PDA

View Full Version : Now that Law and Surtain are most likely available....


bricks
02-02-2005, 12:07 AM
We better get f*cking one of them! :mad: :cuss: No excuses!!

David.
02-02-2005, 12:10 AM
ehhhh. Both are old and expensive. I wouldn't cry if we didn't sign either.

bricks
02-02-2005, 12:18 AM
ehhhh. Both are old and expensive. I wouldn't cry if we didn't sign either.

Huh? Dude, these are arguably 2 of the top 5 corners in the league. with a 31st ranked pass defense, I'd give up my left nut sack just to at least acquire one of these guys. Old and expensive? Who gives a sh*t. these guys easily make for a better pass defense.

David.
02-02-2005, 12:21 AM
Huh? Dude, these are arguably 2 of the top 5 corners in the league. with a 31st ranked pass defense, I'd give up my left nut sack just to at least acquire one of these guys. Old and expensive? Who gives a sh*t. these guys easily make for a better pass defense.

So...Champ Bailey is arguably the number 1 corner in the league. Look how well he did. I'd rather we bring in say..3 or 4 good players, than 1 great player. Because our defense is NOT one player away from being good.

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 12:21 AM
Huh? Dude, these are arguably 2 of the top 5 corners in the league. with a 31st ranked pass defense, I'd give up my left nut sack just to at least acquire one of these guys. Old and expensive? Who gives a sh*t. these guys easily make for a better pass defense.
There is no doubt they would be an upgrade but I think our money is better spent at the LB position. Mostly because of the way NFL is enforcing the rules these days...look at how much a shutdown corner did for Denver's defense.

Miles
02-02-2005, 12:24 AM
ehhhh. Both are old and expensive. I wouldn't cry if we didn't sign either.

I was thinking Surtain was old as well but his is only 28. Though i have no idea on his contract situation with Miami or how much it would take to get him.

David.
02-02-2005, 12:25 AM
I was thinking Surtain was old as well but his is only 28. Though i have no idea on his contract situation with Miami or how much it would take to get him.

really? :hmmm: well, hasn't he been injured a lot or something? I know there was a reason for me to not want to bring him in.

Miles
02-02-2005, 12:28 AM
There is no doubt they would be an upgrade but I think our money is better spent at the LB position. Mostly because of the way NFL is enforcing the rules these days...look at how much a shutdown corner did for Denver's defense.

Thats also how I see it. We dont necessarily need an elite CB, just someone that doesnt blow coverage all the time like our current ones do.

Though the market may not be as hot for CB's this season becase teams may not place as high of a value on cover corners due to the new rules.

Miles
02-02-2005, 12:31 AM
really? :hmmm: well, hasn't he been injured a lot or something? I know there was a reason for me to not want to bring him in.
He has only missed 4 games in 7 years so it doesnt appear he is an injury risk like Law. The only downside I can see is what it would take in trade to get him.

HolmeZz
02-02-2005, 12:32 AM
I'd rather have Law.

bricks
02-02-2005, 12:33 AM
I'd rather have Law.

I'd like to have both. F*ck it. I say go balls to the wall.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:34 AM
There is no doubt they would be an upgrade but I think our money is better spent at the LB position. Mostly because of the way NFL is enforcing the rules these days...look at how much a shutdown corner did for Denver's defense.

Yep. :thumb:

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 12:35 AM
I'd like to have both. F*ck it. I say go balls to the wall.
Aren't you one of those posters who does not go to Chiefs games that made a thread trying to get other Chiefs fans not to go games?

bricks
02-02-2005, 12:35 AM
Some of you guys are missing the point. I agree LB is a need of concern. Gun's defense's are built around good solid corners. They don't come any better than Law and Surtain.

|Zach|
02-02-2005, 12:36 AM
Some of you guys are missing the point. I agree LB is a need of concern. Gun's defense's are built around good solid corners. They don't come any better than Law and Surtain.
I don't think they come better than Bailey either...the guy is a gamer and he has been rendered an above average player at best by the NFL's contact rules.

bricks
02-02-2005, 12:36 AM
Aren't you one of those posters who does not go to Chiefs games that made a thread trying to get other Chiefs fans not to go games?

No. I don't think so. Not that I remember.

bricks
02-02-2005, 12:39 AM
Ahh..they gotta eliminate these illegal contact, holding rules :shake: Just wish the NFL could let the boys play defense.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:42 AM
Surtain is only 29 next year; so unless the doc is 100% convinced Law is healthy, then I'd go Surtain...he's probably cheaper, and frees us to spend some money at LB or DE too.

alanm
02-02-2005, 12:48 AM
Bah... The Patriots are getting it done with a bunch of backups and a WR. Carl will say "Why the hell can't we?" ROFL

DenverChief
02-02-2005, 01:12 AM
I'd give up my left nut sack.

you have a left and a right nutsack? :hmmm: have you thought about porn?

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 01:12 AM
We still need two more corners for our D.

We just don't need to break the bank.

The Bad Guy
02-02-2005, 01:20 AM
We still need two more corners for our D.

We just don't need to break the bank.
Why not? So we can watch Green, Holmes, Roaf and Shields retire after next year with nothing to show for it?

We need to do whatever it takes to field a competitive defense.

When you haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, you can take the plunge and break the bank.

Surtain or Law would both be awesome. I think some of you have gotten so accustomed to the trash the Chiefs put on the field defensively that it's clouded your judgement as to what true talent really is.

DenverChief
02-02-2005, 01:23 AM
Why not? So we can watch Green, Holmes, Roaf and Shields retire after next year with nothing to show for it?

We need to do whatever it takes to field a competitive defense.

When you haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, you can take the plunge and break the bank.

Surtain or Law would both be awesome. I think some of you have gotten so accustomed to the trash the Chiefs put on the field defensively that it's clouded your judgement as to what true talent really is.you really think Green and Holmes are 1 and done?

tk13
02-02-2005, 01:30 AM
you really think Green and Holmes are 1 and done?
I think Holmes, Shields, and Roaf are definite possibilities. I'm not so sure about Trent simply because it took him a long time to even become a starter, he doesn't have as much mileage on him and I doubt he feels his career is as "complete" as some of the other guys around his age that have started for 10-12 some odd years....

DenverChief
02-02-2005, 01:34 AM
I think Holmes, Shields, and Roaf are definite possibilities. I'm not so sure about Trent simply because it took him a long time to even become a starter, he doesn't have as much mileage on him and I doubt he feels his career is as "complete" as some of the other guys around his age that have started for 10-12 some odd years....

