Chiefs Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs - Page 18

C-Mac · 03-08-2009, 08:16 AM

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.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

No way. You blow a top 10 pick, especially at QB, and nobody forgives you.

They'd be more forgiving of that than if Cassel flames out. Yes, they will.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

No way. You blow a top 10 pick, especially at QB, and nobody forgives you.

I think the same people that wanted Sanchez would 'forgive' him if they drafted Sanchez. I think the majority of fans would not. Same with Stafford.

Not only did they defray the possible criticsm by trading a second, they also got another player in addition to Cassel.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I think the same people that wanted Sanchez would 'forgive' him if they drafted Sanchez. I think the majority of fans would not. Same with Stafford.

Not only did they defray the possible criticsm by trading a second, they also got another player in addition to Cassel.

I'm not picking on you, really, but this general language of "forgive" and "hold against him" is exactly why some claim that this fanbase is scared shitless of drafting a QB high in the draft.

You know what I'll hold against Pioli? 1. If he's dumb enough to draft a T at #3. 2. If he takes an ILB at #3 who doesn't become the bastard of Willis, Lewis, etc. These would be exponentially "dumber" moves.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I think the same people that wanted Sanchez would 'forgive' him if they drafted Sanchez. I think the majority of fans would not. Same with Stafford.

Not only did they defray the possible criticsm by trading a second, they also got another player in addition to Cassel.

They INVITED criticism by trading for a player that they've KNOWN INTIMATELY for 4 seasons.

Sanchez/Stafford could have some mental or emotional condition that there is no way of knowing about until they step on the field.

People would be pissed if we took a QB at #3 and he turned out to be a bust. But you're underestimating how they would react if the guy Pioli HAND-PICKED to be his starting QB somehow flames out.

I can't believe people have forgotten 2001 already.

Chiefnj2 · 03-09-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They'd be more forgiving of that than if Cassel flames out. Yes, they will.

You are talking about a fan base that had a hissy fit when the news broke that the team signed Vrabel. Nobody even knew what the compensation was and people were throwing Pioli under the bus. You miss on your QBOTF, you get crucified.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

You are talking about a fan base that had a hissy fit when the news broke that the team signed Vrabel. Nobody even knew what the compensation was and people were throwing Pioli under the bus. You miss on your QBOTF, you get crucified.

The fanbase had a hissy fit about Vrabel? Where, here?

I listen to KC radio pretty much all the time when I'm awake. The average fan isn't anything like it is here.

Chiefnj2 · 03-09-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The fanbase had a hissy fit about Vrabel? Where, here?

I listen to KC radio pretty much all the time when I'm awake. The average fan isn't anything like it is here.

Fair point, the Planet has a mind of its own. There was some meltdown-age around here about Vrabel.

I still say that the average fan does not excuse a GM for missing on a QBOTF. If Denver got Cassel and he did well with the Broncs the response would be "we should have done that." If Sanchez, Stafford, or one of the rumored trade QBs like Leinart, Quinn, etc., get traded and do well people will say we should have drafted/traded for them. It always happens.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Fair point, the Planet has a mind of its own. There was some meltdown-age around here about Vrabel.

I still say that the average fan does not excuse a GM for missing on a QBOTF. If Denver got Cassel and he did well with the Broncs the response would be "we should have done that." If Sanchez, Stafford, or one of the rumored trade QBs like Leinart, Quinn, etc., get traded and do well people will say we should have drafted/traded for them. It always happens.

I'm not suggesting the fanbase would completely excuse him if Sanchez or Stafford flamed out. I'm suggesting they would be MORE pissed if Cassel, his hand-picked starter, flames out.

More forgiving than "completely livid" <> "forgiving"

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They INVITED criticism by trading for a player that they've KNOWN INTIMATELY for 4 seasons.

Sanchez/Stafford could have some mental or emotional condition that there is no way of knowing about until they step on the field.

People would be pissed if we took a QB at #3 and he turned out to be a bust. But you're underestimating how they would react if the guy Pioli HAND-PICKED to be his starting QB somehow flames out.

I can't believe people have forgotten 2001 already.

#1) The people who were bashing Trent Green in 2001 were clueless. Given who his starting WR's were, and that the WR's were in flux constantly all season.... his interceptions were to be expected.

