Dorsey did a fine job but some of you people are painting him as guy that made every correct decision and made no wrong decisions.
Your tune has changed, somewhat. Dorsey was an outstanding GM by all accounts.
But his drafting and handling of Russell in the 3rd in 2016 was a disaster, yet I remember you calling it a "boss move." Now you're listing as one of Dorsey's biggest errors -- I'm glad you found religion on this but it's a telling change in tune.
Dorsey had plenty of bad to go along with his good.
But what do I want my GMs to do? What's most important to me?
50% of my evaluation of them is how well they draft
40% of my evaluation of them is how well they handle FA
8% of my evaluation of them is how well they manage the salary cap
2% of them is cosmetic shit like how well do they get along with folks
Dorsey was an A, a B-, an F, on those first three, respectively. The last one I know is important inside the building but to me as a fan I just don't care.
Pioli, however, was a D+, an F, and a C+. While being a gigantic steaming pile of shit in the process. [Reply]
Dorsey did a fine job but some of you people are painting him as guy that made every correct decision, made no wrong decisions and is essentially, irreplaceable.
No one is irreplaceable.
No one is saying he's irreplaceable. But he set a very high bar especially when it comes to the draft. I sure hope when a player starts or contributes isn't the bar we set or else mahomes is already a bust. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
No, I'm pointing out the fallacy of his post.
Dorsey was a fine GM but it was a collaborative effort and every pick didn't have an instant impact.
That's revisionist history.
I'd call being a Top 5 GM a bit more impressive than "fine."
Your assessment of him, as I've already pointed out, has downgraded almost immediately after he was released. So who's the revisionist now?
The odds that we're replacing him with a Top 5 GM are very low. I think it's possible that we had two Top 5 GMs in the building with Ballard. But three is just very, very unlikely. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
I'd call being a Top 5 GM a bit more impressive than "fine."
Your assessment of him, as I've already pointed out, has downgraded almost immediately after he was released. So who's the revisionist now?
Bullshit.
I've praised Dorsey's drafts and criticized his awful free agency moves. But let's not pretend that his drafts didn't come with an element of risk due to his continual drafting of athletes with high ceilings, not finished football players.
Pull your head out of your ass, Voyager.
Also, they don't need a "Top 5 GM" when they have the second best coaching staff in the NFL. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
No, you're moving the goalposts, again, because you're a cornered little bitch.
:-)
The goalposts are exactly the same. The point was that all 5 are major contributors. And all 5 will probably start in 2017. The only one on the fence is dee ford, a guy who had over 10 sacks last season.
I'm not cornered. Considering everyone here is arguing with you, not me. [Reply]
I've praised Dorsey's drafts and criticized his awful free agency moves. But let's not pretend that his drafts didn't come with an element of risk due to his continual drafting of athletes with high ceilings, not finished football players.
Pull your head out of your ass, Voyager.
Also, they don't need a "Top 5 GM" when they have the second best coaching staff in the NFL.
What are Dorsey's awful free agent moves?
Maclin was certainly not awful. Chiefs needed a top WR in the worst way and he was paid market value. I just think he might have been too injury prone but that's it. It was still the right move to sign him at the time because that team was devoid of any talent at WR and you can't just ignore that and not do anything when you have a roster ready to compete.
And I think no one will deny he made some great free agent moves: Schwartz, Mitchell, Branch, Parker.
Anyways, Dorsey was not big on pricey free agents. Logan looks nice but we have to see. [Reply]
Dorsey did a fine job but some of you people are painting him as guy that made every correct decision, made no wrong decisions and is essentially, irreplaceable.
I'm a Dorsey fan. And I'll continue to follow his career. While he wasn't perfect, I really thought he was excellent. As expected, this move and his career has been debated backwards and forwards. I think there is a sizable chunk of the puzzle that has been left untouched, Clark Hunt.
To make a move like letting Dforsey go early, endicates a couple of things. One, Clark knows excatly what he wants in a front office guy. He's now seen first hand how Pioli operated and now Dorsey. Clearly Clark wasn't satisfied and I give him credit for being comfortable making a move a rest of the world says you should not make. During the past four seasons not only have the Chiefs turned around as a team, but Clark has really came into his own. It's obvious he likes the management structure, how the HC and the GM answer to him separately.
I guess all the talk about Reid and Dorsey, just bugs me because I think what we are seeing is the Chiefs becoming Clark's team. I'm really interested to see who he picks. [Reply]