I think Priest is in the same boat too though I mean spent 4 years in Balt 3 as a backup right?

Pants
02-02-2005, 01:34 AM
I see Priest and Trent staying longer. Like I said multiple times, Priest is a man who likes to set/break records, that shit drives him.

Miles
02-02-2005, 01:34 AM
What do you guys think it would take to get Surtain? Would LJ be enough?

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 01:35 AM
Why not? So we can watch Green, Holmes, Roaf and Shields retire after next year with nothing to show for it?

We need to do whatever it takes to field a competitive defense.

When you haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, you can take the plunge and break the bank.

Surtain or Law would both be awesome. I think some of you have gotten so accustomed to the trash the Chiefs put on the field defensively that it's clouded your judgement as to what true talent really is.

No, I meant we don't need to break the bank on ONE PLAYER, preventing us from getting others.

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 01:38 AM
All this talk about retirements is leading to one thing, too. Vermeil is gone after this year. He's talking at least half the offense with him, IMO.

Trent isn't going to play for another coach in another offensive system.....hell, none of these older guys want to stick around for a rebuilding process.

As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jurassic Park:

"Hold on to ya butts."

http://www.geocities.com/dinoworldlk/cast_jackson.jpg

ENDelt260
02-02-2005, 01:45 AM
you have a left and a right nutsack? :hmmm: have you thought about porn?
Or Jim Rose?

tk13
02-02-2005, 02:03 AM
All this talk about retirements is leading to one thing, too. Vermeil is gone after this year. He's talking at least half the offense with him, IMO.

Trent isn't going to play for another coach in another offensive system.....

That's a bit overdramatic.... I think Trent will play when Al Saunders is the head coach, if anything it'll probably be a more pass friendly offense....

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 02:04 AM
That's a bit overdramatic.... I think Trent will play when Al Saunders is the head coach, if anything it'll probably be a more pass friendly offense....

Al Saunders isn't going to be the head coach. At least not here.

Stop homering it up, guys. They're gone after this year.

OldTownChief
02-02-2005, 02:08 AM
Al Saunders isn't going to be the head coach. At least not here.

Stop homering it up, guys. They're gone after this year.

As sad as it is I tend to agree with you. After this coming season it's mid 80's all over again.

tk13
02-02-2005, 02:13 AM
Al Saunders isn't going to be the head coach. At least not here.

Stop homering it up, guys. They're gone after this year.
Homer my ass, we aren't keeping him away from places like Nebraska by paying him $1 million dollars a year to prune trees once DV retires... Saunders made more money than Mike Tice made last year. I don't think it's 100% certain by any means, but he's certainly the favorite.

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 02:14 AM
As sad as it is I tend to agree with you. After this coming season it's mid 80's all over again.

That depends on the new GM and head coach.

OldTownChief
02-02-2005, 02:16 AM
That depends on the new GM and head coach.


Is Lamar gonna die before than?

David.
02-02-2005, 02:18 AM
Homer my ass, we aren't keeping him away from places like Nebraska by paying him $1 million dollars a year to prune trees once DV retires... Saunders made more money than Mike Tice made last year. I don't think it's 100% certain by any means, but he's certainly the favorite.

exactly. Whether we like it or not, saunders is probably gonna be here after dv.

Miles
02-02-2005, 02:22 AM
exactly. Whether we like it or not, saunders is probably gonna be here after dv.

Yeah it would probably take a complete failure next season for him not to be around. So long as we make the playoffs he will be the heavy favorite by the front office to replace DV.

OldTownChief
02-02-2005, 02:26 AM
Yeah it would probably take a complete failure next season for him not to be around. So long as we make the playoffs he will be the heavy favorite by the front office to replace DV.

That might be a good thing depending on who the new GM will be.

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 02:32 AM
exactly. Whether we like it or not, saunders is probably gonna be here after dv.

Guess again. Vermeil and Peterson are both gone.

New GM means new head coach means new assistant coaches.

OldTownChief
02-02-2005, 02:37 AM
Guess again. Vermeil and Peterson are both gone.

New GM means new head coach means new assistant coaches.


Again I ask, Is Lamar slated to die before the end of next season?

tk13
02-02-2005, 02:38 AM
Guess again. Vermeil and Peterson are both gone.

New GM means new head coach means new assistant coaches.
Denny Thum becomes the GM... Al becomes the head coach, life goes on.

The only way this doesn't happen I think is if Clark Hunt completely takes over and just whacks everybody. I don't think that's out of the question, but who knows.... I can see Carl staying with the organization in some other role like Jack Steadman has.

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 02:41 AM
Again I ask, Is Lamar slated to die before the end of next season?

No, but what difference does that make?

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 02:41 AM
Denny Thum becomes the GM... Al becomes the head coach, life goes on.

I really hope that doesn't happen...we're in for the dark ages if it does.

tk13
02-02-2005, 02:48 AM
I really hope that doesn't happen...we're in for the dark ages if it does.
Maybe not... I don't think this organization has ever been much about major overhauls. I could see there being massive changes if Clark takes 100% control, or if Carl just up and quits altogether. I half-expect him just to slide into his "President" role and leave the GM duties and title officially to Denny Thum.

Manila-Chief
02-02-2005, 04:40 AM
That depends on the new GM and head coach.

Well, if we completly fall apart again next season, Lamar/Clark just may fire CP, and I half way look for him to retire. He has been in this job for a long time and I doubt he needs the money.

But, if Kingless stays on the job there is an excellent chance that A.S. will be come our next H.C.

You guys are going to hammer me but I'd rather see Gun than A.S. Gun got his feet wet and for the last 3 years has had a chance to see the H.C. position from different eyes. So, If Kingless stays I'd just as soon give him his second chance.

But, my preference is for all of them to be gone after next year .... now, one condition ... we win the S.B. and D.V. comes back to prove we can do it 3 years in a row!!!

But, this thread is about CB's .... Kingless get us a least one shut down corner who can play under the present rules!!!!

Gaz
02-02-2005, 06:31 AM
... Kingless get us a least one shut down corner who can play under the present rules!!!!

The present rules preclude a “shutdown corner.” There is no such thing.

Welcome to the modern NFL.

xoxo~
Gaz
Wonders why some folks did not get the memo.

