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.

[orange]

Originally Posted by BigRock

It's only the mentality Pioli used for Jackson if you ignore/discount the reports that Pioli tried to trade down, specifically the story about trying to get Detroit's pick at #20. According to the details of that scenario, Pioli was supposedly willing to take a huge loss in value to get out of the 3rd pick.

Not only doesn't that fit the mentality of "If he's your guy, you get him", Jackson would have been long gone by #20. They wouldn't have gotten him at all.

Jackson was clearly Pioli's guy if they were stuck at #3 and couldn't move back. But that doesn't mean Pioli wanted him no matter what.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Conjecture.

On draft day, Pioli and Haley said they got "their guy". Most people had Jackson at between 17-20. He was "their guy" and there's no way to argue that he wasn't.

Most mock drafts had Jackson going to the Broncos at #12 for at least a month before draft day. Pioli no doubt knew this and had to think he would have to stay under #12 to get Jackson.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Wes Bunting is a 22 year-old kid in Pennsylvania that's pretty much full of completely shit.

Adam Teicher? Teicher doesn't know a football from a baseball.

If Peter King (who was in KC at Arrowhead during the draft) said it, I'd believe it.

From these two knuckleheads? No way.

Pioli, the rookie Kansas City general manager, has the distinction in this decade of being part of the tradingest draft-day team in the league. Between 2000 and 2008, the Patriots draft room, run by coach Bill Belichick and Pioli, made 28 draft-weekend trades. The Pats traded up 12 times, but more significantly, they traded down 16 times.

In the last 10 days, I've spent hours (only my cell phone company knows how many for sure) foraging for crumbs for my Sports Illustrated mock, in your mailboxes Wednesday and Thursday. And the one thing I've heard on most calls is, "Well, you know Pioli wants to get out of his pick. He wants to trade down.''

It's true. He does want out. There's not a player Kansas City believes is worth third-pick-in-the-first-round money. Do you remember what the third pick got last year? Matt Ryan, the Atlanta quarterback, signed a six-year, $72 million deal, with $34.8 million guaranteed. Pioli can argue until he's Chiefs-crimson in the face, but his pick at three is going to fetch the player $11 million a year, minimum, regardless of position. Pioli's not picking a quarterback, so there's no chance a player at three will be worth that money. My feeling is Pioli woke up this morning with an itchy trigger finger.

http://forums.kffl.com/showthread.php?t=249592

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

http://forums.kffl.com/showthread.php?t=249592

Again, speculation.

He said "he's got a feeling". There's been no actual documented proof that the Chiefs tried to trade out. And Pioli himself has denied it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by orange

Of course, you will now say that Adam Teicher is not a "legitimate football writer" because his access to Chiefs' coaches, scouts, players, and executives cannot equal your all-seeing perch on the internet.

Actually, your point is not valid.

Having been a life-long Chiefs fan, Adam Teicher has to be the worst beat reporter of ALL time. He NEVER has a scoop and is extremely far behind in reporting (for example, the Boston Globe had the scoop on Pioli going to KC and Adam was way behind in his reporting).

If you think that the Pioli/Haley think-tank suddenly let Adam Teicher in on a secret, you're crazy.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Again, speculation.

He said "he's got a feeling". There's been no actual documented proof that the Chiefs tried to trade out. And Pioli himself has denied it.

King notes it and two others verified it. You asked for writers and I gave you writers. You asked for King and I gave you King. What you claim is "speculation" was confirmed by others. You can choose to believe it or not, but your requests, that you could have dealt with yourself, were met.

Even if it didn't happen, your initial point is still not accurate, so it's no skin off my back.

[Mecca]

The reason I said I don't see how it's the same is Atlanta made moves to get players at 2 of the 3 most important positions on the team with their moves.

A DE isn't even the most important position to the Chiefs defense...

[chiefzilla1501]

There is way too much emphasis on draft position. As if these mock boards by draft geeks predicting Jackson falling to Denver means that Jackson isn't a top 10 pick. Look... #1--none of you know that. Not even Mel Kiper or Mike Mayock. Think anyone predicted Heyward-Bey to go in the top 10? #2--Jackson, like many defensive players, was undervalued because most scouts believed his place was in a 3-4 defense. He does zero good in Detroit or Oakland, where he'd be asked to play as either an undersized DT or a slow DE.

