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.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

New England has 3 first rounders on their defensive line, and they're all getting well paid. Wilfork is due for a new contract, as a matter of fact. Despite this, they still added Brace. It's how Belichick (and, by extension, likely how Pioli) goes about setting up a defense. Defensive line is of utmost importance. Given that approach, I fail to see how your assertion makes sense.

None of them were top 5 guys correct? Ron Brace was a good pick for them at the top of the 2nd round.

I know people bring up this under thing all the time but I fully suspect they want to build a pure 3-4 team, now Jackson fits that and that'll leave us needing a nose and Terrance Cody being in next years draft...problem is I'm not sure where any of those other guys fit.

Plus it hurts because when you have to take a NT instead of one of the many playmakers that will be available next year it's frustrating.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

New England has 3 first rounders on their defensive line, and they're all getting well paid. Wilfork is due for a new contract, as a matter of fact. Despite this, they still added Brace. It's how Belichick (and, by extension, likely how Pioli) goes about setting up a defense. Defensive line is of utmost importance. Given that approach, I fail to see how your assertion makes sense.

I think he's saying that we could have traded down and gotten an extra lineman in addition to a top 10 pick (maybe still getting Jackson in the process).

[Mecca]

Jackson isn't even the pick that frustrated me the most, that one you can atleast reason with to understand it.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Jackson isn't even the pick that frustrated me the most, that one you can atleast reason with to understand it.

So what one pissed you off? Magee?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

So what one pissed you off? Magee?

Yea that one I didn't like, I feel like if they wanted another guy to play end, there was a better prospect still available.

I also didn't like some of the later picks I feel like they could have gotten better value for the picks and more pressing positions.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

None of them were top 5 guys correct? Ron Brace was a good pick for them at the top of the 2nd round.

I know people bring up this under thing all the time but I fully suspect they want to build a pure 3-4 team, now Jackson fits that and that'll leave us needing a nose and Terrance Cody being in next years draft...problem is I'm not sure where any of those other guys fit.

Plus it hurts because when you have to take a NT instead of one of the many playmakers that will be available next year it's frustrating.

Seymour was taken at 6, but why does that matter? You keep acting as if all drafts are static when they aren't. It's been the problem with your complaints the entire time.

[Mecca]

Draft position does matter....your top picks need to be franchise players not role players.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Draft position does matter....your top picks need to be franchise players not role players.

There was not a single "lock" franchise pick available in this draft (remember, that's your assertion about Curry). It's tough to pick what isn't there. Furthermore, in a Patriots-style 3-4 sytem, the defensive linemen are the keys to the defense. They aren't "role players", they're what makes the defense work or fail.

You can keep making the same erroneous comments on thread after thread, but that's never going to make them correct.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Draft position does matter....your top picks need to be franchise players not role players.

he makes a good point that every draft is different and the optimal choice isn't always(usually) available. sure jackson would've been better at 10, butthat wasn't an option. as for Raji, beside the fact he's not the solid high-floor pick Jackson is, i think Tank may have kept them from selecting a NT. I think they want to see what they've got in him first. I really hope he steps up, think he can if he is truly 340 as some have claimed.
i know you wanted gilbert in the third. i sympathize with not understanding a pick, but how many of gilbert's game have you seen? sure he sounds good on paper, but i think it's a little silly to think we know something about these guys that they don't when they've seen every snap he(+Magee)'s ever taken. im gonna assume they had something they didn't like about him we couldn't see.

[Mecca]

I saw Gilbert several times.....

When you compare them the only thing you can really give Magee is that he went to Purdue while Gilbert went to San Jose State. Gilbert is a guy who is 3 inches taller, is basically the prototype of a 3-4 end in physical build. He's more naturally athletic, he's played inside and outside productively.

Gilbert won the defensive player of the year award for his conference and led the nation in tackles for loss.

That's just something I will never really understand on how Magee was taken in front of him.

[bdeg]

i believe a (large?) portion of their evaluation is based on whether or not they believe a player loves football and will be a hard worker.

we can't evaluate this with most players, perhaps this played into the decision(Magee was commonly known to have high character)

i liked the idea of Gilbert as a prospect, but i just feel blinded to most of the equation. i know discussing prospects it takes away from your point if you admit you don't know everything about a guy, but there is so much to know it's impossible for us to fully evaluate them as teams do. i'm not saying they always make the right decision, just that they make a much more informed decision.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Not at all. That's so incredibly inflexible it's LAUGHABLE.

He MIGHT be capable. Therefore it's WORTH the risk of the #34 pick, but NOT worth the risk of the #3 overall pick.

What's laughable is trading for someone because he MIGHT be worth the risk.

Why trade for anyone you're not convinced about?

I'd rather see a baseball player take 3 good cuts and strike out, instead of standing at the plate with the bat on his shoulder because the pitcher MIGHT walk him.

You either have 100% confidence in the guy, or you don't waste a 2nd round pick on him, IMO.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No where have I seen a legitmate football writer detail the Chiefs draft day and their effort to move back. If you can link us to that, please do.

The story on the Detroit trade came from Teicher. I'm no fan of Teicher's, but for him to report those kind of specifics directly on draft day, I'm going to assume he heard it from someone pretty solid. And the source didn't necessarily have to be someone from the KC side. Maybe the Lions let Gunther into the draft room to take their lunch orders and he overheard it.

Peter King didn't report it, but he didn't refute it either. Unlike, say, the Cassel contract story.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Pure conjecture.

It's not conjecture. If the Chiefs were willing to move back that far, they were willing to part with Tyson Jackson. To be there at #20, Jackson would have had to slip past, off the top of my head, Green Bay, Denver twice, and San Diego. There was even talk in Cleveland that the Browns were willing to move down when #5 came up because they had their eye on Jackson and he was gone.

I can't state this for certain, but I've read elsewhere that Kiper's mock the day before the draft had Jackson going #5 and Curry going #3. And then the KC-Jackson talk started and he changed it. His last mock posted at ESPN indicates there might be updates, but it doesn't specifically say if anything was changed.

Regardless, I don't know where it came from that everyone had Jackson going 17-20. Most everything I remember had him going to Denver with their first pick of the two (#12, I think).

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

On draft day, Pioli and Haley said they got "their guy".

Well, what are they supposed to say? "Ehhhh, he's OK, but we really wanted to move back"?

I'm sure they're fine having gotten Jackson, don't get me wrong. But there were numerous reports in the weeks before that draft that Pioli was trying to trade down. Actively working, calling teams, trying to make a deal. A specific draft-day report said they were willing to trade back to a point where Jackson surely would have been gone.

You can question the Teicher story about Detroit, but there's no reason to doubt the numerous stories that Pioli was trying to move down. And that itself doesn't jive with the tunnel-vision type mentality you're suggesting they used, where they just zeroed in on Jackson and didn't care how big a reach he was. If Pioli wanted Jackson that bad, he's not going to move down and risk someone leaping ahead of him.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I saw Gilbert several times.....

When you compare them the only thing you can really give Magee is that he went to Purdue while Gilbert went to San Jose State. Gilbert is a guy who is 3 inches taller, is basically the prototype of a 3-4 end in physical build. He's more naturally athletic, he's played inside and outside productively.

Gilbert won the defensive player of the year award for his conference and led the nation in tackles for loss.

That's just something I will never really understand on how Magee was taken in front of him.

There must be some reason. Chicago wanted Magee ahead of Gilbert, too.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well then Pioli just screwed the Chiefs last month, right?

How so? Because they didn't trade down?

Like that has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the "Cassel is either your guy or he isn't" argument.