Pioli releases scouts (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

Reports: Chiefs release bulk of scouting staff

By PFW staff

April 27, 2009

Monday was D-Day in the Chiefs' scouting department, as the vast majority of the staff was released by GM Scott Pioli, accoring to multiple sources.

Most of Kansas City's existing staff knew they were on borrowed time when Pioli was hired to replace Carl Peterson earlier this year, but they were kept on to at least get the club through draft weekend. Now that those duties are over, the axe has reportedly fallen on multiple holdovers from the old regime.

Pioli now will look to bring in his own staff of scouts, a younger group that shares his vision when it comes to evaluating and selecting talent.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

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.

 

[Adebisi]

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.

What are you talking about? What's wrong with taking a 3-4 DE that high in the draft? Richard Seymour was taken 6th. Pretty sure that worked out well for the Pats.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

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.

What are you talking about? What's wrong with taking a 3-4 DE that high in the draft? Richard Seymour was taken 6th. Pretty sure that worked out well for the Pats.

I know you're a Pats homer but please do not compare Johnson to Seymour. Not even close on so many levels. But again we'll see but guy isn't a space filler slash going to get to the QB and or worth the money they'll pay him to play his position in my opinion. I just don't think they could've traded down and or Curry didnt fit system well but guess that's why they took Johnson. Still don't think it was a good pick but we'll find out. Alot love for the Pats in any instance but we're finding out its more Belichick than anything I believe. Though Id say Pioli has been just as involved in making the Patriots great but Im still not convinced he's the brain trust compared to big Bill.

 

[Bri]

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.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

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.

Prob. the best question on the subject and prob. on to something their.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

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.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

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.

Prob. the best question on the subject and prob. on to something their.

KC scouts had little to do with this draft.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

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.

Prob. the best question on the subject and prob. on to something their.

KC scouts had little to do with this draft.

Not surprising. Figure it would be tough to fire your scouts and fill in with new guys at point Pioli took over so prob. right.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

He should release himself for taking Johnson at #3.

 

[Bri]

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?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

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?

It was pretty well known around the league that they were lame ducks, and basically dead men walking as far as Pioli is concerned.

 

[bjabrad]

Can we get the name right?

Tyson Jackson

 

[sparkky]

Hey Sig,

"KC scouts had little to do with this draft. "

could you elaborate on this please?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Hey Sig, "KC scouts had little to do with this draft. "could you elaborate on this please?

I'm sorry I can't go into more detail.

 

[sparkky]

Hey Sig, "KC scouts had little to do with this draft. "could you elaborate on this please?

I'm sorry I can't go into more detail.

fair enough, thanks anyway, and thanks for the reply.

 

[stevegamer]

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?

I would guess that they were not given that opportunity - realize that KC players who have made the Pro Bowl and are All-Pros aren't wanted around there, either.Assume the Chiefs suck for a few years, and then they will either improve or not improve. If they don't improve the coach is a goner.

 

[cstu]

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.

What are you talking about? What's wrong with taking a 3-4 DE that high in the draft? Richard Seymour was taken 6th. Pretty sure that worked out well for the Pats.

- Tyson Jackson is no Richard Seymour, not even close. If I'm wrong and Jackson makes even one Pro Bowl I'll be the first to call myself out on it. - Rookie contracts are way out of control for the top picks even compared to just 2001. The difference between what Seymour got at #6 in 2001 and what Jackson will get is huge. - 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.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

Can we get the name right? Tyson Jackson

Point taken. My mistake. Fixed.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

What are you talking about? What's wrong with taking a 3-4 DE that high in the draft? Richard Seymour was taken 6th. Pretty sure that worked out well for the Pats.

- Tyson Jackson is no Richard Seymour, not even close. If I'm wrong and Jackson makes even one Pro Bowl I'll be the first to call myself out on it. - Rookie contracts are way out of control for the top picks even compared to just 2001. The difference between what Seymour got at #6 in 2001 and what Jackson will get is huge.

