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.

[Hammock Parties]

YOU SECURE THAT SHIT HUDSON

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Claythan

YOU SECURE THAT SHIT HUDSON

Ya' zir, right away zir!

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Irregardless, they free up roster space for new talent.

They weren't on the Pats' roster. Robertson was waived in late February. Jones was waived during the season.

They're just PS guys Pioli is familiar with who obviously couldn't get on the field in New England. I imagine they'll have an easier time here.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by BigRock

They weren't on the Pats' roster. Robertson was waived in late February. Jones was waived during the season.

They're just PS guys Pioli is familiar with who obviously couldn't get on the field in New England. I imagine they'll have an easier time here.

Robertson I can see, but what is the point with Jones? We don't need Corners.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

I would counter by saying that there are always variables that might affect a decision to draft an "elite" quarterback prospect. The mental stability of the current quarterback and/or the working relation between that quarterback and the coaching staff are just two of these.

It's conceivable, of course, that a team might use a high pick to draft a quarterback for developmental purposes. However, that's extremely unusual when the team actually believes they already have a guy with 8 to 10 years of solid leadership and winning left in him.

My point is this; why should the Chiefs (or any team, for that matter) draft a young quarterback if and when they honestly believe there's another guy out there who, A) Has already had NFL experience, B) Proven he can win, C) Has a good working relationship with the GM, D) Is a "known" quantity, and E) Is young enough to lead for the better part of a decade? Add the fact that, in our case, quarterback is just one of the positions of need since the team is full of holes on both sides of the ball, and you have yourself a ding dang answer as to why Pioli did what he did.

The problem we (Chiefs fans) have is that the vast majority of Carl's moves in player acquisition (since DT) turned out poorly. Carl was GM. Pioli is GM. Chiefs fans automatically assume that, if Pioli did something reminiscent of Carl, the results will be similar. It's understandable, but it's an example of cognitive dissonance. These are different circumstances merely because the participants are different.

FAX

Damnit, FAX. There you go again, making cogent, logical points to support a position that I don't want to be in favor of. Before I know it, I'm going to be giving Pioli the benefit of the doubt with this whole Cassel thing and letting go of my disgust for passing on the possibility of mining the elite prospects in this year's draft class.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

Robertson I can see, but what is the point with Jones? We don't need Corners.

1) You can always use corners.
B) Jones is a receiver.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Damnit, FAX. There you go again, making cogent, logical points to support a position that I don't want to be in favor of. Before I know it, I'm going to be giving Pioli the benefit of the doubt with this whole Cassel thing and letting go of my disgust for passing on the possibility of mining the elite prospects in this year's draft class.

I've mentioned this before, Mr. DeezNutz, but I'm not sure we're completely out of the quarterback market, yet.

When you put yourself in Pioli's shoes and try to think like he might (Not that he thinks with his shoes, or feet, or anything. He probably thinks with his brain like everybody else, although I suppose it is possible that he does possess some neurons and synapses in his lower extremities which might explain his extraordinary success at such a young age and the reason why he seems to frequently cross and uncross his legs during interviews.), he's probably looking at a guy in the later rounds.

He's already caught lightning in a bottle with Brady. Then, remarkably, Cassel comes in and performs admirably in Brady's place. He (Pioli, that is) may well believe that he has both the ability and the methodology to select a guy in the later rounds, save a ton of money, groom him up, and have him ready when the time is right.

A lot of peeps here seem to believe that Super Bowl caliber quarterbacks can only be had via high draft picks. Pioli may believe otherwise.

FAX

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by FAX

I've mentioned this before, Mr. DeezNutz, but I'm not sure we're completely out of the quarterback market, yet.

When you put yourself in Pioli's shoes and try to think like he might (Not that he thinks with his shoes, or feet, or anything. He probably thinks with his brain like everybody else, although I suppose it is possible that he does possess some neurons and synapses in his lower extremities which might explain his extraordinary success at such a young age and the reason why he seems to frequently cross and uncross his legs during interviews.), he's probably looking at a guy in the later rounds.

He's already caught lightning in a bottle with Brady. Then, remarkably, Cassel comes in and performs admirably in Brady's place. He (Pioli, that is) may well believe that he has both the ability and the methodology to select a guy in the later rounds, save a ton of money, groom him up, and have him ready when the time is right.