Gaz
02-02-2005, 06:45 AM
While I agree that we need CB help [Bartee, McCleon & Battle...nuff said], our money is better spent on a position where the player is actually allowed to do something. The NFL is slowly but surely turning the CB position into another Safety. The CB cannot touch the WR, all he can to is make the tackle after the completion. Actually, he cannot even get close to the WR lest the WR fall down on purpose and draw a flag. Good old Oscar McCaffrey would have been a world-class WR under this system.

So, it makes no sense to spend beaucoup bucks on a CB. Once again, I direct your attention to Champ Bailey [heh…it cracks me up every time I think of Denver paying out megabucks for that guy]. Get this “shutdown corner” nonsense out of your heads. We need a solid CB who is better than Bartee or McCleon. Anything more is a waste of money and cap room.

The big bucks need to go for a veteran LB. Personally, I am thinking MLB. The NFL has not yet castrated Linebackers, so THAT is where our major FA cash and cap should go.

Given a choice between a “Pro-Bowl” LB or CB, the answer is clear. Go with the Linebacker.

At least the NFL will let him do his job.

xoxo~
Gaz
Taking what the NFL allows.

mcan
02-02-2005, 07:00 AM
I don't think they come better than Bailey either...the guy is a gamer and he has been rendered an above average player at best by the NFL's contact rules.


People see Champ Bailey's 3 interceptions and think he had a bad year. Well, I guess by that logic, Eric Warfield is 25% better than Champ Bailey since Eric got 4 interceptions.

I also keep hearing that Champ Bailey didn't help the Denver defense. That argument is just plain wrong and borderline stupid. Here are the stats that you should keep in mind.

Denver's defensive backs (as a unit) allowed a 56.2% completion rate on the season. That was the SIXTH best mark for all teams in the NFL. Consequently the Chiefs allowed a 59.8% completion rate. Good enought to put them in the middle of the road at FIFTEENTH overall.

Those numbers look quite close, but they aren't in the long run (over the course of a whole season). It's better to look at it like this.

BEST COMP % = score of 10 (Arizona 53.7%)
WORST COMP % = score of 0 (Indianapolis 65.4%)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 7.65
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 4.25

That makes us look pretty bleak, IMO, and Denver pretty decent...

Now, we take a look at passing touchdowns given up. That's the big one. The Denver defense gave up just 17 touchdowns through the air, that's good for the NFL's fourth best mark. The Chiefs, on the other hand gave up 32 touchdowns through the air, good enough to land at the NFL's 30th best spot (or should I see 3rd worst).

Again, just to put it into perspective, we'll grade it out the same way.

BEST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 10 (Baltimore/Pittsburgh 14)
WORST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 0 (Green Bay 33)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 8.27
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = .56

mcan
02-02-2005, 07:07 AM
I hope people are paying attention to those last stats... If we had Champ Bailey even on an off year (or any other really great corner) we could have been as good as the Denver backfield. That would be a difference of 105 points over the season... Or, just over 6 1/2 points per game and one less big play/first down given up per game...

1adam1238
02-02-2005, 07:13 AM
People see Champ Bailey's 3 interceptions and think he had a bad year. Well, I guess by that logic, Eric Warfield is 25% better than Champ Bailey since Eric got 4 interceptions.

I also keep hearing that Champ Bailey didn't help the Denver defense. That argument is just plain wrong and borderline stupid. Here are the stats that you should keep in mind.

Denver's defensive backs (as a unit) allowed a 56.2% completion rate on the season. That was the SIXTH best mark for all teams in the NFL. Consequently the Chiefs allowed a 59.8% completion rate. Good enought to put them in the middle of the road at FIFTEENTH overall.

Those numbers look quite close, but they aren't in the long run (over the course of a whole season). It's better to look at it like this.

BEST COMP % = score of 10 (Arizona 53.7%)
WORST COMP % = score of 0 (Indianapolis 65.4%)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 7.65
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 4.25

That makes us look pretty bleak, IMO, and Denver pretty decent...

Now, we take a look at passing touchdowns given up. That's the big one. The Denver defense gave up just 17 touchdowns through the air, that's good for the NFL's fourth best mark. The Chiefs, on the other hand gave up 32 touchdowns through the air, good enough to land at the NFL's 30th best spot (or should I see 3rd worst).

Again, just to put it into perspective, we'll grade it out the same way.

BEST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 10 (Baltimore/Pittsburgh 14)
WORST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 0 (Green Bay 33)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 8.27
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = .56
Nice breakdown and excellent points made.

bkkcoh
02-02-2005, 07:24 AM
Nice breakdown and excellent points made.


Just out of curiosity, how well did the Denver d-line play compared to KC's, tackles for loss and/or sacks?

:hmmm:

milkman
02-02-2005, 07:31 AM
People see Champ Bailey's 3 interceptions and think he had a bad year. Well, I guess by that logic, Eric Warfield is 25% better than Champ Bailey since Eric got 4 interceptions.

I also keep hearing that Champ Bailey didn't help the Denver defense. That argument is just plain wrong and borderline stupid. Here are the stats that you should keep in mind.

Denver's defensive backs (as a unit) allowed a 56.2% completion rate on the season. That was the SIXTH best mark for all teams in the NFL. Consequently the Chiefs allowed a 59.8% completion rate. Good enought to put them in the middle of the road at FIFTEENTH overall.

Those numbers look quite close, but they aren't in the long run (over the course of a whole season). It's better to look at it like this.

BEST COMP % = score of 10 (Arizona 53.7%)
WORST COMP % = score of 0 (Indianapolis 65.4%)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 7.65

Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 4.25

That makes us look pretty bleak, IMO, and Denver pretty decent...

Now, we take a look at passing touchdowns given up. That's the big one. The Denver defense gave up just 17 touchdowns through the air, that's good for the NFL's fourth best mark. The Chiefs, on the other hand gave up 32 touchdowns through the air, good enough to land at the NFL's 30th best spot (or should I see 3rd worst).

Again, just to put it into perspective, we'll grade it out the same way.

BEST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 10 (Baltimore/Pittsburgh 14)
WORST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 0 (Green Bay 33)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 8.27
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = .56

I don't think those stats really show us anything that we don't already know.
What would really show the kind of impact that Bailey had is a comparison between last year's Donkeys and the 2003 Donkeys.

I'd be really surprised to find out that the numbers aren't comparable.

The other comparison that I'd like to see is the Pats/Donkeys.

