someone who's trying to deflect criticism of New England owner Bob Kraft for unfairly trying to handcuff Pioli. Indeed, Curran's story isn't coming out on the heels of Pasquarelli's report, but a full seven days after the powers-that-be in Patriotland have had a chance to fully gauge the reaction in league and local circles to this revelation.

So here are the problems we perceive with Curran's piece:

First, Pasquarelli reported unequivocally that Kraft has been lobbying for the rule, not that the Pats put pen to paper on the thing. So the team's role in the formal presentation of the proposal is irrelevant -- and only someone trying to kick dirt on the Pats' tracks would point to technicalities such as the contention that the team couldn't be responsible for it because it was introduced by a committee on which the team does not have a seat.

Second, the fact that Pioli's contract expires in April 2006 necessarily takes him out of the mix for any G.M. jobs that become available in January 2006 -- if the rule were to be passed before then. Rarely are General Managers fired or hired after the draft, especially with the months of February, March, and April now so critical to the development of the roster for the coming season. (In fact, the only example that we can recall of this phenomenon since we've been in this here bidness came in 2001, when the Bears parted ways with the late Mark Hatley on a "mutual" basis in May and hired then-Tampa director of player personnel Jerry Angelo the following month following a protracted dog-and-pony show from which guys like Phil Savage and Tom Modrak pulled their names due to protracted delays.)

Third, if Pioli's contract is extended by Kraft, then the rule would hold Pioli in place for the duration of his new deal.

Fourth, Pioli's intention to "honor his contract" doesn't necessarily mean that he'll stay. Under the current rules, he can take a promotion and still be "honoring his contract." Although we believe that Pioli truly had no intention of leaving after the 2004 season, we've also heard through the grapevine that the Browns ultimately were scared away by Kraft from interviewing Pioli for the G.M. job in Cleveland.

Really, if January 2006 rolls around and Pioli's contract hasn't been extended, does it make sense for either side to continue the relationship through the draft and then part ways? At some point, Pioli or the team will emotionally disconnect -- and if/when that happens, it'll be time for Pioli to move on.

Finally, the notion that this rule would make it hard for the Pats to find a replacement for Pioli is a real stretch, since the rule would apply to every team. Does anyone really think that a director of college scouting would pass on the chance to become a V.P. of player personnel simply because he's instead holding out for the chance to jump directly into the G.M. chair with another team?

In our view, this whole thing seems to be the result of one simple reality -- Kraft wants Pioli to forego both the ability to run a team on his own and the money that would go along with it. Instead, Kraft hopes that Pioli will choose to stay in the role of second banana.

And Kraft likewise hopes to have the tools to force Pioli to stick around, if Pioli should choose otherwise.

[Amnorix]

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

[Goapics1]

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

Maybe Kraft is making sure he is the real deal. Of course, how many SB's do you need to win before he is the real deal? ROFL Makes no sense to me.

[BigRedChief]

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

Hey Pal FU! :p

You don't get to win the Super Bowl every year. Share some of that hardware with us that are less fortunate to have a real GM.

[Hydrae]

This may no the the place to post this but I have noticed a trend lately here on the Planet. Please, include a link to where you got articles that are probably copyrighted. The last thing Phil (and Kyle for that matter) needs is for the site to get into hot water when he is trying to get it built up.

[bricks]

Won't happen Laz sorry. UNLESS, UNLESS....few things have to happen. First
off, Pioli says he will honor his contract till after the 2006 season. So we know we wont see him here in 2005, and 2006 that's guaranteed. Plus, Carl got a new contract, and will be here till... I think 2009. Carl has to get fired or re-sign by 2006 in order to open up room for Pioli. then it's a possibilty. that's if the Chiefs would even look at him. However, I don't see it happening. Hunt fire Carl? notta chance. Carl re-sign? :rolleyes: notta chance either. Basically, for us to get Pioli it would take a miracle, and perfect timing. everything has to be right, and I don't see it.

[Brock]

People in Hell still want ice water.

[BigChiefFan]

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

[Amnorix]

Hey Pal FU! :p

You don't get to win the Super Bowl every year. Share some of that hardware with us that are less fortunate to have a real GM.

Well, um, if it's all the same to you NO!!



:) :p

[Goapics1]

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

I would take 3 SB's in 4yrs instead 1 yr wonders.

[Amnorix]

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

I agree Newsome is awesome, but you're making it sound like a runaway that Newsome is better. That just isn't the case.

