Veach is the best GM in the NFL

[staylor26]

I don’t think it’s even debatable at this point

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Great post and I see where you are coming from. Veach definitely is not above criticism for where he has failed. I am mainly highlighting how he has put talent on the Dline, they just haven't lived up to the billing. I do think Reed would look better if he was paired on the inside with Jones. I question why a Top 3 DT is playing DE. That is on coaching. Perhaps he looks harder at an Ingram or Houston if we don't have Jones at DE and the coaches didn't believe this would work. I am still not bothered by the Reed signing for the reasons stated earlier, plus he was signed to a one year deal. He plays well, we potentially resign him. He plays poorly and he walks at the end of the year and we lose nothing. Had we signed him to a Clark type contract then we could torch and pitchfork Veach.

Don't disagree with anything here, it's right to look at the coaches primarily on the Jones switch, and I think your Reed contract point is absolutely right and fair.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by staylor26

The opinions of a trade, which involves many factors outside of Clark’s ability/talent, doesn’t change the fact that Clark was a great player at the time.

Some people didn’t like the trade because of compensation. Many people hate the idea of trading draft picks for players that you have to pay. That’s a philosophical thing.

Some didn’t like it because they saw it as the Chiefs getting rid of 2 pass rushers only to turn around and trade for one.

None of that has anything to do with how good Clark was in Seattle you butt****ing moron.

I mean it kinda does. If people immediately don't think it's a good trade and that you overpaid, and then years later, turns out they were right, maybe it's because Veach misevaluated how good Frank Clark really was?

[gblowfish]

Don't know if you guys saw this, but this site says we should trade the Canadian Doc to the Bears for a 4th rounder next year:
https://heavy.com/sports/kansas-city...roposed-trade/

[Shoes]

Bart Varch is the General Manager of my favorite NFL team, the Kansas City Chiefs. Therefore I think he is the best General Manager in the NFL.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by staylor26

The Seahawks were in cap hell at the time you dumb mother****er. It had nothing to do with Clark’s play.

Before you call someone a dumb mother****er you might want to look at some of your posts. I don't think you are in a position to call anyone on this board dumb right now.

You're nothing but a homer. Veach is best GM in NFL. Lmao...

[Chris Meck]

I think it's clear and nobody would argue that Clark is not living up to his contract.

I think it's also clear and nobody with a brain would argue that Clark wasn't instrumental in the SB win. He was an animal in that play-off run.

something is physically wrong with Clark; he's not been the same player since.

If you want to argue that Veach made a mistake, then you must also argue that winning the SB wasn't worth it.

personally, I think that's a dumb argument.

I'm also looking forward to cutting Clark this offseason, freeing up some cash, and moving on.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by -King-

I mean it kinda does. If people immediately don't think it's a good trade and that you overpaid, and then years later, turns out they were right, maybe it's because Veach misevaluated how good Frank Clark really was?

If we got the Frank Clark that was in Seattle those last 3 years, that wouldn’t be the case. His failures in Kansas City don’t change his history of success in Seattle.

It’s funny how your absolute best argument is a “mixed reaction” to the trade. You can’t point to any of the stuff that you do when talking about his failures in KC. It’s easy to prove Clark hasn’t been good in KC outside of the playoff/SB run. You can just point to the stats/tape.

Your argument against Clark in Seattle is so weak that you have to totally ignore that stuff in favor of “mixed reactions” to the trade, which includes other factors outside of Clark himself that you’re ignoring.

[RunKC]

Clark wasn’t as terrible as it is being projected. We got a SB out of him year one and Veach structured the contract to essentially be a 3 year deal.

After this year we can get $19.5 million in cap savings from him.

This isn’t the Eric Berry deal

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Before you call someone a dumb mother****er you might want to look at some of your posts. I don't think you are in a position to call anyone on this board dumb right now.

You're nothing but a homer. Veach is best GM in NFL. Lmao...

Again, easy to shit on this take when we’re sitting at 1-2. As if the turnovers we’ve committed the last 2 weeks are somehow Veach’s fault as a GM.

Get back to me when this team is rolling down the stretch on their way to another deep playoff run you dumb son of a bitch.

[staylor26]

It’s amazing that people think there’s some perfect GM out there with a flawless resume that makes Veach’s first few years look awful in comparison.

Where is he? Who is he?

The truth is, every GM has their misses and warts.

Ours attacks every top need in the offseason and has shown the ability to pivot when things don’t work out (Trent Williams to Orlando Brown for example).

