There is no benefit other than "feel good" to win 6 games over 2. Getting better draft position was one thing. We had $57M to spend because we chose not to band-aid. That would have put in position to draft Sanchez -- even if he's middling, it was a huge upgrade over Thigpen and also Cassel. It would have put us in position to make a run at several of top notch free agents like Peppers, Haynesworth, Vilma, Dansby, Asomugah. And we would have had multiple rounds to pull in maybe 1 or 2 more contributors.

Losing only sucks if you're not in a position to tank. For a team trying to rebuild and clean up their cap, it's a great thing.

How are the situations even close to the same?

Herm inherited the oldest roster in football and a nightmarish cap hell situation.
Pioli inherited the youngest roster in football and a completely clean cap. Pioli had a completely blank slate and the flexibility to do whatever he wanted.

Chiefzilla

He's not comparing what herm took over and what Pioli took over. He's comparing what Herm left and Pioli left.

I'm not talking about finding band-aids for 6 feel gooders. I'm talking about building a damn team with some depth that can win 6 games. Just because a dude is a free agent doesn't mean he's washed up. Look at Abdulah, West, et al that I listed above. You can go find good value free agents. Herm didn't. The team he built was horrible. But you want to forget 3 years of complete ****all because he went out and got 6 mother****ing guys.

No. Given 3 years almost any personnel man, including the Pioli Reich, was also ****ing horrible, can go get a few guys that can play. It takes far more than hitting on a Jamaal Charles or Justin Houston to do a team some good.

Herm was horrible.

Starting 4 or 5 rookies, including starting two rookie CB's and LT that played guard in college was probably the difference between 2 wins and 5 wins. 99.9% of head coaches in that situation who are fighting for their jobs would have brought in a bunch of veterans in hopes of getting to 7 or 8 wins and thus showing "improvement". Most coaches would refuse to go with the "youth model" in their critical third year when year 2 was a mess.

The only thing I disagree with is the LT and backend business. First, Albert played really well. I don't think you can point to him and say McIntosh would have won us more games. Maybe the backend you could, but the two corners were OK. DL (who had some vets), Nickel CB and every LB missed a bunch of damn tackles and couldn't fill a gap or cover a TE. Even DJ, who made a bunch of plays but was inconsistent, accounted for more losses than Carr, Flower, Pollard, and Page. The whole defense was a tire fire after JA left and Hali moved to the RDE spot. Was 2008 the 4 sack year?

But I too am glad he stuck to his guns and showed the world just how good the team HE built was. So all in all I guess I agree.

Comparing what Herm and left and Pioli left is complete nonsense.

It's like trying to compare the guy who took over Enron post-crash to the guy who took over Apple post-Steve Jobs. Of course the guy who inherited a significantly better situation is going to leave behind a better team than the guy who inherited a complete mess.

Both teams were had ****all for talent save a few dudes and some money to spend.

They were both horrible teams led by horrible personnel guys. Pioli just happened to piss in EVERYBODY'S Post Toasties while Herm was thought of as a good guy.

And again, I think you're overrating how easy it is to find players off the scrap heap. No, Herm hasn't done nearly as well as Dorsey in this department, but Dorsey is also doing it better than most GMs in the league. But you have to acknowledge that Dorsey's success is also largely dependent on taking a ton of swings and misses. For every success, there are a lot of expensive failures too like Vance Walker, Mays, Fasano, etc.... The big QB move Dorsey made makes sense for a team in 2013 that was desperate to start winning. Makes no sense for a team like the 2008 Chiefs who needed every last draft pick they could get to build the foundation.

First, please stop using the word "6." I've pointed out several times he brought in about 10 starting calibre players, with 5 or 6 of them being very good. And even using 10 uses the impossible standard that any GM is going to find you 50 starters on the roster. Guys like Babin, Gilberry, Ron Edwards, Wade Smith, Turk, Battle, Barry Richardson, Studebaker, McGraw are more than adequate roster guys. Throw in the 4 or 5 guys from the Vermeil regime... in 3 years spending barely any money on long-term guys and having shitty draft position 2 of those 3 years, we built out half a starting roster and filling half of a 53-man roster with legit roster players. That's not great, but it's certainly not "horrible" given the circumstances.

Sometimes the decision not to spend is just as powerful as the decision to spend. I complimented Dorsey for showing restraint in 2014 and got hammered by it. People gave me shit for praising Dorsey for not spending a shitload on Jairus Byrd, Desean Jackson, and for stockpiling comp picks. Similarly, Herm deserves a lot of credit for showing the same restraint including passing multiple times on a chance to bring in Chad Pennington.

I'm a little disturbed at the passion and time invested over Herm's legacy.

But yet nobody bats an eye when people over-the-top rip on his legacy all the time. Completely at random. In ways we never did with actual ****-ups like Romeo.

The common view of Herm was good scout/poor gameday coach. I wouldnt take any view point other than that too serious.

Herm was an overrated scout of talent.

Brodie Croyle, Tank Tyler, Turk McBride, Glenn Dorsey.

That is Herm's selected QBOTF and defensive line of the future that he absolutely bombed.