A lot of peeps here seem to believe that Super Bowl caliber quarterbacks can only be had via high draft picks. Pioli may believe otherwise.

FAX

I agree. He got a bargain in Cassel. Now he gets to find his next Brady in round 6. I'm confident we'll be taking a late round QB. I'll bet whoever it is gets some air time on ESPN or NFLN as well. Scott's done it twice now. He's going for the trifecta.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

My guess is John Parker Wilson.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

I've mentioned this before, Mr. DeezNutz, but I'm not sure we're completely out of the quarterback market, yet.

When you put yourself in Pioli's shoes and try to think like he might (Not that he thinks with his shoes, or feet, or anything. He probably thinks with his brain like everybody else, although I suppose it is possible that he does possess some neurons and synapses in his lower extremities which might explain his extraordinary success at such a young age and the reason why he seems to frequently cross and uncross his legs during interviews.), he's probably looking at a guy in the later rounds.

He's already caught lightning in a bottle with Brady. Then, remarkably, Cassel comes in and performs admirably in Brady's place. He (Pioli, that is) may well believe that he has both the ability and the methodology to select a guy in the later rounds, save a ton of money, groom him up, and have him ready when the time is right.

A lot of peeps here seem to believe that Super Bowl caliber quarterbacks can only be had via high draft picks. Pioli may believe otherwise.

FAX

We're on the same page with this one, FAX. I'd be shocked if he didn't select a QB in this draft. And in truthiness, I could see this happening as early as the third round. If Nate Davis were to slide, I could see him being too talented of a prospect to pass on.

I'm operating on the premise that Pioli will work diligently to trade out of the #3 spot, of course, and recoup the second rounder he spent on Cassel.

If this transpires, it's hard to fault the value of acquiring someone whom Pioli believes to be a starting-grade QB for essentially moving back a few spots in round 1.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I agree. He got a bargain in Cassel. Now he gets to find his next Brady in round 6. I'm confident we'll be taking a late round QB. I'll bet whoever it is gets some air time on ESPN or NFLN as well. Scott's done it twice now. He's going for the trifecta.

Well, it makes sense, Mr. Mr. Flopnuts.

Some GM/HC's are great at finding running backs. Parcells liked to develop good punt and kickoff return guys. Maybe Pioli has quarterback magic.

Stranger things have happened. I mean, Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett and NASA once sent up a Venus probe that didn't explode in a million pieces.

FAX

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We're on the same page with this one, FAX. I'd be shocked if he didn't select a QB in this draft. And in truthiness, I could see this happening as early as the third round. If Nate Davis were to slide, I could see him being too talented of a prospect to pass on.

I'm operating on the premise that Pioli will work diligently to trade out of the #3 spot, of course, and recoup the second rounder he spent on Cassel.

If this transpires, it's hard to fault the value of acquiring someone whom Pioli believes to be a starting-grade QB for essentially moving back a few spots in round 1.

In one of the rare interviews that Pioli has granted (I wish I could find the exact quote) he talked about his approach to the draft and FA. Essentially, he seems to think about all this player acquisition stuff in terms of strategery - getting the absolute maximum value out of your picks, time, and money by evaluating your needs (both short- and long-term) as well as (and this is important) the needs of your potential trading partner.

Anyhow, that would indicate that we're far from finished in manipulating our draft position - to him, that's probably the fun part. I think Pioli would have been a good merchant or Templar Knight if he had any sword skills or looked halfway decent in a tunic.

FAX

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by BigRock

1) You can always use corners.
B) Jones is a receiver.

True enough. One hour sleep makes for bad research.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Steve Puellar, Steve Bono, Scott Mitchell, Jeff Hosterler etc... all good NFL back up QB's on good teams who went to other teams as the starter. A NFL hot commodity is nothing more than the flavor of the day. John Elway, Dan Marino, Phil Simms, Peyton Manning etc. were not traded for as back ups. Only Eli was acquired in a trade and I don't think the Chiefs have the #1 pick this year.

Pioli is doing the same thing Carl did. However; now it's the right way to build a team.

Don't tell me.

I didn't want Cassel.

I wanted Sanchez.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

My guess is John Parker Wilson.

That guy sucks hard.