I'd give the edge to Newsome for overall draft record, but I think the Patriots have done much better in free agency.

And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.

Their offense has also remained consistently mediocre (one dimensional in the extreme) for nearly 5 years now.

[BigRedChief]

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

Give me a break. JEEEEZZZ NFL GM of the year two years running. 3 Super Bowl Championships in 4 years. Yeah he had nothing to do with that.:shake:

[BigChiefFan]

I agree Newsome is awesome, but you're making it sound like a runaway that Newsome is better. That just isn't the case.

I'd give the edge to Newsome for overall draft record, but I think the Patriots have done much better in free agency.

And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.

Their offense has also remained consistently mediocre (one dimensional in the extreme) for nearly 5 years now.
You are just reading too much into it. I think alot of that credit goes to the TEAM concept and Brady being deadly accurate. Pioli obviously has been instrumental in talent evaluations, I'm just saying he's isn't the GOD of GMs. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Amnorix]

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

One more comment. "Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season".

1. We will see. Only time will tell.

2. The Patriots obviously didn't need as many changes made as the Chiefs. Not to be critical, but the comparison is invalid since the Chiefs needed to bring in 5 new studs on defense. The Pats didn't.

3. We'll see how the drafting pans out in the long run, but the Chiefs draft position was better than the Patriots, and the players will need to be evaluated over the next 2-3 years. The Pats also got 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks in next year's draft by trading away picks this year, which eventual selections would need to be evaluated 2 or 3 years after THEY are picked.

In short -- this is a very premature statement to make.

[BigChiefFan]

Give me a break. JEEEEZZZ NFL GM of the year two years running. 3 Super Bowl Championships in 4 years. Yeah he had nothing to do with that.:shake:
Do you just read what you want to see? I, in no way said he had nothing to do with helping the Patriots go to the Super Bowl. Stop twisting what was ACTUALLY stated.

[Amnorix]

You are just reading too much into it. I think alot of that credit goes to the TEAM concept and Brady being deadly accurate. Pioli obviously has been instrumental in talent evaluations, I'm just saying he's isn't the GOD of GMs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Belichick and Pioli share GM duties, to a large degree. Pioli shares a TON of credit for our 3 SBs. What HE does allows Belichick to be better at what HE does best (unlike, say, Shanarat or Holmgren, who had to wear both hats at ALL times and have thus far failed at doing so).

Pioli has won GM of the Year award (or whatever it's called) 2 years in a row. The Pats draft picks have been consistently great or good (last year's squad mostly redshirted due to a variety of injuries).

And we won the SB in '01 due to a ridiculously incredibly free agency round where we signed all kinds of crucial players for short money.

In reality, I'd say he and Newsome are at the top of the ladder and pretty much everyone else is looking up at them, in terms of proven track record.

[Wallcrawler]

I
And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.




Eh, Trent Dilfer wasnt exactly Joe Montana. Lets not get carried away here. Trent Dilfer didnt lose the superbowl, and thats all he had to do. I think we all remember that the Ravens went for a solid month of their regular season WITHOUT scoring an offensive touchdown. To me, when you have that happening, that tells me that there isnt much on your offense that isnt easily replacable with someone else.

The Defense won that Ravens team the Superbowl. They carried the team through the regular season, and through the playoffs and superbowl. All Trent Dilfer had to do was NOT blow the games. Dilfer is your game management QB who doesnt make big plays all the time. He's a guy that can make a play here and there, but can just as easily give a play to the defense. He's done it his entire career.

Kyle Boller actually has some upside, and worst case scenario, hes just a younger version of what they already had in Trent Dilfer, a guy who just needs to not blow the game by turning the ball over.


If I were to knock the Ravens for anything, it would probably be bringing in Elvis Grbac to attempt their second championship run the following season. What a joke that was.


As mentioned, Newsome's draft record has been outstanding over the past few seasons. The guys that they have drafted particularly in the first round have been outstanding players for that franchise. Which is something we cannot say about Carl Peterson over the years.

Carl is a great president, and manages the funds pretty well. But this one great offseason the Chiefs have had this year does not excuse the previous 13 or so that he has completely screwed up. I give Carl credit for about 3 good offseasons, aside from the year he landed us the late great Derrick Thomas.

