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.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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

The problem with positional value is that there are people here that are using it as an absolute bar to drafting players. That's just a foolish approach, especially in a year where the talent on the top is bunched together rather than having the "elite" types of prospects.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The problem with positional value is that there are people here that are using it as an absolute bar to drafting players. That's just a foolish approach, especially in a year where the talent on the top is bunched together rather than having the "elite" types of prospects.

Obviously we have to factor in circumstances, no question. And this year certainly presents some challenges.

I'm sure the criticism of my post was generated from my skepticism of the sure-fire HOFer, Curry, who will instantly become the leader of our destitute defense.

It could be that he's the pick. But I expect Pioli to take less to trade back, and Curry at 8-12 would make a hell of a lot more sense.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

It could be that he's the pick. But I expect Pioli to take less to trade back, and Curry at 8-12 would make a hell of a lot more sense.

That would be sweet, but who do you think will be the other suitor and for what player? No sarcasm, just a straight question.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Obviously we have to factor in circumstances, no question. And this year certainly presents some challenges.

I'm sure the criticism of my post was generated from my skepticism of the sure-fire HOFer, Curry, who will instantly become the leader of our destitute defense.

It could be that he's the pick. But I expect Pioli to take less to trade back, and Curry at 8-12 would make a hell of a lot more sense.

I wasn't aiming specifically at you, by any means. I just mean in general. The Chiefs are in an interesting position because the only players 'worth' a top pick this year in the minds of many pundits are QBs and LTs. Well, the Chiefs don't need either of them unless Halioli thinks Albert should be moved to RT for some reason. That puts the team in the position of having to either find a trade partner to drop down or to take a player that many will consider a 'reach'.

There's just no helping that this year. My guess is that Raji will be the pick, but that's obviously still fluid at this point.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by notorious

That would be sweet, but who do you think will be the other suitor and for what player? No sarcasm, just a straight question.

Crabtree/Seattle would have been great leverage had the m-f'r not hurt himself.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I wasn't aiming specifically at you, by any means. I just mean in general. The Chiefs are in an interesting position because the only players 'worth' a top pick this year in the minds of many pundits are QBs and LTs. Well, the Chiefs don't need either of them unless Halioli thinks Albert should be moved to RT for some reason. That puts the team in the position of having to either find a trade partner to drop down or to take a player that many will consider a 'reach'.

There's just no helping that this year. My guess is that Raji will be the pick, but that's obviously still fluid at this point.

No, I know. I was just using your post as a springboard to make a point. No worries.

I agree. I think Raji is going to be the guy. Makes me sick when thinking about Dorsey, though.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by notorious

That would be sweet, but who do you think will be the other suitor and for what player? No sarcasm, just a straight question.

If both QB's were on the board, there are some possibilities: Jax at 8, SF at 10, or even Buff at 11.

We'd have to be willing to take much less than chart value, I'm sure, but there's little question that Stafford, in particular, would draw much interest.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

47 Days. 47 days and this shit is over thank GOD.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

47 Days. 47 days and this shit is over thank GOD.

No.... just postponed for 250 days or so.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

#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.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHY they hated Green, it only matters that they did. Fortunately for both Green and Vermeil, he righted the ship in 2002.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

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

Agree. But the level of risk for Pioli personally is MUCH greater.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

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

I can tell you with 100% unequivocal certainty that you're wrong on this. With Pioli's history - especially his history with Cassel - if Cassel turns out to be a "game manager" the large majority of the fanbase will be very unhappy about it. Chiefsplanet does not in anyway represent the majority of the fanbase.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

#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.

Nope.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

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

If said HOF player takes the Chiefs to the SB and wins it, IN SPITE OF Cassel, then yes. But since the chance of winning a SB while simultaneously having Cassel fail is slim to none, there's not much chance of this one happening.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

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

Absolutely false.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by notorious

That would be sweet, but who do you think will be the other suitor and for what player? No sarcasm, just a straight question.

Jax needs a O-linemen and they pick at 8. If we trade down to 8 I'd say don't draft Aaron Curry draft Everette Brown at 8.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

No.... just postponed for 250 days or so.

God I hope we start doing some winning right off the top, or it will be another commencement of draft talk in week three.

Razorblades and glass cocktail; that's exactly what it feels like.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

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.

You're confusing the risk of the move to the team, aka wins and losses vs. the risk to Pioli's reputation in KC, aka being compared to Carl.

If Cassel doesn't come in here and become a Pro Bowl-caliber, playoff winning QB, Pioli will be "Carl Peterson II" for perpetuity.

Hell, there's ALREADY people making the comparison.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Obviously we have to factor in circumstances, no question. And this year certainly presents some challenges.

I'm sure the criticism of my post was generated from my skepticism of the sure-fire HOFer, Curry, who will instantly become the leader of our destitute defense.

It could be that he's the pick. But I expect Pioli to take less to trade back, and Curry at 8-12 would make a hell of a lot more sense.

You're right in any other draft probably, but I don't think there's any way Curry lasts that long in this draft.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by billay

Jax needs a O-linemen and they pick at 8. If we trade down to 8 I'd say don't draft Aaron Curry draft Everette Brown at 8.

They would have to cause Curry won't be there.IMO.