He rebuilt our entire defense in one offseason. He rebuilt our entire OL in one offseason. Can anybody point me to the GM they’re so sure would’ve done a better job? I, unlike 90% of this place, have a clue when it comes to the rest of the NFL, and I don’t see him.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by staylor26

If we got the Frank Clark that was in Seattle those last 3 years, that wouldn’t be the case. His failures in Kansas City don’t change his history of success in Seattle.

It’s funny how your absolute best argument is a “mixed reaction” to the trade. You can’t point to any of the stuff that you do when talking about his failures in KC. It’s easy to prove Clark hasn’t been good in KC outside of the playoff/SB run. You can just point to the stats/tape.

Your argument against Clark in Seattle is so weak that you have to totally ignore that stuff in favor of “mixed reactions” to the trade, which includes other factors outside of Clark himself that you’re ignoring.

Ok, let's take this slow...

We started it when I said Clark wasn't that good. How is that not justified by the reaction of people to the trade? If most people believed Seahawks won or fleeced the chiefs, how isnt that proof that most people didn't think he was THAT good in the first place? If he was THAT good, why would the reaction be mixed or in the Seahawks favor?

I'm not ignoring anything. Frank Clark was a good to very good player who Veach overpaid for. That player has done nothing but get worse over his time here. But he was nothing close to what he was supposed to be.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by -King-

Ok, let's take this slow...

We started it when I said Clark wasn't that good. How is that not justified by the reaction of people to the trade? If most people believed Seahawks won or fleeced the chiefs, how isnt that proof that most people didn't think he was THAT good in the first place? If he was THAT good, why would the reaction be mixed or in the Seahawks favor?

I'm not ignoring anything. Frank Clark was a good to very good player who Veach overpaid for. That player has done nothing but get worse over his time here. But he was nothing close to what he was supposed to be.

I’ve already explained to you that many people have a philosophy that you should never trade picks for a player that you then have to also turn around and pay. There are also many that felt the Chiefs got rid of two pass rushers only to turn around and make a big trade for one and pay him top dollar. None of that has anything to do with how good Clark was in Seattle.

And yes, you’re absolutely ignoring how good and productive Clark was in favor of fan reactions to try and prove that Clark wasn’t that good in Seattle. It’s honestly one of the most reeruned arguments you’ve ever tried to make. You can’t argue with the facts (32 sacks in 3 years), so you’re reaching desperately.

Clark’s body clearly broke down after those 4 years in Seattle. His disappointing career in KC doesn’t change the fact that he was THAT good in Seattle. Only a ****ing moron like you thinks otherwise.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Again, easy to shit on this take when we’re sitting at 1-2. As if the turnovers we’ve committed the last 2 weeks are somehow Veach’s fault as a GM.

Get back to me when this team is rolling down the stretch on their way to another deep playoff run you dumb son of a bitch.

Our problems go way beyond turnovers. Nice try though.

Our main problem is our dline which is a direct result of Veaches trades and signings. Idiot.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Our problems go way beyond turnovers. Nice try though.

Our main problem is our dline which is a direct result of Veaches trades and signings. Idiot.

GMAFB.

We’d be sitting at 3-0 without them, even with a very tough schedule to start the season. This is your typical Overreaction Planet bullshit to somehow try to blame Veach for that.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I’ve already explained to you that many people have a philosophy that you should never trade picks for a player that you when to turn around and pay. There are also many that felt the Chiefs got rid of two pass rushers only to turn around and make a big trade for one and pay him top dollar. None of that has anything to do with how good Clark was in Seattle.

And yes, you’re absolutely ignoring how good and productive Clark was in favor of fan reactions to try and prove that Clark wasn’t that good in Seattle. It’s honestly one of the most reeruned argument you’ve ever tried to make. You can’t argue with the facts (32 sacks in 3 years), so you’re reaching desperately.

Clark’s body clearly broke down after those 4 years in Seattle. His disappointing career in KC doesn’t change the fact that he was THAT good in Seattle. Only a ****ing moron like you thinks otherwise.

How did I ignore his 32 sacks? That's good to very good which I already said he was? Again, the issue is if he was THAT good. Meaning good enough to trade and give all that money to which is what Veach did. No he wasn't. Period. Which is why people disagreed with the trade.

You called this revisionist history when I've clearly shown that a lot of people didn't like the trade when it happened then too. How is immediate reactions "revisionist history"?