Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
 

Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
May 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11743195

Five boldest moves

Kansas City hiring Scott Pioli

Some people automatically put this one in the win column. Not me. Not after Charlie Weis fizzled at Notre Dame and Romeo Crennel bombed out in Cleveland. OK, so they were former New England coaches, and Pioli was a decorated GM. They still fall from the same tree. The question I have is this: How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

The good news is that Thomas Dimitroff had New England ties, too, and he circled the bases in his first turn as a GM in Atlanta. The bad news: Pioli's first draft with Kansas City: There are reaches everywhere. He also reversed the team's Get Young Now policy by adding 30-something discards like Bobby Engram, Zach Thomas, Monty Beisel and Mike Vrabel. You can do that when you're at or near the top, like New England. But this is a team that lost 23 of its last 25, for crying out loud.

Five biggest gambles

Kansas City acquiring Matt Cassel

I know what he did with New England. But that was the Patriots, and tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code. Cassel was surrounded by a raft of talent on the field and on the sidelines in New England, and I'm still looking for that support group here. So he produced a couple of 400-yard passing games and won 10 of 15 starts. That was nice. But I want to see him reproduce it here. OK, I know what you're thinking: What do the Chiefs have to lose -- especially when all they surrendered for Cassel and Vrabel was a second-round draft pick? Try this: They're paying Cassel $14.65 million in guaranteed salary. If he turns out to be the next Scott Mitchell I know some bean counters in red suits who will demand explanations.

um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

God I hate the offseason.:(

Cassel is not a big problem until we sign him long term. We did pass on a QB in the draft this year but other than that i don't see any real long term downside.

I give anyone that didn't draft Mark Sanchez an F- for the offseason.

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

That's a good article to generate discussion during the off season. I doubt he actually believes anything he wrote.

His list of "smartest" moves, are IMO, the riskiest.

Haynesworth to Washington - Giving a DT a big contract after a contract year? How many of those other big deal FA signings by the Skins have turned out well? Jason Taylor anyone?

Sanchez - Historically, 1st round college QB's with less than 25 starts fail horribly. Sanchez may buck the trend. He seems like a good kid, but it is still a very risky move.

I'd say the same thing for Detroit with Stafford. Lots of questions about the kid and they grossly overpaid him.

If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

Did Pioli steal Judge's girlfriend in highschool or sleep with his sister? He has to be the only person who think's Pioli was a stretch. What a jerk off. Giving up a second for Cassel was completely worth the risk, a second rounder? Come on. We didnt give him a huge contract, Cassel has to play his a$$ off to get the big contract, not sit back and suck like Mitchell did. Plus Cassel has wanted this chance since his days at USC, I absolutely believe he will be ready. he is an immediate step up from Thigpen and worst case scenerio he sucks, the best QB draft in quite some time takes place in 2010.
Bringing in the 30+ guys who are winners was to change the mindset of the Chiefs. These young players have won 4 games over the past two seasons, they need the veteran leadership to push these kids and show them how to be winners.

Judge is a loser...I really like our moves thus far and we havent wasted money on anyone...

As long as we have room under the cap, who cares how much we're paying him?

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

How about just considering the history of big-time free agent DT's? They almost never work out. If he pans out in Washington, he'll be the exception to almost every rule, not just one.

In the NFL the best moves are often the riskiest. Drafting a 1st round QB, getting a coach who failed somewhere else, or had never coached before, promoting someone to a job they've never held.

There are no great moves in the NFL that carry little risk. The moves without risk typically carry very little reward.

I'm sure he has that expectation. But the guy doesn't have a contract, and that's telling, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Because it was only a 2nd round draft pick for two players. Think what Carl has done with 2nd round draft picks the last 10 year. Maybe Pioli didn't like the QB's in this year's draft enough to make them the 3rd pick of the draft.

Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

They also got great value from Dana Stubblefield and the one or two sacks he had during his Redskin career.

"Five smartest moves ... Washington adding Albert Haynesworth"

Essentially a four-year, $48 million deal with $41 million in guarantees for a guy with less tackles (last year) than Tamba Hali and a guy that has averaged 3.4 sacks per year over his career? Okay, Haynesworth did get 8.5 sacks last year, but that was an anomaly. He's still a stud at DT, but the 'skins overpaid. He got MORE THAN rushing DE money. Jared Allen, with 14.5 sacks last year (11.5 per year career avg.), got $31M guaranteed. And JMHO, but Haynesworth seems to be the type to pull a Chester McGlockton. But what do I know? You be the clark...er...judge.

