The Chiefs & Player Development

[FAX]

We've talked about it before, but I have the sense that we may be seeing a different Owner/GM/Coaching philosophy actually displayed on the field (if last night was any indication).

In the past, and largely due to Carl's legendary drafting acumen (also known throughout the league as Bottling Loose Dog Stool), the Chiefs haven't done a very good job of developing players. We would draft a guy and, if that player didn't have remarkable skills and the ability to self-motivate coming in, he rarely seemed to improve. And, only rarely did we start a rookie ... heck, I think DV would rather have a bottle of Boone's Farm Apple Wine busted over his head than start a first-year player.

I've noticed that several obstreperous Planeteers are always calling for "new" and "better" players acquired via the draft, free agency or kidnapped from their beds. But, it looks as though Haley & Company are doing something to which Chiefs fans are unaccustomed ... actually developing young guys during the off-season and giving them a chance to prove themselves by throwing them into the fire to see if they explode.

Personally, I like it. I like it very much. We had ... maybe ... 6 or 7 rookies on the field last night taking first team snaps. We also had a bunch of 2nd and 3rd year players out there.

Of course, some of that is due to the fact that we have no choice ... I mean, between DV's retirement home for aging vets and Herm's ... well, whatever that was that Herm did ... we were left with very little experienced talent. Still, we don't seem to be fearful of building this team from the ground up with young legs.

So far as I'm concerned, that's good to see.

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.

[Coogs]

Herm... love him or hate him... blew the thing up, and brought in some pretty fair players with that draft. For that item alone, I am thankful.

[Marcellus]

This is also the reason the payroll isn't through the roof and it's smart. FA players typically are expensive and don't live up to expectation. See the KC FA list over the last 10 years for evidence. Seems the more they paid the worse they were.

Smart building.

[DaneMcCloud]

This is also the reason the payroll isn't through the roof and it's smart. FA players typically are expensive and don't live up to expectation. See the KC FA list over the last 10 years for evidence. Seems the more they paid the worse they were.

Smart building.

JFC.

The reason payroll isn't "through the roof" is because of the lack of available players due to the expiration of the CBA and salary cap.

IF players with 5 years service had been available this past offseason, are you seriously suggesting that the Chiefs would have avoided those players altogether?

And furthermore, please explain how spending in excess of $18.5 million dollars per year on TWO PLAYERS that were acquired via trade is ANY different than acquiring a high priced free agent?

The Chiefs history of high priced free agents has not been good, but that does NOT apply to the rest of the league (see Drew Brees, Bart Scott and on and on and on for proof).

The fact of the matter is that IF players with 5 years service had been in the free agent pool, the Chiefs would be an even BETTER football team today.

And for the record, I've been calling for the Chiefs to build through the draft since back on the old Star board.

[jAZ]

It's amazing how winning reveals a hidden layer of sanity that has been buried under the monstrous pile of garbage that has been Chiefsplanet football talk since Scott Pioli's first draft.

[Marcellus]

JFC.

The reason payroll isn't "through the roof" is because of the lack of available players due to the expiration of the CBA and salary cap.

IF players with 5 years service had been available this past offseason, are you seriously suggesting that the Chiefs would have avoided those players altogether?

And furthermore, please explain how spending in excess of $18.5 million dollars per year on TWO PLAYERS that were acquired via trade is ANY different than acquiring a high priced free agent?

The Chiefs history of high priced free agents has not been good, but that does NOT apply to the rest of the league (see Drew Brees, Bart Scott and on and on and on for proof).

The fact of the matter is that IF players with 5 years service had been in the free agent pool, the Chiefs would be an even BETTER football team today.

And for the record, I've been calling for the Chiefs to build through the draft since back on the old Star board.

So which side are you arguing because you are talking both ways?

I agree there weren't many players to be had due to the CBA.

I understand your point on Cassel and $, who is the big $ other player acquired via trade? Vrabel was a resign and isn't making much.

[DaneMcCloud]

So which side are you arguing because you are talking both ways?

I agree there weren't many players to be had due to the CBA.

I understand your point on Cassel and $, who is the big $ other player acquired via trade? Vrabel was a resign and isn't making much.

What I'm saying is this:

1. The Chiefs need to build this team through the draft. I've been saying this for more than a decade. Stop trading valuable pics for coaches and short term fixes.

Without adding any emotion (and every stinkin' time I mentioned this, people get emotional), trading a #1, 2 & 3 for Trent Green and Dick Vermeil set this franchise back for the decade. Willie Roaf, while a great player, only played for two complete seasons (and a little more than half a third), making that an unwise acquisition. How about drafting Bryant McKinnie in 2002, thus solving your left tackle problem for a decade instead of Ryan Sims? Bad decision.

Giving up a 4th round pick for Herm was ridiculous, but not nearly as ridiculous as giving up a 2nd (#36 overall in a deep draft) for Cassel and Vrabel.

The Chiefs gave up what should have been the core of their football team for most of this past decade and while the #36 overall may not have been a HOF player, it could have been someone much more productive.

2. High priced Free Agents are no different than High Priced trades. Actually, high priced trades are far worse because you're giving up a valuable draft choice AND cap dollars (which don't exist today but certainly existed from 2001-2009).

3. Free agency does NOT always equal wasted money. The Ryan Lilja signing was a smart, economical move. New Orleans nabbed a Super Bowl QB, the Jets nabbed the QB of their defense, etc. Routinely blowing money just because you can (like the Redskins, for example) isn't wise.

But there are always players on the market that can help teams. Avoiding that altogether is a waste of resources.

