Pioli releases scouts (1 Viewer)

[loose circuits]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

who is the same guy in rounds 2-3?This draft had very few 5 techniques. I'm not sure Robert Ayers is gonna make it Denver. That's who they went with their 2nd pick. As far as schematic sense goes for a 3-4, the edge clearly goes to Tyson. There wasn't a better 5-technique in the draft, in fact there wasn't many worth drafting on the 1st day that's for sure. Guys like Chris Canty and Igor Olshansky got paid this off-season for a reason.

 

[Warpig]

Why don't we all just wait a good three years before calling it a GOOD or BAD draft -- why the need to rush the analysis?\People love KC's drafts the last two season and look what it netted so far?If Tyson Jackson is Richard Seymour II I will be bumping this -- assuming we are still here.

Waiting is no fun. People like to climb on ledges all too soon.With that said, last years draft class for the Chiefs was pretty damn good. With all the picks they had it should have been. What the problem is is they draft those players, then make atleast half of them absolutely worthless by playing them out of position or asking them to do something that doesn't fit their skill set. See exhibit A: Dorsey.Then they bring in a new GM and head coach to even further devalue those players. Just about every defensive player they had prior to Pioli is now playing out of position and they weren't that good to begin with. All their young players are 4-3 players...not 3-4. Are you gonna tell me Tamba Hali and Turk McBride scare you as 3-4 OLB's if you were an opposing headcoach? Or Zach Thomas and Vrabel touring with the Grateful Dead? And nobody knows what will be asked of Dorsey. It seems you read a different report everyday saying he'll be a DT or a DE or an OLB for all we know.They have a talented, young secondary. But how much do you wanna bet they will even try to weed players like Pollard, Page, Morgan, Carr, and Flowers out of town? Just plain stupid in my opinion. I have no doubt that 67% of the people on these boards could do a better job running a franchise than about a third of the GM's in the NFL.Not to mention, I guess they plan on going to battle with Bowe, Bradley and Engram as their main offensive threats. WHOA! Potent! Probably gonna keep Belicheck and Parcells awake at night.

 

[Bri]

Why don't we all just wait a good three years before calling it a GOOD or BAD draft -- why the need to rush the analysis?

Did you forget it's April man?

 

[cstu]

IF they had dropped down from #3 to #17 for only a second rounder, what kind of ripple effect would that have with other GM's trying to trade? let alone with other GM's dealing with KC in the future? not good I'm thinking.

Could you unpack this a bit?

Look how the redskins get bent over by every team they try and trade with. This is what would happen to KC if they made a horrible trade. Sort of like once a girl in junior high gives it up for the first time, word will get around and everyone will think she is easy and treat her as such.

The Redskins don't know how to trade that's all and the rest of the league knows it. KC trading down to #17 and taking Hood (with a reasonable contract) and whatever player they got at #52 would have been better for them than taking Jackson at #3 and paying him the huge amount of money he'll get. That's not getting bent over, it's being smart.

 

[Dexter Manley]

IF they had dropped down from #3 to #17 for only a second rounder, what kind of ripple effect would that have with other GM's trying to trade? let alone with other GM's dealing with KC in the future? not good I'm thinking.

Could you unpack this a bit?

Look how the redskins get bent over by every team they try and trade with. This is what would happen to KC if they made a horrible trade. Sort of like once a girl in junior high gives it up for the first time, word will get around and everyone will think she is easy and treat her as such.

The Redskins don't know how to trade that's all and the rest of the league knows it. KC trading down to #17 and taking Hood (with a reasonable contract) and whatever player they got at #52 would have been better for them than taking Jackson at #3 and paying him the huge amount of money he'll get. That's not getting bent over, it's being smart.

Agree with your first statement. Disagree completely about them trading down to #17 and only getting a 2nd in return. That would be a horrible trade from a value perspective. Heck, most people in the league think the Jets bent over Cleveland, and they were 2 spots lower at #5, and they got 3 players along with the 2nd in that deal.Btw, if Pioli was uber serious about trading down, he could of offered #3 to the Redskins for #13 and their 3rd, and their 2010 2nd and 3rd rounders. The Skins would of jumped on that offer in a heartbeat.