I vehemently disagree with this cheap sensationalist piece of pseudo-journalism.

In order to be a BOLD move, one would have to consider who was replaced, not just who was brought in. We hired (probably) the hottest commodity in FO personnel for a jaded-shell-of-his-former-self-laughing-stock, CP. How is that "bold"? That is the lowest-risk, highest-reward move we could have made. Bold my ass. What we did was OBVIOUS.

A risk implies that you're going to lose something you already have. There is ZERO risk in NOT taking a 1st round QB. At all.

OMFG, ROFL, LOL..... Vrabel and Thomas are here to teach a system the younger players are not familiar with.........OBVIOUSLY. Bad journalism.

Pioli is what? Anyone can be dubbed a risk.

Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

he's just a bitter poopface
 

Judge also wrote this article:

Underappreciated Kuharich deserved better from Chiefs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caution, this may piss you off...

Underappreciated Kuharich deserved better from Chiefs
Jan. 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

Memo to Scott Pioli: Keep Bill Kuharich.

Kuharich is Kansas City's vice president of player personnel, and to say he just got a raw deal is an understatement. Kuharich deserved to be part of the Chiefs' hunt for a general manager, but he wasn't ... and he wasn't because the Chiefs confined their search to applicants outside the club.

So they landed the Patriots' Pioli, and hooray for them.

Now my question is: Where does that leave Kuharich? I suspect only Pioli knows.

If he does what is best for him and his new employer keeps him, he trusts him and he relies on him. Kuharich not only is good at his job; he is so good he deserved to be a candidate for the position Pioli just filled.

But he wasn't, and I'm still not sure why.

Maybe the Chiefs considered him too old. He's 55. Maybe they wanted someone more telegenic. Kuharich is more at home in a sweater and khakis. Or maybe they just wanted a perspective from someone outside the organization, someone more removed from former president Carl Peterson.

"He was collateral damage," one NFC general manager said. "The Chiefs didn't want to go anywhere near someone close to Carl. And that's unfortunate because Kuharich is outstanding."

Well, whatever the reason it was apparent Kuharich didn't pass the physical and that owner Clark Hunt would be sold on someone outside the 816 area code. And that's OK if Hunt also understood that by doing that he eliminated one of his most qualified candidates.

"I want somebody who's a shrewd evaluator of football talent," Hunt said last month. "(His) job will be to think 24/7 about the football team. That's the most important quality."

Pardon me, but I think he just described Kuharich.

Look, I don't know if he could have outpolled Pioli. I don't know that anyone could. But I do know he deserved a chance to make his case because, like Pioli, he knew how to build a football team. He did it when he was general manager with the Saints, and he has done in his nine years with the Chiefs.

Let's start with New Orleans. I know what you're going to tell me: The Saints didn't rebound from their 1990s funk until Kuharich left, and you're right. But this just in: They got good with Kuharich's players.

The foundation of the team that went to the 2000 playoffs was laid by Kuharich, and don't tell me how foolish it was for the Saints to trade away an entire draft class for Ricky Williams.

First, that was an organizational decision, with the owner signing off on it. Second, of the draft picks they sacrificed, only one -- tackle Chris Samuels -- amounted to anything. Third, Williams became a marquee player for the Saints, rushing for 179 yards in a game as a rookie and 1,000 or more yards in two of his three seasons there.

So, yeah, that move worked out. Like other drafts in New Orleans worked out, with four first-rounders under Kuharich going on to Pro Bowls.

When he left after the 1999 season, the Saints were stocked with talent -- much as Tampa Bay was when Tony Dungy departed following the 2002 season. The Saints went from dead last (3-13) in their division in 1999 to first (10-6) a year later, a remarkable achievement that earned Kuharich's successor, Randy Mueller, the league's Executive of the Year.

But the Saints won with many of the players Kuharich chose, which means he was as much Executive of the Year as Mueller.

And let's not forget, it was Kuharich who brought free agent Jake Delhomme to the Saints in 1997. I once remember him telling me he thought the guy was good enough to start for the club. Only he never really had a chance. So he shuffled off to Carolina after Kuharich left ... and took the Panthers to the Super Bowl.

Score another for Kuharich.

Now fast forward to Kansas City. It was Kuharich who ran the pro personnel department that acquired starters like running back Priest Holmes, quarterback Trent Green and wide receiver Eddie Kennison and that swung the deal for tackle Willie Roaf.

