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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Gdaddy

Did Pioli steal Judge's girlfriend in highschool or sleep with his sister? He has to be the only person who think's Pioli was a stretch. What a jerk off. Giving up a second for Cassel was completely worth the risk, a second rounder? Come on. We didnt give him a huge contract, Cassel has to play his a$$ off to get the big contract, not sit back and suck like Mitchell did. Plus Cassel has wanted this chance since his days at USC, I absolutely believe he will be ready. he is an immediate step up from Thigpen and worst case scenerio he sucks, the best QB draft in quite some time takes place in 2010.
Bringing in the 30+ guys who are winners was to change the mindset of the Chiefs. These young players have won 4 games over the past two seasons, they need the veteran leadership to push these kids and show them how to be winners.

Judge is a loser...I really like our moves thus far and we havent wasted money on anyone...

I really enjoy it when people who don't have a freakin' clue post shit like they do.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

I will say this; this upcoming season will/should be funner to watch, vs other recent seasons.

This

[HemiEd]

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...

Damn you have a short memory, quit underestimating Brodie Croyle.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by doomy3

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

This. And good job.

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

But there's the rub; you CAN'T discuss Cassel and his risk because if you do, some hyper-defensive, pickle-puffing TF will come along and post one of five hundred varieties of "you're just mad because we didn't take Sanchez".

And let me tell you; that's shit's getting old.

I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.
And if you can't take a joke about Pioli or Cassel, you need to go the nearest Western Outfitter and buy yourself some animal hide to provide your obviously missing skin.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

I can cede to this terminology, as this is the crux of what I was getting at.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

I don't agree for a few reasons:
-If Sanchez isn't a top 10 QB in 4-5 years, then the Chiefs made a great trade regardless of whether Cassel succeeds, assuming Jackson ends up being a solid Defensive Lineman (which I think he's a pretty low-risk player).
-I think this is a clear case of a different bar being set for a first round pick versus a late-round pick. You're basically suggesting that if Cassel ends up being a better QB than Sanchez, but isn't a championship QB, then it's a worthless trade? What I find interesting about that is that I think that if we drafted Sanchez and he never won us a Super Bowl but won us a few playoff games, people would hesitate to call it a wasted pick. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Cassel deserves to be measured by the same standard as Sanchez.

Where I do agree is that we need to place a heavier weight on the Cassel vs. Sanchez battle. For example, if Sanchez is much better than Cassel, but Tyson Jackson becomes a pro bowler, the Chiefs still lose. However, I believe that if Sanchez is only slightly better than Cassel, but Jackson becomes a very good pro, then the Chiefs still win out.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by doomy3

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

Sure, the expectation is a championship if you draft a QB that high. Anything less is a major disappointment. Definitely.

Though -- and here is where I probably differ -- if that QB were to not deliver a championship, then I'd still think the draft pick was worth it. The team took their shot at a big-time prospect and sometimes that move doesn't work out. I don't have the same tolerance for a QB that was traded for.

[Just Passin' By]

Sanchez vs. Cassel is a false comparison that's been set up as if it actually means something.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by doomy3

no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.