Bowser
02-02-2005, 07:42 AM
Guess again. Vermeil and Peterson are both gone.

New GM means new head coach means new assistant coaches.

I disagree with this. Why would a new GM walk in here and whack Saunders and his entire staff? Just because they aren't "his" guys? Bah. What Saunders and his staff have been able to accomplish with this offense minus any real impact wide receivers is truly amazing. Any GM that can't see that, or know the respect Saunders must carry with the team for what he has accomplished isn't worthy of being a GM.

And while I'm on this, I wouldn't mind seeing Al get a crack at being head coach here. I think he has the passion for it, and the will to succeed. The one area I think he may actually be stronger than Vermeil in is that he might not be loyal to a fault.

mcan
02-02-2005, 07:48 AM
At your command:


Donkeys: 17 TDs, 56.2% completion rate
Patriots: 18 TDs, 58.6% completion rate

Keep in mind that Ty Law was suffering injuries, but these stats do not lie, and completion rate has nothing to do with score, or how often they pass. Purely, the Denver defensive backfield was better than the New England defensive backfield this year, by a slight margin. That said, New England got more pressure on opposing QBs (45 sacks vs 38), therefore they caused more turnovers. The New England defense had 20 interceptions and Denver only had 12. Again, this is not necessarily a measure of talent on the defensive backs. The true test is completion percentage. Interceptions happen when a QB is pressured or a ball is tipped, or a reciever runs a wrong route. Knocked down balls happen when the reciever is perfectly covered.



If you're still wondering KC had 41 sacks and was able to pick off 13 balls. Again, that's one more than Denver had, but clearly Denver has the better backfield. Even with corners as bad as ours, you are still going to wind up in the right spot every once in awhile when your defensive front four puts that much pressure on the quarterbacks. 41 sacks is pretty damned good... (seventh best in the NFL)

DaWolf
02-02-2005, 07:52 AM
It is critical IMO for us to upgrade the corner spot with a veteran impact player. I look at the Rams in 2001 having to revamp a horrid defense from 2000, and their cornerstone move in doing it was trading for Aneas Williams. We need to do something similar. I don't think we need to spend exorbarant amounts of money at the LB spot, I look at a San Diego or what the Rams did that year and the LB spot is easier to upgrade with solid vets at a reasonable price. We don't have to go crazy and lavish money on another Shawn Barber. The corner though, that's a spot we need to spend money on, if we can't spend it on a premier pass rusher. We need to upgrade at both those spots, and I'd spend the money or compensation to make that impact upgrade at one or both of those spots, and sign some solid vets to come in and play solid, fundamental, get to the ball and make the tackle linebackers...

Bowser
02-02-2005, 07:54 AM
Did Aneas Williams ever play corner for the Rams? Or has he just been a safety?

milkman
02-02-2005, 07:54 AM
At your command:


Donkeys: 17 TDs, 56.2% completion rate
Patriots: 18 TDs, 58.6% completion rate

Keep in mind that Ty Law was suffering injuries, but these stats do not lie, and completion rate has nothing to do with score, or how often they pass. Purely, the Denver defensive backfield was better than the New England defensive backfield this year, by a slight margin. That said, New England got more pressure on opposing QBs (45 sacks vs 38), therefore they caused more turnovers. The New England defense had 20 interceptions and Denver only had 12. Again, this is not necessarily a measure of talent on the defensive backs. The true test is completion percentage. Interceptions happen when a QB is pressured or a ball is tipped, or a reciever runs a wrong route. Knocked down balls happen when the reciever is perfectly covered.



If you're still wondering KC had 41 sacks and was able to pick off 13 balls. Again, that's one more than Denver had, but clearly Denver has the better backfield. Even with corners as bad as ours, you are still going to wind up in the right spot every once in awhile when your defensive front four puts that much pressure on the quarterbacks. 41 sacks is pretty damned good... (seventh best in the NFL)

Stats are misleading, but these stats would indicate that the completion percentage isn't all that important, since NE is among the top 10 in total D, and heading to the SB.

Chief Faithful
02-02-2005, 07:55 AM
I hope people are paying attention to those last stats... If we had Champ Bailey even on an off year (or any other really great corner) we could have been as good as the Denver backfield. That would be a difference of 105 points over the season... Or, just over 6 1/2 points per game and one less big play/first down given up per game...

I absolutely agree with your assessment even in the context of the current rules. While it is true that the Chiefs need a quality MLB they have some talent that did show signficant growth through the season. The secondary on the other hand is one of the worst in NFL history and is not showing any signs of improvement. I still maintain, which your stats seem to back up, if the Chiefs had Champ Bailey across from Warfield the Chiefs would have won at least 3 more games, been in the playoffs, and Gunther would have been a KC hero.

While the Chiefs are more than 1 player from being a top Defense I believe they where one CB away from making the playoffs last season.

CP - FIX THE SECONDARY!

mcan
02-02-2005, 07:58 AM
I don't think those stats really show us anything that we don't already know.
What would really show the kind of impact that Bailey had is a comparison between last year's Donkeys and the 2003 Donkeys.

I'd be really surprised to find out that the numbers aren't comparable.



Surprise, surprise...


2003 Donkeys: 17 TDs 53.5% completion
2004 Donkeys: 17 TDs 56.2% completion


So there you have it... You are exactly right! Nice instinct. They did have fewer sacks and interceptions, but that isn't really the point. They were pretty darned good both years! Interesting... Anybody remember who the starting corners were for the Broncos last year? It's hard to believe that they could have been that good without some decent talent.

milkman
02-02-2005, 08:00 AM
It is critical IMO for us to upgrade the corner spot with a veteran impact player. I look at the Rams in 2001 having to revamp a horrid defense from 2000, and their cornerstone move in doing it was trading for Aneas Williams. We need to do something similar. I don't think we need to spend exorbarant amounts of money at the LB spot, I look at a San Diego or what the Rams did that year and the LB spot is easier to upgrade with solid vets at a reasonable price. We don't have to go crazy and lavish money on another Shawn Barber. The corner though, that's a spot we need to spend money on, if we can't spend it on a premier pass rusher. We need to upgrade at both those spots, and I'd spend the money or compensation to make that impact upgrade at one or both of those spots, and sign some solid vets to come in and play solid, fundamental, get to the ball and make the tackle linebackers...

I think the most critical need is to find players, regardless of position, that are physical, intimidating hitters, and solid tacklers fundamentally.