- 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.

[hijack] yes, which is the only reason they didn't go OL in the 1st[/hijack]Does the firing surprise anyone? I'd like to hear more from Sig, but understand if he needs to protect sources.

 

[Adebisi]

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.

What are you talking about? What's wrong with taking a 3-4 DE that high in the draft? Richard Seymour was taken 6th. Pretty sure that worked out well for the Pats.

I know you're a Pats homer but please do not compare Johnson to Seymour. Not even close on so many levels. But again we'll see but guy isn't a space filler slash going to get to the QB and or worth the money they'll pay him to play his position in my opinion. I just don't think they could've traded down and or Curry didnt fit system well but guess that's why they took Johnson. Still don't think it was a good pick but we'll find out. Alot love for the Pats in any instance but we're finding out its more Belichick than anything I believe. Though Id say Pioli has been just as involved in making the Patriots great but Im still not convinced he's the brain trust compared to big Bill.

I'm not comparing Johnson to Seymour - your post reads as if you're questioning the decision to draft a 3-4 DE (in general) so high. I was just pointing out that there is a successful precedent for drafting 3-4 DEs high in the first round.

 

[Bri]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

 

[greenf7cat]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

Where did you hear this?

 

[Ridgelake]

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.

This also explains why they took a 2nd in NEXT year's draft for Gonzo. Pioli wanted to get his scouts for that draft board.

 

[SuperJohn96]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

Where did you hear this?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...3169&spln=1

 

[greenf7cat]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

Where did you hear this?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...3169&spln=1

Thanks

 

[Mark Wimer]

- 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.

 

[vandyt]

- 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?

 

[JamesTheScot]

If the KC scouts had nothing to do with this draft, why did Pioli wait until after the draft to fire them? Why not go ahead and fire them before the draft?

They must have had something to do with it.

 

[Mark Wimer]

- 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.

 

[tuffnutt]

- 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.

Great suggestion... if only Pioli would have thought of that!I think its safe to assume that Pioli wante to trade down but had zero offers to do so. You can want to trade down all day but someone has to be willing to trade up

 

[Bojang0301]

If the KC scouts had nothing to do with this draft, why did Pioli wait until after the draft to fire them? Why not go ahead and fire them before the draft?They must have had something to do with it.

Well I'm sure it has to do with not allowing their scouts to talk about what their plans are and if they do run off and say something they fire them for insubordination and don't pay them the remainder of their contracts. Plus any scouts Pioli would have brought in at this point wouldn't have had the year + the previous scouts had to look at this draft class.

 

[Bojang0301]

- 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.

Great suggestion... if only Pioli would have thought of that!I think its safe to assume that Pioli wante to trade down but had zero offers to do so. You can want to trade down all day but someone has to be willing to trade up

BS... the Jets traded up to 5 and would have given more than enough for KC to move back to 10-12 and get Jackson while still probably keeping an extra second.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

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.

 

[sparkky]

I agree with Tuff,

it takes 2 to trade. Pioli didn't get his rep by being stupid. I have no "inside" scoop or super-secret source but I just have to believe that if there had been a decent offer on the table he would have traded down.

ETA:

what sealed the deal with Cleveland was Mangini had manlove for some of the players he left behind in NY. there's no reason to think other teams in the NFL would have the same value on the players. NY used players in addition to picks to get the deal done. in addition, if NY felt SURE that Seattle would pass and no one else could move up, why pay #3 money when you can pay #5 money for the same guy?

we'll never know what was really going on so it is what it is. if they couldn't move what else could they do but take the guy they wanted, regardless of where.

 

[GregR_2]

If the KC scouts had nothing to do with this draft, why did Pioli wait until after the draft to fire them? Why not go ahead and fire them before the draft?They must have had something to do with it.