 

[RockHard]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

Jackson is Marcus Spears at best. Jackson only had 8 sacks in his two final years of college while playing with top five selection Glen Davis. The worst pash rush in the history of the league and he selects a run stopping defensive end. The Chiefs will finish with a worse record this season than the one the year before.

 

[bjabrad]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

Jackson is Marcus Spears at best. Jackson only had 8 sacks in his two final years of college while playing with top five selection Glen Davis. The worst pash rush in the history of the league and he selects a run stopping defensive end. The Chiefs will finish with a worse record this season than the one the year before.

True enough that KC set futility records for sacks but let's not forget that they were also plenty crappy in the stopping the run.KC was #30 in rushing defense, #28 in passing defense, #32 in sacks, #26 in pts allowed, #17 in INT's and tied for #2 in fumbles recovered.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

Jackson is Marcus Spears at best. Jackson only had 8 sacks in his two final years of college while playing with top five selection Glen Davis. The worst pash rush in the history of the league and he selects a run stopping defensive end. The Chiefs will finish with a worse record this season than the one the year before.

KC is a work in progress, but at least it is moving in the right direction. I don't think the Jackson pick was made to all of a sudden make them a sack machine. It was made to improve this team, as was the trade for Cassell. I completetly disagree with your last sentence, as you seem to be forgetting many of the other positive moves this team has made. Too many people are basing predictions about the Chiefs based on one draft pick. When you look at this team as a whole, things are looking better, not worse. And there still may be more that happens between now and opening day. KC was in a tough spot at #3 and no matter who they picked, poeple would think they should have done something else. It's easy to sit back and say they should have done this and they should have done that, but it seems as though there weren't many offers out there and they made the best pick they could. We'll see when the season starts, but I'd like to see you give some reasons why you think they will be a worse team then last year, other then just the Jackson pick?

 

[The Jacket]

I'm saying, quite bluntly with no insinuation, that Jackson would have been available later in the round.

Says ... you?Versus reports that the Browns, Packers and Broncos all loved Jackson?

The Chiefs should have shopped the pick, traded down and added some future pick or a veteran if they wanted Jackson. He'd still have been there 10 picks later, in my opinion. Taking Jackson at #3 was a major reach, in my opinion. And as cstu points out, now they get to pay Jackson at #3 rates, rather than, say, #13 rates.

There were NO OFFERS for it. Your comment can categorically be defined as ignorance. While your opinion that Jackson would be available at 13 is pure conjecture, and doesn't really jive with the reality that numerous teams picking higher than 13 were rumored to want Jackson.

 

[The Jacket]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

Jackson is Marcus Spears at best. Jackson only had 8 sacks in his two final years of college while playing with top five selection Glen Davis. The worst pash rush in the history of the league and he selects a run stopping defensive end. The Chiefs will finish with a worse record this season than the one the year before.

And 10 sacks in his sophomore season, but obviously that's not relevant since it doesn't help your argument.People look at Jackson the completely wrong way. He won't be asked to rush the passer like a 4-3 end, so what he did as a 4-3 end in college really doesn't matter. Most ends in a 30 front were DTs in college, so Jackson is unique in that regard. It surprises me that people can't appreciate that. He's making a complete position change and the pick will eventually be graded by how well Jackson anchors the defensive front in KC's one-gap 3-4. Playing on the outside shoulder of the guard he'll actually be a pivotal player in KC's front.

No player in round two or three comes close to Jackson. BTW, Jackson was No. 6 on Rick Gosselin's top 100, not 13, 23 or 33. But keep on believing whatever Mel Kiper or armchair draftniks who scout players on YouTube say.

 

[The Jacket]

Btw, if Pioli was uber serious about trading down, he could of offered #3 to the Redskins for #13 and their 3rd, and their 2010 2nd and 3rd rounders. The Skins would of jumped on that offer in a heartbeat.

Just wild speculation. I read a report a few days before the draft that, along with being "beyond smitten" with Mark Sanchez, said the Redskins LOVED Brian Orakpo. Why are people failing to realize that teams called Seattle's bluff about Sanchez and didn't NEED to overpay in draft picks and significant monies to get Sanchez at three? Trading into the top five is rare. It was only accomodated in this draft because a team was prepared to bend over and take it up the rear. It might be easy in Madden or in the minds of draftniks, but KC wasn't in a position to click its fingers and get a worthwhile trade down.

