errr...best player available for YOUR needs and YOUR team. Not just some random talented guy.

Correct. Every team should have a different order for their BPA. According to philosophy, make up of their roster, etc. Whether you run 4-3, or 3-4 LBs, and DEs will change dramatically from board to board for example.

And this, by the way, is why Mel Kiper is pretty much useless as a commentator. Not only does he not recognize team-specificity in evaluating players, he's incapable of doing it for any team, mcuh less whoever is up next.

Sure, he can say "that team needs an LB", but he's basically incapable of the next step "and that's why, for THIS team, THAT player is a bad fit. This other guy is a better fit because of the scheme they run."

He's just an expensive suit, manicure and hair style who talks football the way a car salesman talks cars. Not only couldn't build an engine, they can barely do more than turn the key...

Reptastic.

Well, I didn't expect them to be looking at and drafting for other team's needs.

Duh........

Does Stafford or Sanchez make the cut, IYO?

No clue. I pay no attention to college football or draftnik discussions, really. I wait until the draft is complete, and then read up on the players drafted by the teams that I am focused on, such as the Patriots and their rivals.

That is the difference in being a chiefs fan that will finally change.We fretted over that
because of carl's poor choices.Now we can relax and checks things out after trusting the right moves have been made,That is a big leap of faith for a chief's fan.

Told ya. :D

What was the Pats' record for the 3 seasons prior to BB/SP? I'm too lazy to look it up. :)

Those were the Bobby Grier / Pete Carroll seasons, as Parcells left after 1996. We went 10-6 in 1997, with a playoff loss to, err, the Steelers I think. Two very tight games against them that year.

9-7 in 1998, and then 8-8 in 1999.

Carroll may or may not have gotten a fair shake as a coach. Bobby Grier's drafts were TERRIBLE, and we were way over the cap.

Amno, do you have a take on Pioli's machinations with Shanahan?

Depending on your definition of winning, that seems to contradict part of your original post. (Then again, compared to Herm's record, 10-6, 9-7, 8-8 looks pretty good.):

"He also references some of the unique challenges the Chiefs present compared ot the Patriots team that won a SB two years after BB/SP arrived. The roster is much younger here now, and there is no veteran core of players, nor a recent tradition of winning."

Its better to compare the Chiefs to the Pats era of the early 90's. 90-92. Right before Parcells arrived.

Rock bottom. Exactly where the Chiefs are at.

That's not necessarily true.

I am happy that Pioli was hired, because he gives the Chiefs instant credibility around the league that other potential GMs would not have.

However, he wasn't my top choice, and I won't simply just give him a free pass just because he's Scott Pioli.

So far, in the short time he's been on the job, I am pleased with the way he's handled things, and happier than a hog farmer in shit that he, and Clark, fired Herman ****ing Edwards.

However, if he brings in Mike Shannahan (most overrated head coach in the last 30 years) or Paul Pasqualoni as HC (59 years old, and spotty record at Syracuse), then I will be pissed.