Chiefs Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves - Page 4

**DaneMcCloud** · 05-14-2009, 12:01 PM

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.

**Reaper16** · 05-14-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

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.

That definition you provided said "injury or loss." Loss wasn't necessitated.

You seem to be using risk like one would use the word "bet." I can see how one can't realistically bet what they don't have. But I don't see risk necessarily working in that way. Risk is a probability of sorts arising from uncertainty of outcome.

**Reaper16** · 05-14-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

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

Yeah, I said as much way earlier this thread, too.

**DaneMcCloud** · 05-14-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

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.

Come on.

That like saying taking Todd Blackledge over Dan Marion or Ken O'Brien didn't involve risk.

Every single move that a team makes involves risk. Period.

vailpass · 05-14-2009, 04:42 PM

Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?

**DaneMcCloud** · 05-14-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?

Fortunately, we'll never find out.

vailpass · 05-14-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Fortunately, we'll never find out.

No doubt, I'd feel the same way were I you. KC tried to make themselves better and what else can you want as a fan?
Unless/until a team is winning it seems like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Of course a sports writer has to find something to keep his job going in the offseason.

htismaqe · 05-14-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Come on.

That like saying taking Todd Blackledge over Dan Marion or Ken O'Brien didn't involve risk.

Every single move that a team makes involves risk. Period.

They TOOK Todd Blackledge, which is a risk all by itself. Dan Marino and Ken O'Brien have nothing to do with it. An unquantifiable risk is not a risk.

htismaqe · 05-14-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

That definition you provided said "injury or loss." Loss wasn't necessitated.

You seem to be using risk like one would use the word "bet." I can see how one can't realistically bet what they don't have. But I don't see risk necessarily working in that way. Risk is a probability of sorts arising from uncertainty of outcome.

Yes, injury or loss. By definition you can't lose something you never had, which leaves the word "injury". Are you going to try to tell me that not taking Sanchez "harms" the franchise?

That's RIDICULOUS.

**Reaper16** · 05-14-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Yes, injury or loss. By definition you can't lose something you never had, which leaves the word "injury". Are you going to try to tell me that not taking Sanchez "harms" the franchise?

That's RIDICULOUS.

Yeah, not taking Sanchez could really harm the franchise.

htismaqe · 05-14-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Yeah, not taking Sanchez could really harm the franchise.

I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

**Reaper16** · 05-14-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

You are putting clownshoes on yourself. How would botching the Cassel vs Sanchez choice not be harmful?

htismaqe · 05-14-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

You are putting clownshoes on yourself. How would botching the Cassel vs Sanchez choice not be harmful?

First of all, if there actually WERE a choice between the two, then that's a completely different argument. The RISK is in Cassel, not passing on Sanchez. Passing on Sanchez is not a risk, at all. Again, you can't lose something you don't have.

Second, there was NO CHOICE. They picked up Cassel in February and never sniffed Sanchez, so the "choice" was 100% created by us.

htismaqe · 05-14-2009, 07:58 PM

By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.

Reerun_KC · 05-14-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

**Reaper16** · 05-14-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

First of all, if there actually WERE a choice between the two, then that's a completely different argument. The RISK is in Cassel, not passing on Sanchez. Passing on Sanchez is not a risk, at all. Again, you can't lose something you don't have.

Second, there was NO CHOICE. They picked up Cassel in February and never sniffed Sanchez, so the "choice" was 100% created by us.

OK, I think I see a place where we're differing at. I don't see any difference between taking Cassel and passing on Sanchez. For all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. The acquisition of Cassel WAS a pass on Sanchez.

05-14-2009, 12:01 PM
DaneMcCloud Supporter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hollywood, CA Casino cash: $10053648	Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves 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.
Posts: 88,960

05-14-2009, 04:42 PM	#49
vailpass Psycho Bag Of Squanch Join Date: Sep 2001 Casino cash: $9594244	Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?
Posts: 69,591

05-14-2009, 07:58 PM	#58
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $8079900	By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.
Posts: 104,482