[DeezNutz]

Who are the best players on the team? Who acquired those guys again?

[Marcellus]

Who are the best players on the team? Who acquired those guys again?

Is there any 2nd year FO in the NFL that doesn't have the majority of their best players drafted by the previous regime?

Please provide a list of there is.

There is no such thing.

[DeezNutz]

Is there any 2nd year FO in the NFL that doesn't have the majority of their best players drafted by the previous regime?

Please provide a list of there is.

There is no such thing.

My post was a response, primarily, to FAXs allusion to Herm and "whatever it is that he did" (or something like that).

Herm was a dog shit gameday coach. Terrible. ****ing terrible. But he did bring in some legit talent through the draft. In other words, he was no DV.

[Marcellus]

My post was a response, primarily, to FAXs allusion to Herm and "whatever it is that he did" (or something like that).

Herm was a dog shit gameday coach. Terrible. ****ing terrible. But he did bring in some legit talent through the draft. In other words, he was no DV.

I won't disagree but every team has x number of good players. What you do with them and what you surround them with is the difference.

[FAX]

I'm not attempting to unduly bash guys like Flowers ... or even Dorsey (who has, apparently, improved greatly over the past two years) simply because they were drafted by Carl & Herm. That's not the point. However, history proves beyond even a shadow of doubt that the Chiefs have, traditionally, done a poor job of developing the players they drafted.

Maybe I'll try to find Carl's Chiefs Career Draft List again ... it's pretty telling. Compared to all other teams, not only did he draft the fewest players to actually make the roster, he drafted the fewest players to even have a job in the NFL after three years.

FAX

[FAX]

My post was a response, primarily, to FAXs allusion to Herm and "whatever it is that he did" (or something like that).

Herm was a dog shit gameday coach. Terrible. ****ing terrible. But he did bring in some legit talent through the draft. In other words, he was no DV.

So, how would you define or describe Herm's tenure with the franchise? I can't find the words ...

Although it's true that I couldn't stand Herm as a coach or speaker or human, for that matter ... that isn't coloring my opinion on this subject. In fact, I'm glad that Herm got a few good players for us and I won't even bring up the ones that didn't work out ... I shall avert my gaze and pretend they never existed.

Besides, blind pigs and acorns do not a franchise make, my friend.

Anyway, here's the point ... would those players have developed as well under Herm and Carl?

It's a legitimate question.

FAX

[DaneMcCloud]

However, history proves beyond even a shadow of doubt that the Chiefs have, traditionally, done a poor job of developing the players they drafted.FAX

I think this needs to be revised because the Chiefs front office was excellent in terms of player acquisition in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Steadman and Schaaf more often than not during those years had a roster completely loaded with talent. Their Achilles Heel was that they could not hire a coach worth a wooden nickel.

Since 1990 however (I'll exclude 1989 due to Carl's wise decision of Derrick Thomas over Broderick Thomas), the Chiefs drafts have been mostly, a mess. Peterson failed to draft a first round QB to develop, yet spent two first rounders on grizzled, over 30 year-old veterans. He failed to build depth at any position.

For the most part, the Chiefs drafts were shit until in 2008, Herm and Kuharich took over the draft and brought in a bevy of talented players.

2009 reverted to Peterson form but the jury isn't out on every choice. Just three or four out of seven.

[DaneMcCloud]

Is there any 2nd year FO in the NFL that doesn't have the majority of their best players drafted by the previous regime?

Please provide a list of there is.

There is no such thing.

Tampa Bay disagrees with you.

So does Washington.

Oh, and Detroit just fire-bombed your offices.

[booger]

good thread.

I'll use one player as an example: Safety Donald Washington.

Great athlete yet not able to translate that to the CB postition last year. You can say he is a bust and should have been cut but that's not what this is about. It's about knowing they aren't ready to ditch him and give up so quick. He has done his part by picking up his ST's play and could become a pretty good gunner. He's obviously bigger than the 197 he is listed at and switched out the small shoulder pads for a bigger set since he will be sticking his nose in the action. Just my thought on it but he looks much bigger.

Anyway this expands to coaching and how they pick out a role for him on D too. Playing on passing downs and part of the bracket coverage on Gates. Great way to get him involved and boost his confidence. You could almost compare it to how Studebaker learned/learns from Vrabel. McGraw, love him or hate him, found his best niche not as a starter but a nickel safety even playing some cb against TE's split out. I get the point of his age and declining skills and don't disagree. But the good of it is Washington rather than rot on the inactive list for gameday or just play special teams can at least in certain situations play on D too.

They did a good job of moving him around in pre season playing him at both S spots and even some Nickel LB. He's fast, and might be a decent blitzer. Don't know until you try him out.

[booger]

.

[FAX]

I think this needs to be revised because the Chiefs front office was excellent in terms of player acquisition in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

I'm mainly referring to the "modern era" of Carl's tenure when I make that statement, Mr. DaneMcCloud. One of the main problems the Chiefs had under Carl (in my opinion, anyhow) is their lack of either ability or willingness to develop young players. Guys like Gonzo or DT and Shields were exceptions ... not the norm. And, of course, they came into the franchise with extraordinary talent, desire, and work ethic.

Then, there's the whole problem of trading away draft picks for guys like Surtain ... that didn't help much.

I guess I'm hopeful that this regime is sincere when they talk about not having "scrubs" but, rather, "developmental players". As I mentioned, if last night is an indication, they're not afraid to put young guys on the field in big games ... to me, that's very encouraging for the long-term.

FAX THE ENCOURAGED