It was Kuharich who ran the past three drafts that delivered a raft of starters, including Tamba Hali, Dwayne Bowe, Bernard Pollard, Jarrad Page, Glenn Dorsey, Brandon Flowers and Branden Albert. And it was Kuharich who oversaw a 2008 draft that was universally acclaimed as one of the best anywhere.

Four draft picks became starters, and all but one of the 11 choices played.

Then there was quarterback Tyler Thigpen, whom Kuharich recommended after watching him in a preseason game with Minnesota. The Chiefs claimed him after he was waived, and he started 11 games this season.

So the Chiefs went 2-14. Big deal. This is a tear-down long overdue. They served youth, with so many young players gaining experience that the foundation Kansas City needs to rebuild is firmly established.

Too bad the guy who made it happen isn't.

I don't know what happens to Kuharich now, and I bet he doesn't know, either. Essentially, management has just told him he's gone as far as he can in the organization, and that if he wants a promotion he can start by reaching for the yellow pages.

That's a mistake.

He has the Chiefs on the road to recovery; it just might be time to find the next patient to cure. Maybe he never becomes a general manager anywhere again, but he should at least go where he's appreciated -- and I can't believe that can't be Kansas City.

"What I've always liked about him," one league source said [Rufas Dawes?], "is that he knows what a football player looks like. He doesn't need a stopwatch or a list of measureables. He can just look at a guy and tell."

I remember when Kuharich once told me about an offensive lineman he admired and how he was sure he would be a perfect fit for New Orleans. Yeah, I said, I had heard of Willie Roaf, but I wasn't sure he was a can't-miss prospect. Kuharich was.

Bill Kuharich knew what he was doing then, just as he knows what he's doing now. He deserves a chance to stay with the Chiefs. So give it to him, Scott Pioli.
__________________
.
copied and pasted from this thread
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...ht=Clark+Judge

I'd rep ya if it was possible via mobile device. You summed up exactly what I was thinking while reading is rationale... or lack thereof . The team is hardly hamstrung by any of these moves, minus if they don't pan out, one added year to correct it and the money they dumped for one year, but I feel fairly certain the club will still turn a profit either way...
Posted via Mobile Device

I have a feeling that Clark Judge had some inside buddies with the Chiefs under Carl Peterson, he used to always write very complimentary pieces on the Chiefs. I say this because a few months ago he also wrote a piece saying that Hunt would be an idiot not to strongly consider Kuharick for the GM job. Now that Pioli has cleaned house, Judge probably has no one in the org with whom he has a relationship with, and so I expect the critique of the Chiefs from him to start ramping up...

that was i good article. Help a fellow planeteer out and find it for me could ya?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5391803

I should correct myself and say he implies that Kuharich should have been given a shot at the GM job and that Pioli should make sure he keeps him around...

The Sanchez fan bois are reaching for anything at this point in time. Must be a terrible existence, hatin on "your favorite team", for any reason whatsoever. Winning will ruin some peoples self esteem.

Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.

Not really, he would have gotten the money one way or another from the Pats or another team..

It is WORTH it to try it out for a year.. If we/he fail with the experiment we are only on the hook for the year..

And maybe they were not enamored with Sanchez or Stafford?? Pay more money to those two or less to Cassell for one year to see if it works??

I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Come on, be honest. This is just another roundabout way for someone to bitch and moan because the Chiefs didn't take Mark Sanchez.

If i was the GM for the Chiefs i would of drafted Sanchez at #3 after i couldn't trade down. Imo it's better to overspend on a QB than a non-Quarterback sacking DE. I would of drafted Sanchez and then tried to put the screwed to the Jets or the Redskins for a trade and if not it would of provided a QBoTF for Cassell to train in his 1 year as a Chief.

But they didn't draft Sanchez so it's time to move on. Get over it.

Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

The number 1 definition in the dictionary:

exposure to the chance of injury or loss

You can't lose something you don't have. If Sanchez turns out to be great, we're not out anything, regardless of how you want to look at it.

You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

Getting a little hacky there, Clark.

Then they were right. And all will be good in the world. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

But they did trade for Cassel, so obviously they feel it has been addressed.

That definition you provided said "injury or loss." Loss wasn't necessitated.

You seem to be using risk like one would use the word "bet." I can see how one can't realistically bet what they don't have. But I don't see risk necessarily working in that way. Risk is a probability of sorts arising from uncertainty of outcome.