 

[cstu]

IF they had dropped down from #3 to #17 for only a second rounder, what kind of ripple effect would that have with other GM's trying to trade? let alone with other GM's dealing with KC in the future? not good I'm thinking.

Could you unpack this a bit?

Look how the redskins get bent over by every team they try and trade with. This is what would happen to KC if they made a horrible trade. Sort of like once a girl in junior high gives it up for the first time, word will get around and everyone will think she is easy and treat her as such.

The Redskins don't know how to trade that's all and the rest of the league knows it. KC trading down to #17 and taking Hood (with a reasonable contract) and whatever player they got at #52 would have been better for them than taking Jackson at #3 and paying him the huge amount of money he'll get. That's not getting bent over, it's being smart.

Agree with your first statement. Disagree completely about them trading down to #17 and only getting a 2nd in return. That would be a horrible trade from a value perspective. Heck, most people in the league think the Jets bent over Cleveland, and they were 2 spots lower at #5, and they got 3 players along with the 2nd in that deal.

Btw, if Pioli was uber serious about trading down, he could of offered #3 to the Redskins for #13 and their 3rd, and their 2010 2nd and 3rd rounders. The Skins would of jumped on that offer in a heartbeat.

Then you don't understand value. In the league now with the salary cap and the salaries paid to rookies, the top picks are more of curse than anything. The trade chart means nothing in today's game.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Then you don't understand value. In the league now with the salary cap and the salaries paid to rookies, the top picks are more of curse than anything. The trade chart means nothing in today's game.

The trade chart is now obsolete. I agree with you there. I'm surprised it took so long for NFL general managers to figure that out.Let me help you understand why your proposed trade would be very bad value for the Chiefs. Look at the Browns-Jets trade. It's no big secret that other teams in the league thought that the Jets easily got the better end of the deal. And the Browns received significantly more compensation, in the form of 3 players they desired, than the Chiefs would receive in the trade you have proposed. The Browns got poor value for the trade they made, which means your proposed trade would be even worse from a value perspective (for the Chiefs). I think calling it "a horrible trade from a value perspective" is entirely appropriate and spot on.

 

[bjabrad]

Then you don't understand value. In the league now with the salary cap and the salaries paid to rookies, the top picks are more of curse than anything. The trade chart means nothing in today's game.

The trade chart is now obsolete. I agree with you there. I'm surprised it took so long for NFL general managers to figure that out.Let me help you understand why your proposed trade would be very bad value for the Chiefs. Look at the Browns-Jets trade. It's no big secret that other teams in the league thought that the Jets easily got the better end of the deal. And the Browns received significantly more compensation, in the form of 3 players they desired, than the Chiefs would receive in the trade you have proposed. The Browns got poor value for the trade they made, which means your proposed trade would be even worse from a value perspective (for the Chiefs). I think calling it "a horrible trade from a value perspective" is entirely appropriate and spot on.

I also agree that the trade value chart is ridiculous compared to salary penalty of the top 5 picks but I have yet to see any current or former GM's talk against the trade value chart and most that I've heard still talk about it being the bible. Have I just missed this info? Has anybody else heard any expert info from NFL mgmt going against the value chart?

 

[PMENFAN]

He should release himself for taking Jackson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

Quite obviously he wasn't happy with the information his scouting department put together. Hence their release. How much confidence do you think he had in making good picks later with bad informaiton? Belichick is a great coach, getting several key players when others have the same opportunity. They are near the top year in and out because effective scouting gives the management good information to make good decisions. If you have bad information, you get bad decisions. Undoubtably Pioli will try and cannibalize the Pats young staff of people whose names we never hear. No manager, no matter how great they are, knows everything. Their job is to develop the organization so that it functions to make them look good. Pieoli is just getting started. The end product we see on the field ia just the peak of a triangular structure of people that make it come together.