I think that's where both Philly and NE excel.

Kris Kringle
02-02-2005, 08:03 AM
Law......Surtain.......where's the Smoot talk?

mcan
02-02-2005, 08:04 AM
Stats are misleading, but these stats would indicate that the completion percentage isn't all that important, since NE is among the top 10 in total D, and heading to the SB.


I only said that completion percentage is the best stat to look at when evaluating a secondary... NOT interceptions. The fact is, Denver's secondary did their job this year, and gave up very few points. Fewer than the vaunted NE Patriots, who will probably bring home the trophy again this year because they are just about as good in the secondary, but far and away better on the front seven at creating pressure and stopping the run.

mcan
02-02-2005, 08:08 AM
I think the most critical need is to find players, regardless of position, that are physical, intimidating hitters, and solid tacklers fundamentally.

I think that's where both Philly and NE excel.


That's true, but I put more of a value on intelligence. We need players who will know where to be, so they won't waste movement. That's our biggest problem right now. Corners and linebackers who waste movement because they suck at reading plays. Watch NE's linebackers play next week, and see how they instinctively get to the right spot on the field to make the play. They don't run into each other. They don't blow coverages. They communicate on the field...

It's exactly that attitude that makes Priest Holmes and our offensive line so damned good. They play smart and don't waste movement.

milkman
02-02-2005, 08:15 AM
That's true, but I put more of a value on intelligence. We need players who will know where to be, so they won't waste movement. That's our biggest problem right now. Corners and linebackers who waste movement because they suck at reading plays. Watch NE's linebackers play next week, and see how they instinctively get to the right spot on the field to make the play. They don't run into each other. They don't blow coverages. They communicate on the field...

It's exactly that attitude that makes Priest Holmes and our offensive line so damned good. They play smart and don't waste movement.

I agree with this.
Lack of intelligience is the major issue with Mitchell and Bartee.
They both have the physical tools.
They just have terrible instincts.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 08:52 AM
I would imagine that Surtain will be part of the expected trade to Indy for James. Their defense certainly needs help.

DaWolf
02-02-2005, 09:21 AM
Did Aneas Williams ever play corner for the Rams? Or has he just been a safety?
I believe they moved him to safety in later seasons when he had some injury problems...

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 09:24 AM
Law......Surtain.......where's the Smoot talk?

Hey, that's a great idea...sign all THREE; Smoot can play Nickle. :hmmm:

Cochise
02-02-2005, 09:29 AM
I believe they moved him to safety in later seasons when he had some injury problems...

He played corner for like 1 week last year, but he's been a saftey for a while I think.

I think he's also the oldest active non-kicker in the NFL. (heard something like that on the rams/falcons game) He was a rookie in 1991.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 09:29 AM
If they are Free Agents yes we should go after them, if we have to give up picks No way can we do it

Dr. Van Halen
02-02-2005, 10:01 AM
Surprise, surprise...


2003 Donkeys: 17 TDs 53.5% completion
2004 Donkeys: 17 TDs 56.2% completion


So there you have it... You are exactly right! Nice instinct. They did have fewer sacks and interceptions, but that isn't really the point. They were pretty darned good both years! Interesting... Anybody remember who the starting corners were for the Broncos last year? It's hard to believe that they could have been that good without some decent talent.

I think you guys are glossing over this stat, which is a shame as it is rather important. This stat tells us that Champ Bailey made absolutely no meaningful impact on the Denver Broncos. In fact, they were slightly worse this year after adding Bailey.

This statistic tells me that blowing a wad on a big free-agent corner would be a waste. Personally, I think that's crap and would love to have a big-name corner. What's more, this tempts me to arrive at the conclusion that team statistics to justify the performance of an individual player are silly.

milkman
02-02-2005, 10:12 AM
I think you guys are glossing over this stat, which is a shame as it is rather important. This stat tells us that Champ Bailey made absolutely no meaningful impact on the Denver Broncos. In fact, they were slightly worse this year after adding Bailey.

This statistic tells me that blowing a wad on a big free-agent corner would be a waste. Personally, I think that's crap and would love to have a big-name corner. What's more, this tempts me to arrive at the conclusion that team statistics to justify the performance of an individual player are silly.

I think the thing those stats point out is that a CB can not have the impact that some think he can.

We clearly need secondary help, but for our D to have any hope of any real improvement, we need players in every facet of D, and shouldn't put all of our cash into a position that won't have that much impact without help elsewhere.

Lzen
02-02-2005, 10:19 AM
I would love to see one of these CBs in red and gold. Remember, James Hasty was 30 years old when he came here. And he ended up playing for the Chiefs for 6 years.

I think all the peopel saying the passing rules make CBs ineffective are way off base. There are still good CBs that make life difficult on the opposing offense. Surely, Surtain or Law would never have had a night like Bartee had against Tennessee. :shake:

Gaz
02-02-2005, 10:21 AM
Too many folks see a need at CB and immediately shift into “spend whatever it takes to get [Insert Overhyped Player Here] in Red & Gold” mode. These people are ignoring the role of the CB in the “screw Defense, gimme the points” NFL.

We have immediate needs at CB, OLB & MLB.

Of those [3] “need” positions, CB is the one where a “Pro-Bowl level” player yields only a marginal increase in impact over a second-tier player [NFL rules, Champ Bailey, so forth].

xoxo~
Gaz
Wants a FA CB, but does not value him as much as a MLB.

Ultra Peanut
02-02-2005, 10:25 AM
Vrei sa pleci dar nu ma, nu ma iei,
Nu ma, nu ma iei, nu ma, nu ma, nu ma iei.
Chipul tau si dragostea din tei,
Mi-amintesc de ochii tai.

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2005, 10:37 AM
Too many folks see a need at CB and immediately shift into “spend whatever it takes to get [Insert Overhyped Player Here] in Red & Gold” mode. These people are ignoring the role of the CB in the “screw Defense, gimme the points” NFL.

We have immediate needs at CB, OLB & MLB.

Of those [3] “need” positions, CB is the one where a “Pro-Bowl level” player will a marginal increase in impact over a second-tier player [NFL rules, Champ Bailey, so forth].

xoxo~
Gaz
Wants a FA CB, but does not value him as much as a MLB.

You and I think the same here. I keep reading Oakland fans wanting to resign Woodson. Besides his off field crap ( lastest charges dropped :rolleyes: ) I can't see paying 10 million to a position that has been outlawed in the NFL.