Yeah, I said as much way earlier this thread, too.

Come on.

That like saying taking Todd Blackledge over Dan Marion or Ken O'Brien didn't involve risk.

Every single move that a team makes involves risk. Period.

Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?

Fortunately, we'll never find out.

No doubt, I'd feel the same way were I you. KC tried to make themselves better and what else can you want as a fan?
Unless/until a team is winning it seems like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Of course a sports writer has to find something to keep his job going in the offseason.

They TOOK Todd Blackledge, which is a risk all by itself. Dan Marino and Ken O'Brien have nothing to do with it. An unquantifiable risk is not a risk.

Yes, injury or loss. By definition you can't lose something you never had, which leaves the word "injury". Are you going to try to tell me that not taking Sanchez "harms" the franchise?

That's RIDICULOUS.

Yeah, not taking Sanchez could really harm the franchise.

I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

You are putting clownshoes on yourself. How would botching the Cassel vs Sanchez choice not be harmful?

First of all, if there actually WERE a choice between the two, then that's a completely different argument. The RISK is in Cassel, not passing on Sanchez. Passing on Sanchez is not a risk, at all. Again, you can't lose something you don't have.

Second, there was NO CHOICE. They picked up Cassel in February and never sniffed Sanchez, so the "choice" was 100% created by us.

By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.

I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

OK, I think I see a place where we're differing at. I don't see any difference between taking Cassel and passing on Sanchez. For all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. The acquisition of Cassel WAS a pass on Sanchez.

It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.

I really enjoy it when people who don't have a freakin' clue post shit like they do.

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

This

Damn you have a short memory, quit underestimating Brodie Croyle.

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

This. And good job.

But there's the rub; you CAN'T discuss Cassel and his risk because if you do, some hyper-defensive, pickle-puffing TF will come along and post one of five hundred varieties of "you're just mad because we didn't take Sanchez".

And let me tell you; that's shit's getting old.

I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.
And if you can't take a joke about Pioli or Cassel, you need to go the nearest Western Outfitter and buy yourself some animal hide to provide your obviously missing skin.

no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

I can cede to this terminology, as this is the crux of what I was getting at.

I don't agree for a few reasons:
-If Sanchez isn't a top 10 QB in 4-5 years, then the Chiefs made a great trade regardless of whether Cassel succeeds, assuming Jackson ends up being a solid Defensive Lineman (which I think he's a pretty low-risk player).
-I think this is a clear case of a different bar being set for a first round pick versus a late-round pick. You're basically suggesting that if Cassel ends up being a better QB than Sanchez, but isn't a championship QB, then it's a worthless trade? What I find interesting about that is that I think that if we drafted Sanchez and he never won us a Super Bowl but won us a few playoff games, people would hesitate to call it a wasted pick. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Cassel deserves to be measured by the same standard as Sanchez.

Where I do agree is that we need to place a heavier weight on the Cassel vs. Sanchez battle. For example, if Sanchez is much better than Cassel, but Tyson Jackson becomes a pro bowler, the Chiefs still lose. However, I believe that if Sanchez is only slightly better than Cassel, but Jackson becomes a very good pro, then the Chiefs still win out.

Sure, the expectation is a championship if you draft a QB that high. Anything less is a major disappointment. Definitely.

Though -- and here is where I probably differ -- if that QB were to not deliver a championship, then I'd still think the draft pick was worth it. The team took their shot at a big-time prospect and sometimes that move doesn't work out. I don't have the same tolerance for a QB that was traded for.

Sanchez vs. Cassel is a false comparison that's been set up as if it actually means something.

With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.

Of the last 10 Super Bowls, 5 were won by quarterbacks not drafted in the first round.

With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

That's a fair position. I disagree with it, though. To me there is a massive difference between taking a shot at a big-time QB prospect in the top 5 and trading for a career backup who, at times, flashed pro-bowl potential (I'm being super-generous, there). The trade was the "safe" way to address the QB situation compared to drafting one. It could wind up being the right move, but taking my Chiefs blinders off and looking at it that way the move feels "safe" at the best and scared at the worst.

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Tom Brady accounts for 3, Brad Johnson for 1 and Kurt Warner another.

If you think you can find HOF players like Warner & Brady anywhere, you're sadly mistaken.

And in retrospect, they'd both be taken #1 overall.

Brad Johnson? Not so much.

fo real yo, kurt warner was an arena league quarterback! we gotta get us one of those