Does Pioli Draft On Character?

What really matters on a football team is the character of your veterans, NOT the rookies.

You can weed out the bad character young players before they become veterans. And if the veteran core is relatively a good bunch of workers with little off-the-field fanfare, then that atmosphere becomes the culture of the team.

Leaderless teams are the ones with problems. Where every different type coming out of college has no example and can do whatever they please. Or where the examples are already bad.

We make these judgements on good/bad character too early. There will be plenty of future choices for these young men down the line. And plenty of opportunities to shape their decisions for good or bad. Creating that safety net and locker room is ten times more important that drafting perceived good/bad characters out of college.

It will be very interesting to see how this forthcoming season plays out.. we will get a whole lot of clues and insights on where the talent really lies in terms of uncovering gems or finding players to fit within the system.. was it Pioli or was it BB?

I can't wait to see how this coming season unfolds!

deljzc-

Can't agree with you today. Check out the Bengals draft picks that were low on character...

How is that working out in the future?

After all this time, people still don't get how it works. They think when Belichick and his staff say that character is a serious consideration when evaluating a player, that somehow, they'll take nothing but choir boys. In truth, like every other assessment, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. How much is this guy going to cost you in terms of being detrimental to the team and organization because of character concerns, versus what he offers as a player, is the question. Nothing else is under consideration.

Let's look at Corey Dillon as an example. He was a surly bastard, but he was also a hard-charging runner with a hunger for a championship. He left it all on the field on Sundays to help his team win. Belichick and Pioli took a chance on him because they realized what he could mean to their offense, how he could win games by controlling the clock. He wasn't a felon, and he wasn't a cancer in the clubhouse. Putting up with his dour demeanor was worth it, because of what he could offer as a player. In Cincinnati, he stopped giving his all because he realized the organization wasn't as committed to winning as he was. Without that factor, there was little concern about his ability to produce. The right cost/benefit ratio was there, and they made it work. Contrast that against Willie Andrews, whom the Patriots released shortly after arrests for drug possession and assault. He was a decent young guy in the secondary, he had some potential. But any production he'd offer was far, far offset by the fact that it was unlikely he'd be able to stay on the field due to his continuing legal concerns and inability to behave in a manner that was conducive to playing football. The cost was much, much higher than the benefit, and he was gone.

So when Scott Pioli drafts a bunch of guys like this with mostly late round picks, he's just weighing the cost against the benefit. The cost is low - low round draft picks that the team is not committed to financially or schematically. The potential benefit is high. If even one of the late round picks pan out like, say, Matt Cassel did for the Patriots, the Chiefs are way ahead in terms of efficiency. They now have a young, productive player on short money for a few years. If not, they're cut and someone else takes their spot. The only time you get in trouble is when you start spending high draft picks, or big dollars, on players like this. The Patriots, and now the Chiefs I'm sure, will reserve those resources for players that are surer bets.

For the TL;DR crowd, this is the Moneyball approach, brought to football, and encompassing a wider range of potential factors. It's an economists dream, as far as professional sports go.

The Pats did draft Brandon Meriweather in round one a couple years back.

Sorta agree with deljzc. A veteran team with an established lockerroom culture of winning and character can get away with bringing in a punk or three. Self policing, get along or get gone. Where young teams or teams trying to change their culture probably ought to steer clear until they get their core players set and string together a couple of playoff years. Teams like Cincy and Oak just can't help themselves. Almost seems like they make their picks out of spite. Cincy had one good year and imploded. Jacksonville did the same last year. This year the Jags vowed to change their culture. We'll see.

Scott Pioli is in the win now mode. Talent has to trump character early in the Pioli/Haley regime.However,Kansas City fans will not wait long before questioning his talent evalution skills if they don't win some games or at least look good losing the close one's. I don't think his current draft stratagy will work long term.

Richter,

It is even worse to draft late round character guys... those are the guys you count on to fill your special teams unit...

I can understand taken a chance on B Meriweather with 1st round talent, but late round guys doesn't make sense...

I think Pioli will show his true colors without Belichick around to hold his hand.

I still think Piloi needs at least two drafts in KC to prove his worth, but if he is going to draft guys that carry a resume like these guys it is going to be tough to win over the fans...

agree with richter. one other thing to think about is the locker room culture and having a base of leaders in the club house to keep everybody on the same page. Pioli brought Vrabel to serve that purpose on the D side, and Cassel has had a few years to learn from possibly the best locker room leader in the NFL - Brady.
Belichick and Pioli always talked not about picking the best players but about putting together the best team - that means, as Richter said better than I am, that not everybody is going to be a great leader or a go-team-go guy. The question is whether there's a strong enough leadership culture in the locker room to manage the possible problem children and get the most out of them.

Tom, if you watched the Patriots while Belichick has been head coach and de facto GM, you'd know that they treat special teams differently too. It's not just back of the roster guys that play on special teams. Late round guys with big talent but some questions make perfect sense, because if you manage to develop a few of them, you've acquired assets that are worth much more than the initial investment. If they don't work, it's easy enough to find guys that can fill out the roster and play special teams. It is far, FAR worse to draft a question guy early and have him fail, because you've spent a valuable asset in the form of a high draft pick, and considerable amounts of money and cap space as well. That's the Bengals model of doing things.

I remember in 2001 Belichick brought in Bryan Cox - a nasty guy who I thought was a low character guy. Turned out Cox added some nasty attitude to a defense that had been nice, too nice. He was important to that team. Rodney Harrison was a nasty guy too.

I know we all want our teams to draft berserkers on the field and boy scouts off it but a GM has to take a chance on some guys - especially the late rounders. Maybe their college coaches were the jerks or maybe the players in question were very immature. Anyone else out there who was an idiot when they were in their early 20's or just me?

I don't question Pioli at all - he knows the risks. He's taking chances but it could be said that recent Chiefs teams were way too nice and an infusion of nasty might be one aspect that organization needs.

I think the big thing to evaluate with these "character issue" guys is whether football extremely is important to him. Or, are they just looking to make coin and party? Football is a tough game, you aren't going to win with altar boys... Give me some tough ornery SOB's as long as they have a work ethic and want to succeed on Sunday's....