Well I'm sure it has to do with not allowing their scouts to talk about what their plans are and if they do run off and say something they fire them for insubordination and don't pay them the remainder of their contracts. Plus any scouts Pioli would have brought in at this point wouldn't have had the year + the previous scouts had to look at this draft class.

Exactly. I'd go so far as to say I think it is standard operating procedure to not fire people who have an inkling what your draft plans are until after the draft. Not unless you have darn good reason to do so. Not just scouts. Some teams have even waited to officially replace the GM until after the draft even though it was widely known before that the GM was going to be out.

 

[Bri]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

Where did you hear this?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...3169&spln=1

Thanks

it was "everywhere" so I didn't link but, that move (or the timing of it announced to the public) makes it real curious to me right after spending a high pick on a DE.IF we consider Dorsey, Hali, and Tyson all DEs then with a team that needs help all over...I'm pretty on the whole switch.

 

[bjabrad]

NP

The system told me I had too many quoted posts and I couldn't figure out how to fix it and make it look correct.

 

[bjabrad]

- 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.

The Jets didn't have to trade up to #3 to get Sanchez because they correctly predicted that #3 KC already had a QB Cassell and that #4 SEA was blowing smoke about Sanchez and really were only looking to trade down so they did the least that they had to do which was to get in front of CIN in order to get Sanchez for #5 money instead of #3 money. Pioli quote: http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2009/04/25/qa...ey_on_1st_pick/

Q: Did any team contact you wanting to move up?

PIOLI: “We didn’t receive any calls on trades once we got down near the end.”

Q: Were you pursuing any calls?

PIOLI: “No, because we felt good. There were a couple of players when we went into today knowing that we would (pick) three. There were a couple of players depending on what would happen on one and two that we felt good about. We felt good because we were committed to picking at number three and were very, very happy with a couple of players and one player in particular.”

Q: Based on your history in New England, did you think you might be bold or make a big splash? There were some fans and media who thought you might trade this pick.

PIOLI: “Any time you want to make a trade you have to have a partner to make a trade. If there is no partner to make a trade you can want all you want. There were no partners in this case who wanted to talk about trades. That’s why you have to approach it and be prepared. It’s why you spend the extra time if you’re going to stick and pick; you have to be prepared if there is opportunity for trades, and then calculate into the whole thought process if you’re going to trade back to a certain point. We still better know the rest of the first round and the players we might project. We may have ended up there but we didn’t.

“But as far as making a trade don’t read too much into reputations. Yeah, there have been a lot of trades I’ve been involved with but it doesn’t matter if I want to trade or not if someone doesn’t want to trade. It’s a moot point.”

 

[pollardsvision]

If the KC scouts had nothing to do with this draft, why did Pioli wait until after the draft to fire them? Why not go ahead and fire them before the draft?They must have had something to do with it.

Pioli probably had all kinds of reasons to keep them around up to the draft.Pioli: "Hey, scout, when you're finished up re-organizing those prospect files, I've got some dry-cleaning that needs to be picked up."Scout: "Sure thing boss. Do you still need me re-cut all of the SEC game film for you?"Pioli: "Yeah, I definitely still need you to do that, but wait until after you get back from Columbia, SC"Scout: "What's in Columbia?"Pioli: "I need you to drive down there to film a kicker for us. I'm not going to have time to go out there for their pro day" Scout: "Drive?"Pioli: "Yeah, we're cutting back on some expenses"Scout: "That's fine. Be sure to check out my notes on that LB from Wake Forest. He's going to be special."Pioli: "I will absolutely do that. Now, about that dry-cleaning..."

 

[Stinkin Ref]

- 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.

1. Where exactly do you think he would have been available....if you say he drops 10 picks, that puts him at #13 with Denver at #12 and there is a very good chance Denver would have taken him.2. How do you know the Chiefs didn't shop the pick?

3.If you know he would have been available later, then you also must know who would have wanted to move up and who they would have taken. Please give a a scenerio you know of someone who would have wanted to move up to a #3 and what type of offer you think the Chiefs turned down.

