Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs

[C-Mac]

It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs

Wednesday afternoon, on my drive on I-70 to watch the Tigers and the Sooners tangle, I passed the time listening to sports-talk radio.

I find one of our local stations unlisten-Neal-able, so you can assume which station and which show entertained me along the highway. And you can guess which host nearly made me drive off the highway.

The New Don Fortune expressed his disinterest in needing access and information from our New Carl Peterson, Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli. The New Don and his trusty sidekick, Mad Jack Harry, spent several minutes telling their listeners that we should trust Pioli implicitly and not waste emotion or energy worrying whether Pioli reveals himself, his plans or his players to the media.

Having worked in sports-talk radio, I’m aware the discipline requires a dramatic and healthy loosening of journalistic standards. But basic common sense and backbone are allowed and occasionally encouraged when hosting a radio show.

Supporting the new regime does not equate to rejecting the primary (and redeeming) role of the media.

It’s our job to acquire information and pass it along to you. Based on what we’ve seen from the Bill Belichick era in New England and our first two months with Pioli, gathering pertinent and enlightening information about the Chiefs is going to be rather difficult.

The Patriots, under Belichick and Pioli, reached the conclusion that too much media access disrupts locker-room chemistry and undermines the voice of the head coach. In New England, Belichick has turned the Boston media into an easy-to-play foil for his players.

He’s brainwashed his players into believing the media are evil, incompetent and stirrers of chaos. Obviously, we are not perfect. A collection of human beings cannot be flawless. There are instances when individual moments of incompetence make the media appear wicked or solely interested in controversy.

But overall, we attempt to be a watchdog of those with power. When we fail to play that role, generally speaking, terrible things happen. The Iraq War is a worst-case scenario. We trusted our president implicitly, led the cheers when we declared war on Iraq and declined to demand answers to difficult questions. Hundreds of billions of dollars later, and with our economy in collapse, we now blame poor, minority homeowners for the fall of our society.

I apologize. I digress.

Let me give you a worst-case scenario in the sports world.

If, in an attempt to duplicate New England’s three-Super Bowls dynasty, we neglect our journalistic, democracy-ensuring duty to challenge Pioli, there’s a far better chance that he replicates Carl Peterson’s Kansas City era than Belichick’s New England one.

Unchallenged leaders are dictators and quickly turn unethical.

For years, Kevin Kietzman and Jack Harry whined on radio that Peterson, in attempts to have them fired, harassed their former television bosses. Kietzman and Harry complained about Peterson’s heavy-handed tactics with players, their agents and their families.

Peterson acquired his nickname, King Carl, the old-fashioned way. We rolled over and gave him a kingdom. When he ushered in an era of winning after years of mediocrity, he treated the media as though his decisions and actions were above question. He became complacent and stale.

Scott Pioli is a human being. He’s capable of making the same mistakes as you, I or King Carl.

Sometimes people misidentify why they’re successful. Belichick and Pioli think the New England locker room is special partly because Belichick and the players have made the local media irrelevant. Belichick and Pioli believe in CIA-like secrets.

I’m sure there’s some value in all of it. But football isn’t all that hard to figure out. Find yourself a tough, talented quarterback who is willing to stand in the pocket and deliver the football under pressure, pray that he doesn’t get injured, and you’ll win a lot of games.

The Sixburgh Steelers won four titles with Terry Bradshaw and two with Ben Roethlisberger. They’ve had three different young coaches lead them to those six titles. John Elway took the Broncos to five Super Bowls and won two. Kurt Warner has played in three Super Bowls. Brett Favre played in two. Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb win a lot of football games. Did I mention Joe Montana, Troy Aikman and Tom Brady?

In his first big decision as general manager of the Kansas City Chiefs, Scott Pioli traded the 34th pick in the draft for Matt Cassel, a backup in college and in the pros. Because New England slapped Cassel with the franchise tag, Clark Hunt is going to pay Cassel a lot of money in 2009 or give him a big-ticket, long-term contract.

Everyone pretty much agrees the move makes sense for the Chiefs. Pioli still needs to publicly explain it, and it’s our job to seek a detailed explanation. We shouldn’t accept a brief statement on a press release.

It is fun and fashionable to beat up on the media. In our arrogance, we have refused to adequately police, examine and reshape ourselves. We’re paying a heavy price for our failure. We’re losing credibility.

It’s in your best interest to demand better from us. Don’t be fooled into believing we should go away or act as a propaganda machine for some newly-elected, popular-in-comparison-to-Peterson (or Bush) leader.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I don't blame Belichick for casting the east coast media to the curb; those guys are a ****ing zoo in every sense of the word.

