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.

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

Not really, he would have gotten the money one way or another from the Pats or another team..

It is WORTH it to try it out for a year.. If we/he fail with the experiment we are only on the hook for the year..

And maybe they were not enamored with Sanchez or Stafford?? Pay more money to those two or less to Cassell for one year to see if it works??

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

A risk implies that you're going to lose something you already have. There is ZERO risk in NOT taking a 1st round QB. At all.

I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.

1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Come on, be honest. This is just another roundabout way for someone to bitch and moan because the Chiefs didn't take Mark Sanchez.

If i was the GM for the Chiefs i would of drafted Sanchez at #3 after i couldn't trade down. Imo it's better to overspend on a QB than a non-Quarterback sacking DE. I would of drafted Sanchez and then tried to put the screwed to the Jets or the Redskins for a trade and if not it would of provided a QBoTF for Cassell to train in his 1 year as a Chief.

But they didn't draft Sanchez so it's time to move on. Get over it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

The number 1 definition in the dictionary:

exposure to the chance of injury or loss

You can't lose something you don't have. If Sanchez turns out to be great, we're not out anything, regardless of how you want to look at it.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

Originally Posted by booger

"He was collateral damage," one NFC general manager said.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code.

Originally Posted by booger

Well, whatever the reason it was apparent Kuharich didn't pass the physical and that owner Clark Hunt would be sold on someone outside the 816 area code.

Getting a little hacky there, Clark.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Valiant

But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

Then they were right. And all will be good in the world. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

But they did trade for Cassel, so obviously they feel it has been addressed.