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

Screw it, this is petty. Here's the bottom line:

Mecca:



That was his claim. The Parcells tree guys. Later, after getting taken to the woodshed because his comment was wrong, he tried to prune Dimitroff from the tree rather than just admit he was wrong.

Yes. Which has nothing to do with what I was claiming was semantic pwnage.

There is a difference to me between "Parcells tree guy" and "Parcells guy." I saw Dane to be pointing out that difference.

Next time, don't try and fit a square peg (my merely tangentially related post) into a round hole (Mecca's alleged backing away from being wrong).

You may be right, though, when you call this petty. It is a pretty petty distinction.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Yes. Which has nothing to do with what I was claiming was semantic pwnage.

There is a difference to me between "Parcells tree guy" and "Parcells guy." I saw Dane to be pointing out that difference.

Next time, don't try and fit a square peg (my merely tangentially related post) into a round hole (Mecca's alleged backing away from being wrong).

You may be right, though, when you call this petty. It is a pretty petty distinction.

Oh, please. It was all part of the same line of argument, and you full well know it. The irony of you telling me about square pegs and round holes under the circmstances, while delicious, is something you should be above. Hell, you declared "pwnage" over something that was completely besides the point AND done out of context by Dane in the first place.

Good God, this has now become an English class.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Hell, you declared "pwnage" over something that was completely besides the point AND done out of context by Dane in the first place.

Good God, this has now become an English class.

Yes.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Hell, you declared "pwnage" over something that was completely besides the point AND done out of context by Dane in the first place.

Out of context?

JFC.

I'll ask again, WHERE and WHEN did Dimitroff work with Parcells?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Out of context?

JFC.

I'll ask again, WHERE and WHEN did Dimitroff work with Parcells?

That's not the context, as I've pointed out more than once. Now, you have a great evening.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

That's not the context, as I've pointed out more than once. Now, you have a great evening.

The only thing you've "pointed out" is that you have a gross misunderstanding of the topic.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The only thing you've "pointed out" is that you have a gross misunderstanding of the topic.

I know full well what the topic is. You, apparently, don't.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I know full well what the topic is. You, apparently, don't.

No, you don't.

Why does EVERY conversation that you're involved in end up like this? Whether it's me, Mecca, OTWP58 or anyone else? It all ends up in a stupid, semantic argument that in the long run, doesn't mean jack-****ing-shit.

You must have a LOT of extra time on your hands.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, calling Pioli a "Parcells' guy" is a much easier leap to make considering Pioli IS married to Parcells' daughter.

Dimitroff, on the other hand, has no such familial connection nor has he ever worked with Parcells in any capacity.

Calling Dimitroff a "Parcells guy" is lunacy at best.

Even easier, since Parcells worked with Pioli with the Jets.

That being said, I have to agree that the point is far too overstated about the QB situation. Payton went with Brees despite not having any previous experience with him. Same with Sparano and Pennington. Coughlin brought in Eli Manning. And Bellichick inherited Bledsoe and eventually went with Brady, even if through injury.

The argument is loose at best. There is little to no argument that Parcells coaches continually recycle the same QBs. The only QB that's been shuffled around by the same coach is Drew Bledsoe and now Cassel, but the distinction is that whereas you know exactly what to expect with Bledsoe, nobody has any idea what to expect of Cassel.

[Mecca]

Bledsoe is the only one? Vinny Testaverde says hello....

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Bledsoe is the only one? Vinny Testaverde says hello....

True.

But the point being... that's just Parcells. There's not much evidence that anyone on the tree has done the same stuff. Most people would agree that bringing in Cassel is a lot different than bringing in a guy like Cassel or Testaverde. I don't know how the comparison really applies.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

True.

But the point being... that's just Parcells. There's not much evidence that anyone on the tree has done the same stuff. Most people would agree that bringing in Cassel is a lot different than bringing in a guy like Cassel or Testaverde. I don't know how the comparison really applies.

I think the end point being is that there are some of us that feel, the move for Cassel was made with familiarity and quick turn around in mind. Odds are if you take a QB with your first pick it's gonna take a few years, and they don't seem to be wanting to do that.

Which is why I go back to this line, Cassel better be good right now, he's not a 22 year old kid who just got drafted.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I think the end point being is that there are some of us that feel, the move for Cassel was made with familiarity and quick turn around in mind. Odds are if you take a QB with your first pick it's gonna take a few years, and they don't seem to be wanting to do that.

Which is why I go back to this line, Cassel better be good right now, he's not a 22 year old kid who just got drafted.

I feel the same way. He doesn't need to be Peyton Manning tomorrow, but he can't be making too many "rookie mistakes"

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I think the end point being is that there are some of us that feel, the move for Cassel was made with familiarity and quick turn around in mind. Odds are if you take a QB with your first pick it's gonna take a few years, and they don't seem to be wanting to do that.

Which is why I go back to this line, Cassel better be good right now, he's not a 22 year old kid who just got drafted.

I agree with that point, but the counter-argument is that there's a lot less downside risk as well. Chances are pretty slim that he'll be an outright bust, like a Ryan Leaf or a Joey Harrington. The floor has been raised from "bust" to "disappointment."

But to continue back to my argument that we create unfair standards based on draft position years ago, if this trade was made a few years ago and you replaced the name "Matt Cassel" with "Philip Rivers", I'm willing to bet people would have been ecstatic about it. Ditto if this was last year and you replaced the name "Matt Cassel" with "Aaron Rodgers." I don't think that for a QB, unless we're talking about a 30+ year old QB with wear and tear that age really makes a whole lot of difference.

I agree that there's uncertainty and that, yes, Sanchez has some more upside over Cassel (maybe), but I think a lot of people are trying to exaggerate certain weaknesses to make it look worse than it is.

[Mecca]

I'll say again Cassel has 2 things about him that bug me, he is not good from under center and holds onto the ball forever.

I honestly think he has every bit the bust factor of anyone that just got drafted, Derrick Anderson as an example speaks to that.