Put the dollars in the front 7 on defense. Champ Baily is still a great CB and has not lost his ability, he has been handcuffed with the way they are calling the rules now. Generate a pass rush force QBs to make mistakes and stop the run.

BigRedChief
02-02-2005, 11:13 AM
Agree. Since the rule change the "shut down" corners importance to a defense has lessened. Look at the playoffs last weekend. What did you notice? Linebackers flying all over the place making plays. Hopefully the Chiefs will notice and act accordingly.

brent102fire
02-02-2005, 11:47 AM
It will never happen. DV and CP have said repeatedly that they think FA is overrated and risky. They both have said the current players on the Chiefs Team, including the defense, need another year to improve. Also, DV does not want to mess with team chemistry as he stated in his final press conference. I don't see the Chiefs being very proactive at all. I am not expecting them to sign any big name FA's. :shake:

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 11:56 AM
People see Champ Bailey's 3 interceptions and think he had a bad year. Well, I guess by that logic, Eric Warfield is 25% better than Champ Bailey since Eric got 4 interceptions.

I also keep hearing that Champ Bailey didn't help the Denver defense. That argument is just plain wrong and borderline stupid. Here are the stats that you should keep in mind.

Denver's defensive backs (as a unit) allowed a 56.2% completion rate on the season. That was the SIXTH best mark for all teams in the NFL. Consequently the Chiefs allowed a 59.8% completion rate. Good enought to put them in the middle of the road at FIFTEENTH overall.

Those numbers look quite close, but they aren't in the long run (over the course of a whole season). It's better to look at it like this.

BEST COMP % = score of 10 (Arizona 53.7%)
WORST COMP % = score of 0 (Indianapolis 65.4%)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 7.65
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 4.25

That makes us look pretty bleak, IMO, and Denver pretty decent...

Now, we take a look at passing touchdowns given up. That's the big one. The Denver defense gave up just 17 touchdowns through the air, that's good for the NFL's fourth best mark. The Chiefs, on the other hand gave up 32 touchdowns through the air, good enough to land at the NFL's 30th best spot (or should I see 3rd worst).

Again, just to put it into perspective, we'll grade it out the same way.

BEST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 10 (Baltimore/Pittsburgh 14)
WORST TOUCHDOWN MARK = score of 0 (Green Bay 33)

Denver's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = 8.27
Kansas City's defensive backfield ranking as a unit = .56

Interesting point. But completely void of value.

Notice that your two last-place team (Indy and Green Bay) MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

We need to STOP THE RUN.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:08 PM
Law......Surtain.......where's the Smoot talk?

SMOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!! :p

Count Alex's Wins
02-02-2005, 12:09 PM
Interesting point. But completely void of value.

Notice that your two last-place team (Indy and Green Bay) MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

We need to STOP THE RUN.

Yeah but we still need to address our corner situation.

Rausch
02-02-2005, 12:18 PM
No position oun our team lacks talent like CB...

Every team just lobs the ball deep on whatever CB is on the field opposite Warfield and it's a completeion.

You can't say that of any other position. No team says "Just run it up the middle and their DT's/LB's suck, it'll be good for 4 yards."

No team says "Run it to the outside, their DE's/OLB's suck. It's an easy 4."

They do say that about our CB's.

If you have the 5th best pass rush in the NFL and STILL can't ****ing cover your CB's are terrible.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:23 PM
Interesting point. But completely void of value.

Notice that your two last-place team (Indy and Green Bay) MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

We need to STOP THE RUN.

Not to mention the completion percentages was not the main problem with the Chiefs defense, it was giving up the big play.

Lets consider that those average completion percentages and attempts per game being fairly close BUT the average yards per game were almost 80 yards more.

A lot of that comes from sending so many on the blitz and nobody getting to the QB in time leaving a mismatch in man coverage.

That is where Bailey helped the Denver secondary.

As far as the run we were 31st in average yards per rush, yet at the other end of the spectrum were 4th in the least attempts per game.

Why???

Easy, teams knew they could exploit the secondary so they just threw the ball.

Bottom line, out of 522 total pass attempts 4203 total yards were accrud against the KC pass defense during the whole season.

That equals an 8.1 yards per attempt average not even taking completions into the factor, thats just attempts.

Pretty good odds eh?

I am fairly certain that most offensive coordinators thought so.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:27 PM
I would also like to point out that with the amount of passes completed versus the amount of passing TDs giving up there was almost a 10% (9.75) chance that if you completed a pass against the KC secondary you would score a touchdown.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:28 PM
All the while we were 8th in the league in sacks and 11th in total sack yardage.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:31 PM
No position oun our team lacks talent like CB...

Every team just lobs the ball deep on whatever CB is on the field opposite Warfield and it's a completeion.

You can't say that of any other position. No team says "Just run it up the middle and their DT's/LB's suck, it'll be good for 4 yards."

No team says "Run it to the outside, their DE's/OLB's suck. It's an easy 4."

They do say that about our CB's.

If you have the 5th best pass rush in the NFL and STILL can't ****ing cover your CB's are terrible.

Funny thing is that they actually could have.

If you look at the statistics we were giving up a 4.6 average yards per rush although much like the pass defense a lot of that came from big long runs.

The primary reason they didn't exploit that (see the rush attempt numbers) is because it was almost certain that you could pass for 250 yards against the chiefs pass defense on any given day.

chiefsfolife
02-02-2005, 12:36 PM
bottom line is it isnt a new rule just enforced now and someone is going to have to play corner...the better he playes the position then the better are defense is.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 12:55 PM
I'm not saying we should ignore the CB position.

But if we spend a ton of money on Law or Surtain and ignore the LB position, we'll be right back here next offseason, bitching about not making the playoffs...

Gaz
02-02-2005, 01:40 PM
Bottom line: it makes no difference whether it is a new rule or a new interpretation of an existing rule. The net result is the same. CBs are not allowed to do anything except tackle the WR after the completion.

A Pro-Bowl LB has more impact under the current NFL rules than a Pro-Bowl CB. For those of you who still don’t get it, see Champ Bailey [heh].

Yes, we need a veteran CB to start opposite Warfield. No, we do not need nor want the top CB available. That money and cap is better spent on the top LB available.

xoxo~
Gaz
Doesn’t like it, but…

Hoover
02-02-2005, 01:41 PM
So a beteer FA CB than Carlton Gray is what your saying?

