Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Here's the problem - all 3 of those drafts will turn out better than last season's.
The Sims draft sucks because of Sims, he was a lazy jackass, but he was also the consensus pick at the time. I have a hard time faulting Peterson because NOBODY had Sims being that bad. Fujita is a better player than anyone that will come from the 2009 draft.
2001 is a completely lost draft, but IIRC, we gave up our 1st and 2nd pick in that draft for Vermiel and Green. Ultimately, I'd have preferred take Brees with the first but Vermiel wanted his guy and the trades weren't pure busts; they did make the Chiefs an enjoyable team again.
2000 is a defensible draft - Morris was going to be a good player but blew out his knee; shit happens. Wesley was a better player for longer than anyone we'll get from 2009 and Hall was an absolute difference maker.
Seriously, don't underestimate how stunningly horrible Scott Pioli was at every facet of his job last offseason. Carl Peterson never had an offseason as bad as the one Pioli just put out there as his first impression. From assembling a roster to assembling a coaching staff, one would be hard pressed to come up with a more epic fail than the one put forward by Pioli.
|
The 2009 offseason was horrendous. Though, I would easily put the 2004 season as close to its equal, given that they sat on their hands while they were maybe a few players away from a Super Bowl contender. I would also argue that making 4-5 marquee moves (e.g. offseason with Barber, Holliday, McCleon, etc...) that cost a lot of money and bust is just as bad if not worse as not spending a ton of money and having those players bust.
But the main point is that it's ludicrous for anyone to suggest that we're worse off with Pioli than with Peterson. Pioli has had one F-minus season. Peterson had 15+ seasons where his offseason earned a D-minus. Until Pioli does this for several seasons in a row, there's no way he's worse than Peterson.