I think the level of play for Cassel to be successful is much less than if the Chiefs drafted a QB at #3.

If Cassel is merely a good game manager and a decent starter, most will consider the trade to be a success and good value.

If Stafford or Sanchez were taken at #3 and weren't absolute studs, then Pioli would be thrown under the bus. Especially if a guy like Curry goes on to have a Hall of Fame career.

I think Pioli has many ways to look good with the Cassel trade.

#1) If Sanchez is a total bust and he was the only one available.... Pioli will look good even if Cassel is also a bust.

#2) If the Chiefs draft a HOF player at #3, then Pioli will look good even if Cassel is a bust.

#3) If Cassel is merely a good game manager and they draft a great player at #3, Pioli looks great.

If Vrabel comes in and contributes for a couple years and is intrumental in turning around the defense.... then that can also help the view of this trade.

BUT, if the Chiefs drafted Sanchez at #3... then they are absolutely tied to whether that one pick becomes a franchise QB.

Oh, And, Cassel will start this year most likely. A rookie would be sitting on the bench for a couple years. The Chiefs will know much faster if Cassel is 'the' guy.

beach tribe · 03-09-2009, 10:30 AM

I know that I would be more pissed if a QB we picked at #3 flamed out than, I would be if a guy we traded for a 2nd flames out. That may be just me though.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I think Pioli has many ways to look good with the Cassel trade.

#1) If Sanchez is a total bust and he was the only one available.... Pioli will look good even if Cassel is also a bust.

#2) If the Chiefs draft a HOF player at #3, then Pioli will look good even if Cassel is a bust.

#3) If Cassel is merely a good game manager and they draft a great player at #3, Pioli looks great.

We could play this game all day from the other perspective:

1. If QB selected at #3 becomes a HOF player, Pioli looks great.
2. If QB selected at #3 becomes a "good" player and the selection at #34 turns into a HOFer, Pioli looks great.
3. If QB at #3 and player at #34 are both "above average" players, Pioli looks great.

etc.

Cassel was a risky move. If both QB's happen to be on the board when the Chiefs select, fans will always compare the trajectories of these three players.

Frankly, I think we took the guy with the lowest upside.

rambleonthruthefog · 03-09-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

You know what I'll hold against Pioli? 1. If he's dumb enough to draft a T at #3. 2. If he takes an ILB at #3 who doesn't become the bastard of Willis, Lewis, etc. These would be exponentially "dumber" moves.

dumb. just dumb.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambleonthruthefog

dumb. just dumb.

Yes, dumb to factor in positional value when drafting. Very stupid, indeed.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We could play this game all day from the other perspective:

1. If QB selected at #3 becomes a HOF player, Pioli looks great.
2. If QB selected at #3 becomes a "good" player and the selection at #34 turns into a HOFer, Pioli looks great.
3. If QB at #3 and player at #34 are both "above average" players, Pioli looks great.

etc.

Cassel was a risky move. If both QB's happen to be on the board when the Chiefs select, fans will always compare the trajectories of these three players.

Frankly, I think we took the guy with the lowest upside.

I dissagree. I think that the QB at #3 would have to be a franchise QB... but I see what you are saying.

I don't think Cassel was a risky move. I think he will be a serviceable QB at worst that will give the Chiefs a chance to compete as they continue to draft and develop young QB's looking for the next great one.

Cassel has already played a season at a high level against NFL defenses, so from this point, he may not 'ascend' much more. So, I can see why he doesn't have too much upside.

But that is more because Sanchez and Stafford have proven nothing, so even getting to where Cassel was last year.... would be a tremendous achievement.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Yes, dumb to factor in positional value when drafting. Very stupid, indeed.

Dumb to factor in positional value above player evaluation. There are certain guys that transcend their typical positional value.

03-08-2009, 08:16 AM
C-Mac Lurker Extraordinaire Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wally World Casino cash: $-1146301	Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs 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.
Posts: 5,661

03-09-2009, 10:30 AM	#265
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $3878036	I know that I would be more pissed if a QB we picked at #3 flamed out than, I would be if a guy we traded for a 2nd flames out. That may be just me though.
Posts: 21,429