But KC media is about as low-key and "softball" as anything I've ever heard or read. They're not really gonna' push these guys so unless it's a blackout for strategic purposes( ala the draft ), they really should open up the door a little more.

Just sayin'.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Time( and the draft )will of course tell, but I see Cassel as the stop-gap/Bledsoe.


And I've seen nor heard anything so far to make me feel otherwise.

Bledsoe was a stop-gap?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Messier

Bledsoe was a stop-gap?

Let me correct that:

"short-term" stop gap, and just remove Bledsoe altogether.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by milkman

Here's a question.

Did he trade for Cassel because he thinks he's potentially the best QB option available, or just the safest available?

Did he hire Haley because he was the best candidate, or because he was so methodical in his evaluation of Herman ****ing Edwards that Haley was the only remaining viable candidate?

Safest in what respect? Sure the downside risk may be lower with Cassel, but Pioli will be held to a much higher standard with Cassel than with the draft pick QBs because of his familiarity with him. In that sense, going with Cassel was the riskiest move.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

I don't blame Belichick for casting the east coast media to the curb; those guys are a ****ing zoo in every sense of the word.

But KC media is about as low-key and "softball" as anything I've ever heard or read. They're not really gonna' push these guys so unless it's a blackout for strategic purposes( ala the draft ), they really should open up the door a little more.

Just sayin'.

I think they probably just don't want a "good ol' boy network" where some are favorites and some aren't. Peterson had something along those lines and the fans end up not trusting the sources that are too close to the team. Better to have a universal policy with no favorites.

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

I don't blame Belichick for casting the east coast media to the curb; those guys are a ****ing zoo in every sense of the word.

But KC media is about as low-key and "softball" as anything I've ever heard or read. They're not really gonna' push these guys so unless it's a blackout for strategic purposes( ala the draft ), they really should open up the door a little more.

Just sayin'.

The first part of your post is correct. How may times in the past ten years have we heard that if this was any market outside of KC Carl would be hung out to dry. Now it is wrong because the KC media and/or fans may ask a question?
Come on DCS you are better than that post.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Safest in what respect? Sure the downside risk may be lower with Cassel, but Pioli will be held to a much higher standard with Cassel than with the draft pick QBs because of his familiarity with him. In that sense, going with Cassel was the riskiest move.

Safeest in that he (Cassel) has already shown that he can play in the NFL, and showed improvement from his first game to his last.

And I highly doubt that he will be held to a higher standard with Cassel because of the very fact that, unlike Sanchez and Stafford, he has done it in the NFL.

If anything, he will be excused because he went the safe route.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Let me correct that:

"short-term" stop gap, and just remove Bledsoe altogether.

I think they hope, as do I, that he can be here and play well for ten years.

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by Messier

I think they hope, as do I, that he can be here and play well for ten years.

Thanks Mr. Keitzman.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by milkman

Safeest in that he (Cassel) has already shown that he can play in the NFL, and showed improvement from his first game to his last.

And I highly doubt that he will be held to a higher standard with Cassel because of the very fact that, unlike Sanchez and Stafford, he has done it in the NFL.

If anything, he will be excused because he went the safe route.

I was very glad when we traded for Cassel, because I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of the QBs in this draft. The next "safe" move would be to draft Curry, and unless we move down, I hope we do.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Because you may have missed it....

The Chiefs had a media conference call with Cassel; because he couldn't be there. However, during the call Matt said he was in the same building as the reporters and wasn't allowed to meet with them. The TV cameras ran down the hall a got footage of him leaving another room where he called from.

If Carl had done the same thing this board explodes. I just hope we don't give someone a free pass because he is the new guy.

Isn't that more Belicheck rather than Carl Peterson? But no doubt, if Carl had pulled that at any time after the "5 year plan" expired... he'd be crushed.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Thanks Mr. Keitzman.

I'm sorry, but as much as I was opposed to the Cassel trade, I hope, as Messier does, that Cassel gives us ten years+ of top tier QB play.

He's ours, for better or worse, so hoping for anything less would just be stupid.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Thanks Mr. Keitzman.

You're wecome Mr. Whitlock

[Messier]

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm sorry, but as much as I was opposed to the Cassel trade, I hope, as Messier does, that Cassel gives us ten years+ of top tier QB play.

He's ours, for better or worse, so hoping for anything less would just be stupid.

Thank You. I was just about to post, does he actually hope Cassel doesn't last?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Messier

I was very glad when we traded for Cassel, because I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of the QBs in this draft. The next "safe" move would be to draft Curry, and unless we move down, I hope we do.

I was pissed, because I think Sanchez has "it", and will be an outstanding NFL QB for the next 15 years, after his one season of learning from the sidelines.