Gaz
02-02-2005, 01:46 PM
Better than Bartee or McCleon is what I am saying.

An upgrade, yes. The best available? No. That would be a waste of money and cap room. [Denver. Heh. Denver]


Get used to the zone, folks. The NFL is killing man coverage and castrating the CB position. Best start dealing with it.

xoxo~
Gaz
Dealing as best he can.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 01:48 PM
Bottom line: it makes no difference whether it is a new rule or a new interpretation of an existing rule. The net result is the same. CBs are not allowed to do anything except tackle the WR after the completion.

A Pro-Bowl LB has more impact under the current NFL rules than a Pro-Bowl CB. For those of you who still don’t get it, see Champ Bailey [heh].

Yes, we need a veteran CB to start opposite Warfield. No, we do not need nor want the top CB available. That money and cap is better spent on the top LB available.

xoxo~
Gaz
Doesn’t like it, but…


Gaz, that is not really true, they can also defend passes by trying to make plays on the ball provided no contact is made with the receiver before the ball gets there outside of incidental contact.

They can also blitz and play run support.

Gaz
02-02-2005, 01:53 PM
The rules are overwhelmingly in favor of the WR. You simply cannot expect a CB to make exceptional plays over and over. Put [2] NFL-quality players on the field and give a HUGE advantage to one player. The disadvantaged one will lose the battle most of the time.

As far a blitzing and run support are concerned, a LB is a much more effective tool than CB.

The “shutdown corner” is dead. Long live the zone D.

The CB position is being marginalized. The NFL wants completions and they will get completions, no matter how much they have to tinker with the rules.

Change your off-season plans accordingly.

xoxo~
Gaz
Waiting for reality to sink in.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:00 PM
The rules are overwhelmingly in favor of the WR. You simply cannot expect a CB to make exceptional plays over and over. Put [2] NFL-quality players on the field and give a HUGE advantage to one player. The disadvantaged one will lose the battle most of the time.

As far a blitzing and run support are concerned, a LB is a much more effective tool than CB.

The “shutdown corner” is dead. Long live the zone D.

The CB position is being marginalized. The NFL wants completions and they will get completions, no matter how much they have to tinker with the rules.

Change your off-season plans accordingly.

xoxo~
Gaz
Waiting for reality to sink in.


I am not saying I disagree with you outside of the fact that I always thought the "shutdown corner" was a myth. Just that corners do more than just "tackle a receiver after he catches the pass".

I guess what I was trying to say is that corners will still shine by their athletic ability and instincts.

IE: Bailey is very good, one of the best and primarily because of his athletic abilites. He might not be as effective as he was when refs were looking the other way at receiver mugging but will still be very important and at the top teir of the position.

Linebackers have always been important and becoming more important every year with the surgence of zone coverage. Having linebackers that can't cover a pass in the flat or 10 yards and below in the zone will kill you.

Either way I say we need help badly in both places but I believe that the biggest lack of talent is at the #2 corner position.

Coogs
02-02-2005, 02:09 PM
Linebackers have always been important and becoming more important every year with the surgence of zone coverage. Having linebackers that can't cover a pass in the flat or 10 yards and below in the zone will kill you.


The Pats are showing everyone how to play defense with thier 2 DL and 5 LB's on the field IMO. 5 LB's that can tackle stopping the run, and defend the pass seem to be the best course for the new rules involked by the NFL.

If it were me, I would invest heavily in the LB market this offseason.

mcan
02-03-2005, 04:20 AM
Interesting point. But completely void of value.

Notice that your two last-place team (Indy and Green Bay) MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

We need to STOP THE RUN.


Yeah, but look at what happened to them in the playoffs... Don't forget... The Chiefs made the playoffs last year too. Didn't change the fact that we could not stop the Colts.

Manila-Chief
02-03-2005, 05:02 AM
The rules are overwhelmingly in favor of the WR. You simply cannot expect a CB to make exceptional plays over and over. Put [2] NFL-quality players on the field and give a HUGE advantage to one player. The disadvantaged one will lose the battle most of the time.

As far a blitzing and run support are concerned, a LB is a much more effective tool than CB.

The “shutdown corner” is dead. Long live the zone D.

The CB position is being marginalized. The NFL wants completions and they will get completions, no matter how much they have to tinker with the rules.

Change your off-season plans accordingly.

xoxo~
Gaz
Waiting for reality to sink in.


So, Gaz, what are you suggesting? Just give up and let the opposing QB complete passes all day long? Where has that gotten us the last couple of years. You seem to be saying just change our not too good CB's with other cheap not too good CB's. My comment ... why bother.

We need a top quality CB. No, he may not do all CB's used to do but a great one can still make better plays and save more yardage than the ones we had last year. As someone else said ... the name of the game is to cover the WR.

Also, great players learn how to play within the rules. Last year was the first year of actually calling the rules that have been on the book in a very long time. Refs called it many years ago. So, it will take CB's a while to catch on.

And, if we can get a quality CB he will certainly play better than what we put on the field last year and will be better at learning how to cope with the rules.

Yes, we need LB's ... but they are not as fast as the slowest WR ... need CB speed to cover them...

I really think we need a couple great DL as well. It does start up front and so far we don't have any that stand out. Maybe Allen but he needs to develop even more.

htismaqe
02-03-2005, 06:06 AM
Yeah, but look at what happened to them in the playoffs... Don't forget... The Chiefs made the playoffs last year too. Didn't change the fact that we could not stop the Colts.

That's because neither team (like us last year) could stop the run.

htismaqe
02-03-2005, 06:09 AM
So, Gaz, what are you suggesting? Just give up and let the opposing QB complete passes all day long? Where has that gotten us the last couple of years. You seem to be saying just change our not too good CB's with other cheap not too good CB's. My comment ... why bother.


He's not saying that AT ALL.

He's saying don't bother spending the money on a GREAT CB, when you can get a good one.

Look earlier in this very thread -- the Broncos gave up a truckload of cash and their best offensive player to get Champ Bailey.

The net result was a 3% WORSE opponent completion percentage, the same number of TD's allowed, and the same ass-whipping they got in the playoffs last year.

Gaz
02-03-2005, 08:39 AM
He's not saying that AT ALL.

He's saying don't bother spending the money on a GREAT CB, when you can get a good one.

Look earlier in this very thread -- the Broncos gave up a truckload of cash and their best offensive player to get Champ Bailey.