I'm not saying I'm doing cartwheels. But there's way too much scrutiny around a pick that we haven't even seen in training camp yet, let alone on the field. Like I've said before, if Sanchez doesn't become a star or if Cassel becomes a terrific pro in KC, then this is a great pick. Unless anyone can point to a player that KC should have taken other than Jackson, apart from Sanchez.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

There is way too much emphasis on draft position. As if these mock boards by draft geeks predicting Jackson falling to Denver means that Jackson isn't a top 10 pick. Look... #1--none of you know that. Not even Mel Kiper or Mike Mayock. Think anyone predicted Heyward-Bey to go in the top 10? #2--Jackson, like many defensive players, was undervalued because most scouts believed his place was in a 3-4 defense. He does zero good in Detroit or Oakland, where he'd be asked to play as either an undersized DT or a slow DE.

I'm not saying I'm doing cartwheels. But there's way too much scrutiny around a pick that we haven't even seen in training camp yet, let alone on the field. Like I've said before, if Sanchez doesn't become a star or if Cassel becomes a terrific pro in KC, then this is a great pick. Unless anyone can point to a player that KC should have taken other than Jackson, apart from Sanchez.

Given the Cassel trade, I would have selected Raji.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

There is way too much emphasis on draft position. As if these mock boards by draft geeks predicting Jackson falling to Denver means that Jackson isn't a top 10 pick. Look... #1--none of you know that. Not even Mel Kiper or Mike Mayock. Think anyone predicted Heyward-Bey to go in the top 10? #2--Jackson, like many defensive players, was undervalued because most scouts believed his place was in a 3-4 defense. He does zero good in Detroit or Oakland, where he'd be asked to play as either an undersized DT or a slow DE.

I'm not saying I'm doing cartwheels. But there's way too much scrutiny around a pick that we haven't even seen in training camp yet, let alone on the field. Like I've said before, if Sanchez doesn't become a star or if Cassel becomes a terrific pro in KC, then this is a great pick. Unless anyone can point to a player that KC should have taken other than Jackson, apart from Sanchez.

I like Heyward-Bey and that's just not a good example there's no way he should have gone there.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The reason I said I don't see how it's the same is Atlanta made moves to get players at 2 of the 3 most important positions on the team with their moves.

A DE isn't even the most important position to the Chiefs defense...

It isn't, but I believe it has high enough positional value to justify taking the pick, if you believe the player is good enough. I would have liked Raji, but I'm willing to see if Jackson is as good as Pioli believes he is. I don't think that's blind homerism. I think that's just saying that like draft grades, any praise or criticism of a draft pick is worthless until you see what they do on the field. This time a few years ago, there were several screaming about picking Bowe over Meachem.

[Mecca]

Bowe was one of the picks I didn't complain about...so I got that one!

Tyson Jackson is a very low risk pick basically but I don't know if he will ever justify his draft position or the contract he'll get especially when you consider we're probably looking at atleast 1 more 1st round lineman being taken by this team.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I like Heyward-Bey and that's just not a good example there's no way he should have gone there.

No, I agree. But people always make the argument that a player would have been available at a certain spot, and I hate that. Nobody ever knows who's going where on what board. Nobody knows if a team will reach. Nobody knows if maybe there was a sudden last-minute jump or drop in player value on mock boards.

NOBODY knows if Cleveland or Green Bay would have considered Jackson in the top 10. Especially given how hush-hush teams are about the players they covet. Do people think that their GMs are going to give their hand away to John Clayton?

Point being... we all talk about reaches and draft values, knowing zero about what GMs are putting on their boards. For all we know, Jackson could have been #1 on Cleveland and Green Bay's board. Can anyone prove otherwise?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Bowe was one of the picks I didn't complain about...so I got that one!

Tyson Jackson is a very low risk pick basically but I don't know if he will ever justify his draft position or the contract he'll get especially when you consider we're probably looking at atleast 1 more 1st round lineman being taken by this team.

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Bowe was one of the picks I didn't complain about...so I got that one!

Tyson Jackson is a very low risk pick basically but I don't know if he will ever justify his draft position or the contract he'll get especially when you consider we're probably looking at atleast 1 more 1st round lineman being taken by this team.

Well, I would have loved to trade down. I can only trust that there wasn't a good enough offer. There's reason to doubt that they passed up a good trade--as you know, I was always the absolute, positive supporter of a trade down (and by the way, ironic that many of the same people that completely thrashed me--and that's a huge understatement--for wanting a trade-down are the same who are pissed at Pioli for passing it up, regardless of the trade value. Ironic, isn't it?). I hope they didn't. And if they did, then yes, I disagree with the trade.

But at the same time, I was always clear that if there is a guy you want and you believe that there is a good chance you'll lose him if you trade down, then that changes the whole story. I don't know who was on the board in the top 5, nor do I know what the Chiefs were offered in trade value. So yeah, good reason to doubt, but I think a lot of people are criticizing the refusal to trade down without really knowing what actually happened.

[Mecca]

And if Cleveland had taken him 5th I'd have likely have had the same reaction I had to the Chiefs taking him 3rd, of wow that's awfully high.