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.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Gee, thanks.

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.

So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 type of pick either.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 pick either.

Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

He lived up to his draft spot.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

He lived up to his draft spot.

That may be the most ridiculous logic ever attempted.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

If I recall correctly, months before the draft the Planet broke down the number of SB wins under the leadership of franchise QB's vs the rest, and the difference was astronomical.

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan

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

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Gee, thanks.

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.

Me lik'em math. Math good.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

That may be the most ridiculous logic ever attempted.

Go away.

You're ruining the board.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 pick either.

The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Go away.

You're ruining the board.

Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

But furthermore, the Ravens sucked with Banks under center.

I believe that without a doubt, the Ravens could have repeated had Billick not gone all crazy and released Dilfer in favor of Grbac.

Like it or not, there IS something to be said for a smart game manager for in certain situations.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, ****o.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's ****ing interesting man, that's ****ing interesting

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, ****o.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan

So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's ****ing interesting man, that's ****ing interesting

I don't think anyone argued that. I know that I didn't.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

So even though Eli and Ben we're drafted in the first round they're not really first round QBs? You're all over the place man

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, ****o.

So you want a game manager then?