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.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're not an NFL scout. You're some guy on a message board, like pretty much everyone else who's posting. You can look at every single college game ever played, break down film on everyone who's even thought of playing football, and write novels full of data files on everyone who's ever sniffed a football, and it doesn't make your opinion inherently worth anything more than some schmuck who's college knowledge consists of watching 5 minutes of highlight tapes. Your current opinion is generally worth the weight of past success, and it's generally not going to matter what that success was based upon.

Allow me to draw up an analog to demonstrate how much you're off:

*said to a poster who studies astrophysics as a hobby*

''You're not an astrophysicist. You're some guy on a message board, like pretty much everyone else who is posting. You can read every new academic journal, break down mathematics from published studies, and write dissertations of comparative thought in the field and it doesn't make your opinion inherently worth anything more that some schmuck who's common knowledge consists of 5 minutes of reading a wikipedia article on Stephen Hawking."

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

So basically, in your view, if you don't work in the NFL you can take no time out of your day to do any studying and your opinion should hold as much weight as someone who does.

Frankly, I find that reeruned.

I was saying that your opinion isn't inherently more accurate or worthy of being listened to just because you did more work to flesh it out. Your opinions and their 'weight' are only as good as the past has shown them to be. If you were an NFL scout, you'd already have some weight associated with that opinion. You aren't, and you don't. You, therefore, stand or fall based upon your success rate on the board.

Also, your reeruned comment just reinforces the point of why people jump down your throat. Nobody really gives a shit what you find reeruned, especially when you seemingly misunderstand the point of a post.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Allow me to draw up an analog to demonstrate how much you're off:

*said to a poster who studies astrophysics as a hobby*

''You're not an astrophysicist. You're some guy on a message board, like pretty much everyone else who is posting. You can read every new academic journal, break down mathematics from published studies, and write dissertations of comparative thought in the field and it doesn't make your opinion inherently worth anything more that some schmuck who's common knowledge consists of 5 minutes of reading a wikipedia article on Stephen Hawking."

Your analogy fails: no offense intended. In theory, astrophysics is a semi-certain discipline: or an 'exact science' as it were. It's not quite as definitive as mathematics, but it's much farther down that path than scouting players to project their future success in an entirely different league. Drafting is not an exact science.

Do you take advice about mothering from a woman who's 5 kids have all ended up on drugs or in prison just because she's been a mother? That analogy sucks, too, but it's no worse than yours. For areas that have no definitive answers, you look to past success as a means of weighing possible current and future accuracy.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by doomy3

I'm not sure how anyone can't understand this. There is a world of difference between trading a number 3 overall and trading a second rounder for Cassel. It absolutely changes the question.

Just like a conversation DeezNutz and I had about Sanchez a while back. I was totally against drafting him at #3 overall simply because of the overwhelming history against him due to his experience, plus his arm strength, size, etc. However, if we would have traded back anywhere past 15 and he was still around, I would have been OK with drafting him because of the value. The value in getting Cassel at #34 and still being able to draft an elite talent at #3 is a million times a better option than trading Cassel for a #3 pick.

If he's YOUR GUY, you get him.

Whether it's a #3 or #15.

What about that do you NOT get?

That's the same mentality that Pioli used for Jackson.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

I WILL say this: i have NEVER called someone a name here unprovoked, i have been called a reerun, idiot, told i cant read, been threatened MULTIPLE times, slap me choke me with a dictionary(which was the funniest being who it came from) told i was an ignorant grease monkey etc. they put you down while you arent even online then act as though they are a victim when you read through the thread and defend yourself. Maybe thats why you think it's unprovoked

Threatened? Who threatened you?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Your analogy fails: no offense intended. In theory, astrophysics is a semi-certain discipline: or an 'exact science' as it were. It's not quite as definitive as mathematics, but it's much farther down that path than scouting players to project their future success in an entirely different league. Drafting is not an exact science.

Do you take advice about mothering from a woman who's 5 kids have all ended up on drugs or in prison just because she's been a mother? That analogy sucks, too, but it's no worse than yours. For areas that have no definitive answers, you look to past success as a means of weighing possible current and future accuracy.

If the only qualification for posting on a message board is "You MUST work for an NFL Franchise", go ahead and shut this ****er DOWN.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Your analogy fails: no offense intended. In theory, astrophysics is a semi-certain discipline: or an 'exact science' as it were. It's not quite as definitive as mathematics, but it's much farther down that path than scouting players to project their future success in an entirely different league. Drafting is not an exact science.

Do you take advice about mothering from a woman who's 5 kids have all ended up on drugs or in prison just because she's been a mother? That analogy sucks, too, but it's no worse than yours. For areas that have no definitive answers, you look to past success as a means of weighing possible current and future accuracy.

Nice twist, but its not correct. A proper corollary would be: would you take advice about mothering from a man who has studied mothering and parenting to some degree over advice from a mother of 5 drug-using, prison-living kids? I would take the guy's advice.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If he's YOUR GUY, you get him.

Whether it's a #3 or #15.

What about that do you NOT get?

That's the same mentality that Pioli used for Jackson.

So, you think the Bucs would have taken Freeman at #3 because he's their guy? Or the Ravens would have taken Flacco at #3 because he's their guy?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Hootie is a good example, he flat admitted he doesn't watch college football then spent the entire draft weekend telling everyone they were stupid, Pioli, yadda yadda.

The bolded part makes me laugh.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If the only qualification for posting on a message board is "You MUST work for an NFL Franchise", go ahead and shut this ****er DOWN.

Again, that's not what I said.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

The moment that it isn't allowed on CP to tell an idiot that they are an idiot is the moment I leave. Condescending? Sure. But when someone's take is idiotic its really obvious. And Mecca is right -- those posters opinions don't have equal value to someone's who has really watched a player/studied up on their point.

I NEVER said don't tell them they're idiotic.

I said don't act like a victim when the lash at you for calling them an idiot.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Nice twist, but its not correct. A proper corollary would be: would you take advice about mothering from a man who has studied mothering and parenting to some degree over advice from a mother of 5 drug-using, prison-living kids? I would take the guy's advice.

You have the analogy wrong again, this time in my favor. The way you've framed it, you've now got evidence of failure on the part of the mother. In other words, you did precisely what I'm saying people do, and, if you're taking Mecca's side, you're trying to say that doing it that way is not correct.

Also, I admitted that my analogy sucked too.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If he's YOUR GUY, you get him.

Whether it's a #3 or #15.

What about that do you NOT get?

That's the same mentality that Pioli used for Jackson.

What if he's NOT your guy? What if you think he MIGHT be your guy, but you're not sure so you'd rather play it safe?

I swear to God some of you think in binary.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You have the analogy wrong again, this time in my favor. The way you've framed it, you've now got evidence of failure on the part of the mother. In other words, you did precisely what I'm saying people do, and, if you're taking Mecca's side, you're trying to say that doing it that way is not correct.

But Mecca is not an NFL scout, therefore he's not a mother. This is some mixed metaphor mayhem.

But I'm going to drop this and come towards your argument for this next question: does Mecca have a bad predictive track record on this board? I wasn't aware that he did.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

What if he's NOT your guy? What if you think he MIGHT be your guy, but you're not sure so you'd rather play it safe?

I swear to God some of you think in binary.

I'm always in favor of playing it safe. Except when I'm not. Which is pretty much all of the time.