Chiefs Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs - Page 20

C-Mac · 03-08-2009, 08:16 AM

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.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHY they hated Green, it only matters that they did. Fortunately for both Green and Vermeil, he righted the ship in 2002.

Agree. But the level of risk for Pioli personally is MUCH greater.

I can tell you with 100% unequivocal certainty that you're wrong on this. With Pioli's history - especially his history with Cassel - if Cassel turns out to be a "game manager" the large majority of the fanbase will be very unhappy about it. Chiefsplanet does not in anyway represent the majority of the fanbase.

Nope.

If said HOF player takes the Chiefs to the SB and wins it, IN SPITE OF Cassel, then yes. But since the chance of winning a SB while simultaneously having Cassel fail is slim to none, there's not much chance of this one happening.

Absolutely false.

It is all a sliding scale, but I will agree that most of the fan base does not react like Chiefsplanet.

Which is why the fan base will be appeased with a game manager so long as he was had for a second instead of a 1st.

Most of the fanbase isn't looking at all this nearly as closely as we do. If the Chiefs manage to duplicate their 90's run with just a little more playoff success, then Pioli will be hailed by the average fan.

And, you can't say anything about this situation with "100% unequivocal certainty". There are too many variables. If the Chiefs win a Super Bowl, and Cassel is merely a game manager... or EVEN if Thigpen were to beat him out.... most fans wouldn't give a flying flip what the Chiefs gave up for Cassel.

And, IF the guy they take at #3 was a primary piece, then the move for Cassel will be considered a good one.

As with most things, time will tell. I just think you are a little misguided about what most fans think.

I am not thinking that Cassel is going to be a franchise QB, but I still think the trade was a good one. I think it solidifies a position. And, the Chiefs aren't tied to Cassel like they would be with a rookie at #3, IMO.

Titty Meat · 03-09-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

They would have to cause Curry won't be there.IMO.

Agree. I think a guy who can blitz the QB is more valuable to a team.

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

God I hope we start doing some winning right off the top, or it will be another commencement of draft talk in week three.

Razorblades and glass cocktail; that's exactly what it feels like.

I think with the new regime, even if we are losing, the discussions will be more about what they are going to do to fix it rather than who we will draft.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

You're right in any other draft probably, but I don't think there's any way Curry lasts that long in this draft.

This very well might be the case.

In a draft that's weak with defensive talent, I'd love to hear what Gun is whispering in the ears of the brain-trust up in Detroit: "He's the next DT. I can get it out of him..."

Fish · 03-09-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

Agree. I think a guy who can blitz the QB is more valuable to a team.

Titty Meat · 03-09-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Explain instead of acting like a child

SenselessChiefsFan · 03-09-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're confusing the risk of the move to the team, aka wins and losses vs. the risk to Pioli's reputation in KC, aka being compared to Carl.

If Cassel doesn't come in here and become a Pro Bowl-caliber, playoff winning QB, Pioli will be "Carl Peterson II" for perpetuity.

Hell, there's ALREADY people making the comparison.

When I thought the Chiefs traded for Vrabel, I compared him to CP. However, I was ignorant of the situation.

Much like the people in here are ignorant for comparing CP to SP.

ONE FREAKING MOVE WILL NOT LINK SP TO CP IN THE AVERAGE FAN'S MIND.

How Scott Pioli is viewed will be based on his entire tenure as a GM for the Chiefs, not this one move.

Hey, I admit, I didn't like Sanchez and I didn't think Stafford was there. So, I think that this was the best that they could do this year. I am merely pleased that Cassel should solidify the position and allow the Chiefs to continue to draft and develop guys at the position and that they are not tied to Cassel.

I just think that the expecatations of a second round QB are much less than a top five QB.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I just think that the expecatations of a second round QB are much less than a top five QB.

That would be true if we actually drafted one. But we traded for a known (at least to Pioli) commodity.

Expectations are the same. Doesn't matter if some think we got a "good deal."

FringeNC · 03-09-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

And, the Chiefs aren't tied to Cassel like they would be with a rookie at #3, IMO.

Will you still think that when Cassel signs a 6-year contract making him the highest paid player in franchise history, and one of the highest paid players in the league?

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Will you still think that when Cassel signs a 6-year contract making him the highest paid player in franchise history, and one of the highest paid players in the league?

Oh my.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-09-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Will you still think that when Cassel signs a 6-year contract making him the highest paid player in franchise history, and one of the highest paid players in the league?

Mmm...that pesky ol' contract just doesn't want to come out and play it seems.

FringeNC · 03-09-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Oh my.

Not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it will happen. He's already inked for 15 million for one year. Pioli didn't bring him here to be a one-year starter. The reason his trade price was low is because he is effectively a free-agent, and the acquiring team is going to pay a big price.

**DeezNutz** · 03-09-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it will happen. He's already inked for 15 million for one year. Pioli didn't bring him here to be a one-year starter. The reason his trade price was low is because he is effectively a free-agent, and the acquiring team is going to pay a big price.

I know what you're saying.

It was the stark reality of reading it that made me throw up in my mouth.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Which is why the fan base will be appeased with a game manager so long as he was had for a second instead of a 1st.

But they won't be appeased, that's the problem.

We didn't trade a 2nd-round pick for just anybody. We traded a 2nd-round pick for the guy that our new GM has been evaluating for FOUR YEARS. They're not going to be happy with Cassel being a game manager.

Besides, we didn't JUST spend a 2nd-round pick. We also acquired a QB, which most likely precludes us drafting a QB at #3. In terms of TEAM value, we didn't give up the #3 and that's good.

But in terms of the fans WANTING a QB, we DID trade that #3 for Cassel, unless of course we do the unthinkable and draft one anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Most of the fanbase isn't looking at all this nearly as closely as we do. If the Chiefs manage to duplicate their 90's run with just a little more playoff success, then Pioli will be hailed by the average fan.

The only way the Chiefs duplicate the 90's with just a little more playoff success is if Cassel pans out. Therefore, this point is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

And, you can't say anything about this situation with "100% unequivocal certainty". There are too many variables. If the Chiefs win a Super Bowl, and Cassel is merely a game manager... or EVEN if Thigpen were to beat him out.... most fans wouldn't give a flying flip what the Chiefs gave up for Cassel.

You honestly mean to tell me that if Thigpen wins the starting job over Cassel, the fans aren't going to riot? What? If you're suggesting a hypothetical where Thigpen winning the job is overshadowed by us winning a Super Bowl WITH THIGPEN AS THE STARTER, please dispense with the hypotheticals from here on out. They only work when they're at least partially based in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

As with most things, time will tell. I just think you are a little misguided about what most fans think.

You're entitled to think that. 30 years of listening to the fans bitch says I'm right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

And, the Chiefs aren't tied to Cassel like they would be with a rookie at #3, IMO.

No, the team isn't. But Pioli and his reputation are.

htismaqe · 03-09-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

ONE FREAKING MOVE WILL NOT LINK SP TO CP IN THE AVERAGE FAN'S MIND.

IT ALREADY HAS.

You're drastically underestimating the average Chiefs fan.

03-08-2009, 08:16 AM
C-Mac Lurker Extraordinaire Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wally World Casino cash: $-1126301	Whitlock- It’s OK to question Pioli and the Chiefs 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.
Posts: 5,661