 

[PMENFAN]

He should release himself for taking Johnson at #3. Paying that much money for a DE in 3-4 when you could've got same guy in round 2-3 for so much cheaper def. to me was not smartest move no matter how much they liked him.

it is possible he felt he was given subpar info from the scouts and thus didn't like the draft (or didn't love the draft he performed) himself.

I can say with some certainty that this is not true - the scouts were lame ducks as soon as Pioli was hired as the story indicated.

well wouldn't you guess the scouts were given an opportunity to impress and didn't?

Yes

 

[PMENFAN]

- The real steal was the Steelers taking Ziggy Hood at #32. The Steelers will pay him *way* less than Jackson and I think he could be just as good if not better.

This. Good post. The Chiefs should have traded down.

Luckily for them Al Davis/the Raiders made an even bigger reach at #7 so KC won't get the level of criticism they should for the Jackson pick.

Great...so who would have traded up to #3? Are you insinuating that Pioli had offers on the table, but chose not to accept them to take Tyson Jackson?

I'm saying, quite bluntly with no insinuation, that Jackson would have been available later in the round. The Chiefs should have shopped the pick, traded down and added some future pick or a veteran if they wanted Jackson. He'd still have been there 10 picks later, in my opinion. Taking Jackson at #3 was a major reach, in my opinion. And as cstu points out, now they get to pay Jackson at #3 rates, rather than, say, #13 rates. It was a bad move and bad management of the draft in this case.

Most everything I've read indicates most of the top picks wanted out of the top, but could get nothing for it. Look at the limited value the Jets had to give up to get to #5. I don't know that he shopped the pick, and I don't know he didn't. There just didn't seem to be a whole lot of desire around the league to move up.

 

[PMENFAN]

Then you don't understand value. In the league now with the salary cap and the salaries paid to rookies, the top picks are more of curse than anything. The trade chart means nothing in today's game.

The trade chart is now obsolete. I agree with you there. I'm surprised it took so long for NFL general managers to figure that out.Let me help you understand why your proposed trade would be very bad value for the Chiefs. Look at the Browns-Jets trade. It's no big secret that other teams in the league thought that the Jets easily got the better end of the deal. And the Browns received significantly more compensation, in the form of 3 players they desired, than the Chiefs would receive in the trade you have proposed. The Browns got poor value for the trade they made, which means your proposed trade would be even worse from a value perspective (for the Chiefs). I think calling it "a horrible trade from a value perspective" is entirely appropriate and spot on.

I also agree that the trade value chart is ridiculous compared to salary penalty of the top 5 picks but I have yet to see any current or former GM's talk against the trade value chart and most that I've heard still talk about it being the bible. Have I just missed this info? Has anybody else heard any expert info from NFL mgmt going against the value chart?

I've always thought it was crap. Talent levels across the draft from year to year are going to vary. You may have 10 'great' prospects one year, and well this year were there really any 'great' prospects? I felt the talent level was pretty poor at the top this year. Personal opinion. Will there bee great players? Maybe. Maybe not. When Ithink of this Mangina trade, I think back to his giving Oakland a #1 in NY for a crappy tight end. It's late and I'm too lazy to research the name. Roland Martin is what is circling my head, but I could be wrong. It was the year Baker emerged as their top TE, IIRC> So, while Eric had one outstanding draft getting mangold, brick and washington in the same year, he's not been great through and through. I stick to the contention that there is so much more to NFL drafting than Sunday. It's a business, with people at all levels needing to do the job. Yes BB is the mastermind in NE, but h has an outstanding orrganization behind him, both on and off the field. Pieoli didn't have that. I still question the notion that he viewed the scouts as lame ducks. Responsible managers assess before axing. I don't know Pioli, but I didn't see a whole lot of irrationality in NE. Does anybody think it was Pioli who had the scoop on Brady or Cassell? What about Givens so late in the draft? Jarvis Green? These aren't top notch players, but players who fit the system in place in the organization. Let me qualify that with I think Brady excels in any system, but the development staff surely played a role in getting both he and Cassell to reach their potential. Back to the draft as a whole,; I just thought this year was unique, because of a lack of top notch talent at the top. I like NE's picks, but getting the top safety in the draft in the 2nd speaks volumes about what was on the board. Thanks to whoever put the pioli quotes up. It really shows that there was no interest in moving up to pay for the picks.