1. The offseason we got Joe Montana and Marcus Allen

2. The year we drafted Jerome Woods, Reggie Tongue, Donnie Edwards, and John Browning.

3. This year.


The rest have pretty much been mediocre at best, and bargain basement pickups while the top tier talent was either not pursued, or insulted by lowball offers and went elsewhere.

Im of the opinion that if this wasnt Dick's last year as a head coach, and Carl wasnt trying to send his good friend off with a bang, this offseason probably wouldnt have happened the way that it has. Ive NEVER seen the Kansas City Chiefs be so aggressive in the offseason, bringing in actual top flight talent.

[Amnorix]

Do you just read what you want to see? I, in no way said he had nothing to do with helping the Patriots go to the Super Bowl. Stop twisting what was ACTUALLY stated.

You compared him to Carl, and that didn't help you any. :LOL: :p

[Amnorix]

Eh, Trent Dilfer wasnt exactly Joe Montana. Lets not get carried away here. Trent Dilfer didnt lose the superbowl, and thats all he had to do. I think we all remember that the Ravens went for a solid month of their regular season WITHOUT scoring an offensive touchdown. To me, when you have that happening, that tells me that there isnt much on your offense that isnt easily replacable with someone else.

The Defense won that Ravens team the Superbowl. They carried the team through the regular season, and through the playoffs and superbowl. All Trent Dilfer had to do was NOT blow the games. Dilfer is your game management QB who doesnt make big plays all the time. He's a guy that can make a play here and there, but can just as easily give a play to the defense. He's done it his entire career.

Kyle Boller actually has some upside, and worst case scenario, hes just a younger version of what they already had in Trent Dilfer, a guy who just needs to not blow the game by turning the ball over.


If I were to knock the Ravens for anything, it would probably be bringing in Elvis Grbac to attempt their second championship run the following season. What a joke that was.

As mentioned, Newsome's draft record has been outstanding over the past few seasons. The guys that they have drafted particularly in the first round have been outstanding players for that franchise. Which is something we cannot say about Carl Peterson over the years.

I agree, Newsome's draft record, especially in the first round, is second to NONE. Ed Reed is another SUPERstar for that squad. The only blown pick over the last 6+ years in the first is Travis Taylor.

Boller MAY have upside, but we haven't seen it yet.

I agree that Dilfer wasn't all that, but he did help win the SB for them (although it was obviously defense that was their strength). Their QB situation took a step backwards when they got rid of them, and it STILL hasn't gotten any better since.

With some WR talent imported this year (FINALLY), this is Boller's year to make it or not. Fassel ought to help as OC as well.

[BigChiefFan]

One more comment. "Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season".

1. We will see. Only time will tell.

2. The Patriots obviously didn't need as many changes made as the Chiefs. Not to be critical, but the comparison is invalid since the Chiefs needed to bring in 5 new studs on defense. The Pats didn't.

3. We'll see how the drafting pans out in the long run, but the Chiefs draft position was better than the Patriots, and the players will need to be evaluated over the next 2-3 years. The Pats also got 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks in next year's draft by trading away picks this year, which eventual selections would need to be evaluated 2 or 3 years after THEY are picked.

In short -- this is a very premature statement to make.
It's called an OPINION and IMO, I BELIEVE Carl did a phenomenal job this off-season. I believe he added more talent to his roster than the Pats did. You are absolutely correct that the Pats had to do less than the Chiefs so it is hard to make a balanced comparision, but I call it like I see it.

FYI, I am not saying Carl is better than Pioli, never did. I'm just saying that Pioli is not a God. He's a damn good GM, but he's not the only act in town. Some hang off his nutsack, I don't.

[Amnorix]

It's called an OPINION and IMO, I BELIEVE Carl did a phenomenal job this off-season. I believe he added more talent to his roster than the Pats did. You are absolutely correct that the Pats had to do less than the Chiefs so it is hard to make a balanced comparision, but I call it like I see it.

Right. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. :) :p

My opinion is also that we are both :homer:

:LOL:

[BigChiefFan]

Right. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. :) :p

My opinion is also that we are both :homer:

:LOL:
IMO, my opinion is more valid than your opinion, because I said so. :p ROFL

[BigRedChief]

IMO, my opinion is more valid than your opinion, because I said so. :p ROFL

And my opinion rules over both of your opinions because according to EL Presidente I'm a "Real" fan and you are not.:p

[RealSNR]

And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.
IIRC, isn't Grbackup the QB with the highest passer rating in Ravens history (Ravens only, not old Browns)?