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 L.A.Chieffan

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

WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

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 believe Lombardi pioneered that, didn't he?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So you want a game manager then?

Me?

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

[Reaper16]

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.

Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

You might be a moron.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Me?

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

I'm not the one trying to argue that Dilfer lived up to the #6 pick billing for a QB. You are. As for Cassel, he sure wasn't just a game manager at the end of last season. What he'll be with a different cast around him remains to be seen.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

That was choice.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

[Quesadilla Joe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

What if he plays well but refuses to sign longerterm with KC and comes do Denver as a free agent because he wants to play for McDaniels

I don't want Cassel, but that would be a funny situation.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

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.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

So basically what you're saying is; whoever gets the ring first wins?

I can live with that.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

BFD.

I'd take Mark Sanchez and Max Unger over the duo of Jackson and Cassel any day of the week.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

You believing that Cassel can't do it does not make it a fact.

The fact is, Cassel has the potential to be EXACTLY what you're wanting, you just won't give him a chance.