 

[cstu]

- The real steal was the Steelers taking Ziggy Hood at #32. The Steelers will pay him *way* less than Jackson and I think he could be just as good if not better.

This. Good post. The Chiefs should have traded down.

Luckily for them Al Davis/the Raiders made an even bigger reach at #7 so KC won't get the level of criticism they should for the Jackson pick.

Great...so who would have traded up to #3? Are you insinuating that Pioli had offers on the table, but chose not to accept them to take Tyson Jackson?

I'm saying, quite bluntly with no insinuation, that Jackson would have been available later in the round. The Chiefs should have shopped the pick, traded down and added some future pick or a veteran if they wanted Jackson. He'd still have been there 10 picks later, in my opinion. Taking Jackson at #3 was a major reach, in my opinion. And as cstu points out, now they get to pay Jackson at #3 rates, rather than, say, #13 rates. It was a bad move and bad management of the draft in this case.

Most everything I've read indicates most of the top picks wanted out of the top, but could get nothing for it. Look at the limited value the Jets had to give up to get to #5. I don't know that he shopped the pick, and I don't know he didn't. There just didn't seem to be a whole lot of desire around the league to move up.

Somehow the Jets moved up, right? Clearly, it's difficult to move down because those in the business understand that drafting high has some serious financial considerations. Occasionally there is a player who teams feel they must have, but they aren't going to give up the draft (ala Ricky Williams) to do it. With that understood, a team - like the Browns this year - has to throw the value chart out the window and make a move that not only helps them player-wise, but also financially. All I'm saying is that the Chiefs blew the chance to make a deal with the Jets, even if it only meant picking up the #17 and #52. Now if Jackson turns out to be a perennial Pro Bowl player then paying him #3 money isn't bad, but there's a high probability that he doesn't live up to the expectations of a #3 pick.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

All I'm saying is that the Chiefs blew the chance to make a deal with the Jets, even if it only meant picking up the #17 and #52. Now if Jackson turns out to be a perennial Pro Bowl player then paying him #3 money isn't bad, but there's a high probability that he doesn't live up to the expectations of a #3 pick.

simple question.....how do you know this?.....how did they blow a chance.....they most likely never had the chance...why would the Jets move up to #3, when they can get the deal done at #5.......you are simply trying to slam KC for their pick, yet you have no way of knowing and/or backing up your statement

with the position KC was in, they made the best pick they could for their team, they just have to suck it up and pay the cash.....was it perfect for them?.....heck no....but they got a player they needed and a player that was coveted by many teams....with no real chance of moving down, they just did what they had to do...

 

[massraider]

simple question.....how do you know this?.....how did they blow a chance.....they most likely never had the chance...why would the Jets move up to #3, when they can get the deal done at #5.......you are simply trying to slam KC for their pick, yet you have no way of knowing and/or backing up your statementwith the position KC was in, they made the best pick they could for their team, they just have to suck it up and pay the cash.....was it perfect for them?.....heck no....but they got a player they needed and a player that was coveted by many teams....with no real chance of moving down, they just did what they had to do...

Yeah, unless some front office type says otherwise, I am going to believe that the reason the Jets were able to make the deal was the Browns desire to have Coleman, Elam, and Ratliff.

 

[Dexter Manley]

simple question.....how do you know this?.....how did they blow a chance.....they most likely never had the chance...why would the Jets move up to #3, when they can get the deal done at #5.......you are simply trying to slam KC for their pick, yet you have no way of knowing and/or backing up your statementwith the position KC was in, they made the best pick they could for their team, they just have to suck it up and pay the cash.....was it perfect for them?.....heck no....but they got a player they needed and a player that was coveted by many teams....with no real chance of moving down, they just did what they had to do...

