Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves

[DaneMcCloud]

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.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

I'm aware of the history and don't deny it. I watch Sanchez and see a QB that isn't going to be plagued by the problems that most QBs with limited starts have. Sanchez' major strengths -- mechanics, footwork, "it" factor -- will almost ensure his ability to play NFL football at a high level.

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

You're making a deliberate leap of logic there that I'm not willing to make. It's ENTIRELY possible that even without the Cassel trade, the Chiefs pass on Sanchez. The two are related by circumstance only. There's no facts to suggest otherwise.

It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Let's be completely honest here - there was ALOT of name-calling and vitriol coming from the people you're painting to be victims.

That doesn't mean I think it's right - matter of fact I wish they'd both come back - but there's no innocent parties here.

Everyone knows this. It goes without saying. They didn't leave because of people name-calling them back.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion

can't believe people still peddle this reeruned crap on the planet...

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

can't believe people still peddle this reeruned crap on the planet...

Meet JPB, SensibleChiefsfan, KCBubb and a slew of other n00bs...

[SBK]

I don't see the purpose in wishing we had Sanchez anymore. I wanted Stafford as bad as anyone, but the only way he'll ever make it to KC is if he sucks and we sign him as a backup. Same with Sanchez. David Carr and Joey Harrington are what these guys would have to be for us to have them now....

Lets roll with who we got.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

can't believe people still peddle this reeruned crap on the planet...

Unlike many others, I don't consider "game manager" to be an insult. The Steelers utilize their QB like one deliberately, and we don't really know how well Roethlisberger would function if he played outside that type of system for an entire season. I personally don't think he'd show himself to be in the Brady/P. Manning class. You seem to disagree. C'est la vie.

[htismaqe]

Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

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?

This. Ditto. Yep.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

Are you being sarcastic?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

He's a Man among boys out there and is every bit as responsible for their two Super Bowl wins as their defense.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

Wilt? Excuse me?

And how does discussing Rothlisberger's "Franchise QB worthiness" equate to "bitching" about Matt Cassel?

I think you need a break, Dude.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty ****ing laughable if you ask me.