Mike, I heard a theory on talk radio that the absence of Scott Pioli may have had an impact on...

Mike, I heard a theory on talk radio that the absence of Scott Pioli may have had an impact on Kevin O'Connell being released. In effect, a relatively high, recent draft pick may have been spared. The idea is that no one in the organization now is in a position to challenge Bill Belichick. Your thoughts?

Ask Reiss: Deep thoughts after the Seymour deal - Boston.com

This is from a Q&A over at Mike Reiss' blog at Boston.com. I know it's Patriots-related but honestly, I can't get enough of these Scott Pioli back office stories. I love them.

6 months ago Chris Thorman 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He may have been released because he isn't very good.

Desperately hoping for Desperate Measures

by averagegatsby on Sep 8, 2009 9:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

According to people on this site, people get released because they argue with coaches or there’s a vendetta.

They just don’t wanna admit that the player just isn’t as good as they thought.

LIG. Let It Go.

Penn State to Kansas City...Always a winning combination.

by YNinja on Sep 8, 2009 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will be interesting to see

How Pioli and Bellichek do apart from each other. The hoodie’s coaching tree seems to have withered a bit, but so far the personnel tree seems to be pretty strong.

Chiefs go 9-7. LJ makes 1400 yards. DBowe makes 1200 yards. Defense #18.

by Zodeman on Sep 8, 2009 9:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Also interesting

to think about how Pioli is perceived in the Chiefs organization now.

Please read our community rules, netiquette rules and our technical overview before commenting.

by Chris Thorman on Sep 8, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope interesting means...

That the Patriots decline and the Chiefs do well and win a few Superbowls.

I’m a firm believer that no matter how good your coaching is, you always need the right personnel to make it happen. They go hand in hand. And we have some great hands right now.

It’s refreshing to get out of that Carl Peterson mindset. I still remember reading an interview he did where he said he’d rather go 10-6 every year and never win a superbowl than win the big one and have a few mediocre seasons. Why did we let that guy stick around after he said that? Did he have naked photos of Lamar??

Penn State to Kansas City...Always a winning combination.

by YNinja on Sep 8, 2009 9:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They won games and went to the playoffs.

And we’re loyal.

No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.

by hmills110 on Sep 8, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But never went to the Superbowl.

That’s the whole point of professional football. When your president says that going to the Superbowl isn’t his goal, something is wrong. Lie to me for all I care, just say those damn words.

And we’re loyal because we’re fans of the team. I’ve never switched team loyalty because of ownership or performance. And I never will. I will love this team until I die, no matter which jackass runs it.

Penn State to Kansas City...Always a winning combination.

by YNinja on Sep 8, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about winning the trophy named after our founder

Just a damn afc championship trophy would be a start. Being loyal in the NFL is a dead end street, check the NE and Oakland trade this week, the Patriots knew they are not going to have any early pics in upcoming drafts and they knew the Raiders were money in a top 5 pick. The bottom line for me is there is no way this could be in a bigger mess than when the new regime started.

by harleyrydyr on Sep 9, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs