Chiefs

[kcdcchef]

well, the first year of that stretch they did have the 2nd best regular season record in the nfl, right? ( 2003 ) and then two years later went 10-6 and missed the playoffs based on one blown tackle. then the following season went 9-7 and were a playoff team as a wild card.

you act like every year was like the last two.

[LenexatoKCMO]

How bout Albert Haynesworth?  Sure, he may be a thug...but we don't party in the same places outside of Arrowhead!

So much for that theory.  Good god, how many players are the skins going to have to cut to get that ship back under the cap. 

In semi-related news - Brian Waters allegedly wants out of KC now. 

[NDTeve]

I say trade him, Larry and TG. If anyone will take them. I like Waters and TG but they really don't fit in to what we're trying to do. They're veterans and great players but not really on board for the rebuilding.

[KCMax]

Is Mike Vrabel coming to the Chiefs? He was spotted alone at a northland dive bar...about the last place you'd ever expect to see him.

Holy crap, great scoop! Adam Schefter reporting the Pats are about to trade Vrabel to the Chiefs. Guess he's part of the change to a 3-4 defense?

[Maitre D]

Isn't Vrabel older than Pioli & Haley?

[Boognish]

Regarding the Brian Waters PR debacle, jettisoning aging, expensive talent is one thing, and a fine idea. Making sure you do it in a way that completely alienates them and turns it into a story is not.

"So let's see, you're a relatively small, very isolated city with a sleepy nightlife in cold winter weather. Your team really sucks, your coach is a dick and the general manager is standoffish at best."

I can just see potential free agents flocking to be part of this exciting turnaround. Of course, you could argue that you should be able to build the talent with drafts and trades, and therefore with players who don't have a choice, which is pretty much true. However, what the hell is the point of pissing people off? And I'm not talking about guys like Larry Johnson - nothing keeps guys like him content. But guys like Brian Waters and Tony Gonzalez (and he will be strongly negatively affected by this)? They are good guys who have been around, they have some name recognition not just with the players, but with the fans.

It only marginally matters about your coaching regimen or your scheme, considering if you are qualified to hold the position. What matters more than anything (and what New England has been extraordinarily good at) is players. Specifically, when to get the players and when to let them go.

Almost no matter what Pioli and Haley do right now, they will be revered by a fan base that wants change at all costs (think the Obama effect, even if I am a supporter). But pulling crap like this has no potential positive effect, and a lot of potential backlash. It was terrible human resource management.

[Boognish]

As a side note, has anyone noticed that there is a trend in lazy sports journalism to just assume any change is for the better? I notably get this feeling when I watch a show like, say, MLB Tonight on the MLB Network or NFL Today on ESPN. They reasonably don't know a tremendous amount about the teams in Kansas City, being irrelevant and making up a small portion of their audience share. But they do give lip service to most of the leagues, so they give it a half-hearted attempt. Mostly what they see is, "Hey they weren't good, but now there's new people (whether it be Pioli and Haley or Jacobs and Crisp is largely immaterial) and therefore, they must be better!"

The exceptions to this rule are when a team is good and loses players the talking heads recognize and replaces them with players they don't. Often, you'll notice, they are wrong, and the team is perfectly fine, sometimes better. But on losing teams? There are no bad changes. Seldomly is a team that was bad assumed to be worse unless they had some relic of a former great player hanging around who finally gimps into the sunset. And of course, this is lunacy. The divide between great and good and good and mediocre and mediocre and poor just isn't all that big in a league like the NFL or MLB in the first place, and the most intellectually honest appraisal you could give of most of these moves for people you know very little about is to wait and see ... but that's bad television.

[Maitre D]

As a side note, has anyone noticed that there is a trend in lazy sports journalism to just assume any change is for the better?

SPORTS journalism?   

[Boognish]

Your point is actually valid even though I'd like to keep this away from national politics, seeing as we have very lively threads dedicated to that elsewhere.

I didn't make comment to Vrabel earlier, so I will. The success of the New England Patriots (or really any very successful modern sports team) is to eschew loyalty. We blew that on our first pick up.

[Maitre D]

"Change" is something everyone wants and it's becoming more desirable in a fast-food "everything now" culture we've created in this country.  Not happy with your spouse?  Divorce!  Not happy with your stocks?  Day-trade!  Not happy with your home or city?  Move!


People were far more stable in their decisionmaking long ago.  As for sports....a couple points.  (1) There is more money & media in it than ever before, making winning far more important than ever; (2) Teams occasionally go from bottom to the top.  That makes everyone believe it is possible.  LIke seeing a poor guy become a millionaire, we like to cling to the idea anyone can do it! 


Makes us feel better.

[Boognish]

Not Chiefs related, but Nate Silver got bashed for this last February: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/b ... .year0303/

So resistance to the pecking order of things is still quite strong, especially towards those who know how to transcend it.

Selected copy from Bill Williamson on ESPN:

"Vrabel will forever be remembered as one of the faces of the New England Patriots' dynasty team of this decade. Gritty, tough, overachieving and dripping with leadership, Vrabel was a Patriot."
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcwest/0-3- ... trade.html

Gritty, tough, overachieving and dripping with leadership. Bill James, of course, proudly refers to this as the B.S. dump. Plus, in honor of Fire Joe Morgan, this is exactly the sort of language that refers to fan favorite white guys who may or may not suck at football. Sounds an awful lot like something Gretz would have said about Boomer Grigsby, doesn't it?

[mykem]

WOW! Vrabel a Chief now! He has 8 years under his belt. This is not exactly what I thought the Chiefs would have been shopping for. They do need some leadership on this team, so maybe he will fit that billing.

[mykem]

Rumor has it that Vrabel is only one part of the package. Apparently Pioli is still negotiating with Matt Cassell's agent about a possible trade to the Chiefs. Both together will cost the Chiefs the number 3 pick overall, and a later round pick in this years draft.

[KansasCityCraka]

Rumor has it that Vrabel is only one part of the package. Apparently Pioli is still negotiating with Matt Cassell's agent about a possible trade to the Chiefs. Both together will cost the Chiefs the number 3 pick overall, and a later round pick in this years draft.

Where did you hear that?

[mykem]

PROFOOTBALLTALK.COM the rumor mill.

[Boognish]

Rumor has it that Vrabel is only one part of the package. Apparently Pioli is still negotiating with Matt Cassell's agent about a possible trade to the Chiefs. Both together will cost the Chiefs the number 3 pick overall, and a later round pick in this years draft.

The version I've heard of this has the Chiefs and the Patriots swapping first round picks in addition to the later pick, which is a lot more palatable.

[KansasCityCraka]

The version I've heard of this has the Chiefs and the Patriots swapping first round picks in addition to the later pick, which is a lot more palatable.

Yeah, the only way I will be excited about this deal is if we swap 1st rounders. If we lose our 1st round pick and not get one back I am not going to be extremely happy. The later pick is rumored to be our 3rd round pick. The Pats have the 20th overall pick and I think at that spot I would be more comfortable with them getting a LB.

[mykem]

Yeah, I'm not sold on Matt Cassell being a starter on a lack-luster team. I do feel that it could be a Scott Mitchell type scenario if the Chiefs do infact go this route. I think this might be to risky to give up a #3. Although I wonder if there could be a performance clause in his contract that could have NE compensate the Chiefs in 2 to 3 years if he dosen't perform to a specified level.

[bbqboy]

We could do worse than having a NE>KC pipeline. Did Pioli help draft Cassell?

[mykem]

Well I guess the deal is done Cassel will be a Chief. The good news is that this may not cost the Chiefs their #3 pick overall.