I am also of the belief that they would have made a deal had they gotten a decent offer, I am just not sure one was given to them. IMO the only possible people that would have wanted to move up and would have made an offer were the Jets or the Redskins. And if they know the Chiefs aren't going to take Sanchez, why move up to #3 when you can wait just move up to #5?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Given what the Browns got to move down, I think it's fairly safe to say that there was not a great deal of demand from teams to move up. I don't think there are many scenarios in which the Chiefs could've traded down but still ensured that they were high enough to get Jackson - any of the 3-4 teams could've taken him (CLE @ 5, GB @ 9, DEN @ 12).

 

[bjabrad]

- 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.

1. Where exactly do you think he would have been available....if you say he drops 10 picks, that puts him at #13 with Denver at #12 and there is a very good chance Denver would have taken him.2. How do you know the Chiefs didn't shop the pick?

3.If you know he would have been available later, then you also must know who would have wanted to move up and who they would have taken. Please give a a scenerio you know of someone who would have wanted to move up to a #3 and what type of offer you think the Chiefs turned down.

I am also of the belief that they would have made a deal had they gotten a decent offer, I am just not sure one was given to them. IMO the only possible people that would have wanted to move up and would have made an offer were the Jets or the Redskins. And if they know the Chiefs aren't going to take Sanchez, why move up to #3 when you can wait just move up to #5?

And if KC knows this and they suck it up and draft Sanchez with the intent of trading him within a few minutes, I would think that KC doesn't have any leverage since everybody knows that they need to trade him (don't want to pay Sanchez and Cassell) and so they don't get a good trade down deal if any at all.

 

[Christo]

I think its safe to assume that Pioli wante to trade down but had zero offers to do so. You can want to trade down all day but someone has to be willing to trade up

BS... the Jets traded up to 5 and would have given more than enough for KC to move back to 10-12 and get Jackson while still probably keeping an extra second.

How do you know this? The reason the Jets-Browns trade worked is the fact that Mangini was familiar with and wanted the players who were traded.

 

[greenf7cat]

Dorsey was just moved to End.

Where did you hear this?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...3169&spln=1

Thanks

it was "everywhere" so I didn't link but, that move (or the timing of it announced to the public) makes it real curious to me right after spending a high pick on a DE.IF we consider Dorsey, Hali, and Tyson all DEs then with a team that needs help all over...I'm pretty on the whole switch.

From what I have read, Hali is "most likely" going to be a rush OLB (along with McBride), leaving Dorsey and Jackson as the 3-4 DE's, with Boone sub-ing

 

[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?

How about trading the pick to the Jets for what Browns got for the #5? Then use that to trade back up to get Jackson if they thought the Broncos or Chargers would take him, although I think they would have been fine taking Hood at #17.

 

[cstu]

I think its safe to assume that Pioli wante to trade down but had zero offers to do so. You can want to trade down all day but someone has to be willing to trade up

BS... the Jets traded up to 5 and would have given more than enough for KC to move back to 10-12 and get Jackson while still probably keeping an extra second.

How do you know this? The reason the Jets-Browns trade worked is the fact that Mangini was familiar with and wanted the players who were traded.

Forget the players, the Chiefs should have done the deal for the Jets 1st and 2nd alone.

 

[sparkky]

I think its safe to assume that Pioli wante to trade down but had zero offers to do so. You can want to trade down all day but someone has to be willing to trade up

BS... the Jets traded up to 5 and would have given more than enough for KC to move back to 10-12 and get Jackson while still probably keeping an extra second.

How do you know this? The reason the Jets-Browns trade worked is the fact that Mangini was familiar with and wanted the players who were traded.

Forget the players, the Chiefs should have done the deal for the Jets 1st and 2nd alone.

I think you're working under the assumption that they were willing to pay Sanchez #3 money. I'm guessing there is a big difference in qb $$ between #3 and #5.ETA: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.

 

[Adebisi]

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?

 

[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.