Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
We don't know what ***** did in NE, but his time in KC strongly suggests that he did very, very little of consequence.
Given *****'s propensity to focus on all of the wrong things, it makes sense that he'd have his scouts talking to equipment managers rather than looking at tape and evaluating if the player can actually...wait for it...play at a high level. All the while disregarding some of the most obvious and damning evidence that can be presented (evidence A: Brokaki).
***** was a ****ing fool, and there is nothing but weak speculation to try to claim that his scouting network was any less foolish. There is, however, plenty of empirical evidence that everything ***** tried to do was a mistake, so I'll continue to put my faith in what we definitively know.
|
Brokaki is a classic example of what I'm trying to say. Do you think Brokaki was picked because the scouts were gushing about him? Or do you think that pick was made because of Ferentz, because of Pioli's obsession with finding his version of Daniel Graham, and because of Pioli's "playbook" decision to draft only captains with high character?
Look, I get what you're saying on the second point. I am not saying we know we have outstanding scouts. I am saying we don't know what we have because we had a leader who was making terrible decisions with the information he got. There is a ton of proof that Pioli made a lot of terrible decisions that had nothing to do with getting bad information. There is little proof of knowing whether it was Pioli making bad decisions with bad information, or making bad decisions with good information. I think the scouts deserve at least some benefit of the doubt that it was maybe the latter, given what we know about Pioli.