I agree with your comments regarding the Jets, especially considering that the Browns wanted players and the Jets didn't want to give up a high pick next year. It makes perfect sense that the Jets wouldn't want to move all the way up to #3.I'm still of the opinion, however, that Pioli could have gotten a deal done with Washington if he really truly wanted to move down. The Skins didn't have the players to send to the Browns. Therefore, the only way they could move up in the draft to get Sanchez would be to jump ahead of Cleveland. The Skins, however, were on record before the draft saying they wouldn't give up next year's #1, so any deal with the Chiefs would of been something like Washington's #1, #3, and 2010 2nd and 3rd or 4th. I'm guessing that type of deal probably wouldn't be too attractive to Pioli. In summary, when Pioli says they didn't have any offers to trade down, I translate that as they didn't have any realistic offers or opportunities (value wise) to trade down. Unless the Redskins loving Sanchez is one of the biggest smokescreens in draft history, they could of gotten a deal done with Washington.

 

[QuizGuy66]

The signing of Ghiaciuc would seem to highlight the lack of presence of scouts. This dude got blown up again and again for my Who Deys last year. He was bad enough that even if we didn't draft a center I didn't want to see him back.

-QG

 

[bjabrad]

simple question.....how do you know this?.....how did they blow a chance.....they most likely never had the chance...why would the Jets move up to #3, when they can get the deal done at #5.......you are simply trying to slam KC for their pick, yet you have no way of knowing and/or backing up your statementwith the position KC was in, they made the best pick they could for their team, they just have to suck it up and pay the cash.....was it perfect for them?.....heck no....but they got a player they needed and a player that was coveted by many teams....with no real chance of moving down, they just did what they had to do...

I agree with your comments regarding the Jets, especially considering that the Browns wanted players and the Jets didn't want to give up a high pick next year. It makes perfect sense that the Jets wouldn't want to move all the way up to #3.I'm still of the opinion, however, that Pioli could have gotten a deal done with Washington if he really truly wanted to move down. The Skins didn't have the players to send to the Browns. Therefore, the only way they could move up in the draft to get Sanchez would be to jump ahead of Cleveland. The Skins, however, were on record before the draft saying they wouldn't give up next year's #1, so any deal with the Chiefs would of been something like Washington's #1, #3, and 2010 2nd and 3rd or 4th. I'm guessing that type of deal probably wouldn't be too attractive to Pioli. In summary, when Pioli says they didn't have any offers to trade down, I translate that as they didn't have any realistic offers or opportunities (value wise) to trade down. Unless the Redskins loving Sanchez is one of the biggest smokescreens in draft history, they could of gotten a deal done with Washington.

If Pioli could've moved down to the WAS #13 and also received their 3rd as well as 2010 2nd and 3rd then I would think that KC would've been ahead to take that deal. If Pioli did in fact reject that deal then either he has some serious man love for Tyson Jackson or he just couldn't pull the trigger on a deal that typically should be worth more for the #3 pick.

 

[Bri]

In summary, when Pioli says they didn't have any offers to trade down, I translate that as they didn't have any realistic offers or opportunities (value wise) to trade down. Unless the Redskins loving Sanchez is one of the biggest smokescreens in draft history, they could of gotten a deal done with Washington.

GMs do often say (in some fashion)it's far harder to trade down than the public realizes

 

[The Jacket]

The signing of Ghiaciuc would seem to highlight the lack of presence of scouts. This dude got blown up again and again for my Who Deys last year. He was bad enough that even if we didn't draft a center I didn't want to see him back.-QG

Shucks. They signed an experienced guy for the veteran minimum to add some depth to a position. Terrible move.

 

[Workhorse]

Back to the KC Scouts for a minute: There's word out there that Pioli had a gentleman's agreement with Belichick that he wouldn't try to hire any of the Patriots scouts until after this year's draft. Seems to be backed up by the Chiefs hiring Jay Muraco (Pats College Scouting Coordinator) the other day rather than before the draft.

 

[QuizGuy66]

The signing of Ghiaciuc would seem to highlight the lack of presence of scouts. This dude got blown up again and again for my Who Deys last year. He was bad enough that even if we didn't draft a center I didn't want to see him back.-QG

Shucks. They signed an experienced guy for the veteran minimum to add some depth to a position. Terrible move.

as long as he's a backup, but it sounds like he'll be competing for the starting jobif he's starting week one, you'll soon see what we meanHis experience largely has been getting blown up at the line as the DT makes his way to the QBHopefully he'll be in there when my Who Deys play your chiefs Week 16 -QG