Chiefs GM Scott Pioli: The Guru Morphs Into the Enigma
For several weeks, we Kansas City Chiefs fans have been on the edge of our seats, bristling with anticipation over what kind of draft magic our new GM Scott Pioli will conjure for us. He's got quite the reputation of being a draft-day wheeler-and-dealer, and has seemed to have a knack for getting the most out of his teams.
I thought it was a well-deserved and accurate reputation, but at the end of the first day, he's made one pick and no trades (that we know of).
To say he's left all of us nonplussed and still holding our breath would be a bit of an understatement.
Before you fly off the handle and start throwing cow-pies at Arrowhead HQ, remember one of the things Pioli has said since he came to KC:
"Sometimes the best trade is the one you don't make."
I believe he's been working the phones every bit as hard today as he ever has. Just because we didn't see a trade go down doesn't mean there were none to be had; it could be that nobody wanted the third overall pick, or it could be none of the offers were right for the Chiefs.
As we have no real idea what was on his mind going into the draft, it's not possible to criticize him at this point. Plus, there is still Day Two, which I suspect will be a bit more entertaining for K.C. fans than today was.
In the end, though, I have to say I was surprised it was such a quiet day overall for us, but I trust our new GM to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the team. I admire his willingness to stick to his philosophy of building from the lines out getting Tyson Jackson with the third selection.
I didn't think he'd take Jackson with that pick; I thought if he couldn't trade down, he'd take one of the offensive tackles available there.
But I'm not going to slam him about it now. If Tyson doesn't become the player KC needs at end in the 3-4 set, then I'll drag out the invective and surly adjectives. For now, I'm giving Pioli's actions a chance to bear fruit for Kansas City.
I hope the rest of you do the same.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?