The net result was a 3% WORSE opponent completion percentage, the same number of TD's allowed, and the same ass-whipping they got in the playoffs last year.

Thank you, htismaqe.

And before someone else misinterprets my take, let me clarify that a "Pro-Bowl" CB has better skills than a second-tier CB. In a perfect world, where CBs are equal to WRs, I would not have a problem with going after the best CB available. Our pass D stunk last season.

Sadly, this is not a perfect world. This is the modern NFL, where completions are king. The advantages conferred on the WRs is so lopsided that it negates the difference in ability between an good CB and an outstanding CB.

I shall take yet another moment to giggle about Champ Bailey and what a crappy move that was for the Predominantly Orange...

Heh.

The increased impact on the field of a "Pro-Bowl" CB over a solid second-tier CB is negilgible because of the "new" PI rules. The increased cost is HUGE. This disparity means we should not spend megabucks for a CB.

xoxo~
Gaz
Living in that pesky old imperfect world.

philfree
02-03-2005, 09:30 AM
I'm not saying we should ignore the CB position.

But if we spend a ton of money on Law or Surtain and ignore the LB position, we'll be right back here next offseason, bitching about not making the playoffs...


I don't know but when I try to imagine our 2004 D with Law or Surtain playing in Bartees spot I see nothing but improvement. Take Laws average number of INTs per year over his career and apply to Bartees position and our D is tons better. Yeah it'd be better with an average CB playing in that spot too but Law or Surtain will bring immediate credibility to our D. We need that badly on this D. The way contracts are done I think we can work a deal that couldbe cap friendly the 1st couple of years witch would allow us to also pursue a WLB in in free agency as well.

PhilFree :arrow:

htismaqe
02-03-2005, 09:33 AM
I don't know but when I try to imagine our 2004 D with Law or Surtain playing in Bartees spot I see nothing but improvement. Take Laws average number of INTs per year over his career and apply to Bartees position and our D is tons better. Yeah it'd be better with an average CB playing in that spot too but Law or Surtain will bring immediate credibility to our D. We need that badly on this D. The way contracts are done I think we can work a deal that couldbe cap friendly the 1st couple of years witch would allow us to also pursue a WLB in in free agency as well.

PhilFree :arrow:

How exactly is Law or Surtain, all by themselves, going to help fix a defense that allowed almost 5 yards per carry on the ground for the 3rd season in a row?

I feel like a broken record, but some people just never seem to get the memo...

In the last 15 years, only 3 or 4 Super Bowl teams have had top 10 pass defenses...

All BUT 3 or 4 had top 10 run defenses.

I'm all for bringing in Law or Surtain, as long as we still have room left to add a couple of REAL linebackers...

TEX
02-03-2005, 09:34 AM
Thank you, htismaqe.

And before someone else misinterprets my take, let me clarify that a "Pro-Bowl" CB has better skills than a second-tier CB. In a perfect world, where CBs are equal to WRs, I would not have a problem with going after the best CB available. Our pass D stunk last season.

Sadly, this is not a perfect world. This is the modern NFL, where completions are king. The advantages conferred on the WRs is so lopsided that it negates the difference in ability between an good CB and an outstanding CB.

I shall take yet another moment to giggle about Champ Bailey and what a crappy move that was for the Predominantly Orange...

Heh.

The increased impact on the field of a "Pro-Bowl" CB over a solid second-tier CB is negilgible because of the "new" PI rules. The increased cost is HUGE. This disparity means we should not spend megabucks for a CB.

xoxo~
Gaz
Living in that pesky old imperfect world.



Exactly! :thumb: Give me a couple of good LB's and good CB and I'll take my chances with this _efense next year.

philfree
02-03-2005, 10:01 AM
How exactly is Law or Surtain, all by themselves, going to help fix a defense that allowed almost 5 yards per carry on the ground for the 3rd season in a row?

I feel like a broken record, but some people just never seem to get the memo...

In the last 15 years, only 3 or 4 Super Bowl teams have had top 10 pass defenses...

All BUT 3 or 4 had top 10 run defenses.

I'm all for bringing in Law or Surtain, as long as we still have room left to add a couple of REAL linebackers...

Your speculation is that if we go after a pro bowl CB we won't have enough money or won't spend more money on the LB position. Question: Who are the free agent LBs that are gonna be available? Who are we gonna miss out on if we sign a Law or Sutain?

PhilFree :arrow:

htismaqe
02-03-2005, 10:21 AM
Your speculation is that if we go after a pro bowl CB we won't have enough money or won't spend more money on the LB position. Question: Who are the free agent LBs that are gonna be available? Who are we gonna miss out on if we sign a Law or Sutain?

PhilFree :arrow:

I don't know necessarily who will be available. How long have we been talking about Surtain?

Exactly. Guys can come available at ANY TIME in today's NFL, especially when they have a big cap hit.

And that's precisely why my speculation is NOT

"if we sign Law/Surtain we WILL miss out on LB's"

but rather

"I HOPE that if we sign Law/Surtain we WILL NOT miss out on LB's"

go bowe
02-03-2005, 12:30 PM
you have a left and a right nutsack? :hmmm: have you thought about porn?:p :p :p

philfree
02-03-2005, 12:47 PM
I don't know necessarily who will be available. How long have we been talking about Surtain?

Exactly. Guys can come available at ANY TIME in today's NFL, especially when they have a big cap hit.

And that's precisely why my speculation is NOT

"if we sign Law/Surtain we WILL miss out on LB's"

but rather

"I HOPE that if we sign Law/Surtain we WILL NOT miss out on LB's"

Well since we can't sign any free agents or trade for a player yet I don't understand. Right now neither Law or Surtain is a FA though Surtain is up for a trade. There is a good chane however that both will become available this offseason so it warrants looking into perhaps signing one of them. Now I try to stay abreast of players who might become FAs and if I come across a LB who has a good chance of becoming a FA then I will certainly consider him a possibility. Thus far though it seems the players that might become availble who can help us are pro bowl CBs. I won't shy away from them because some unknown LB might become available at a later date. As the trade period and FA approach we'll be learning more about what's available but right now Law and Suratin are the most attractive players to discuss IMO. Of course I'm not in the replace K Mitchell camp so I don't think we need multiple LBs to come in and be starters. Just one, the WLB. We don't really have a WLB............Ramble........ :shrug:

PhilFree :arrow:

Frankie
02-03-2005, 01:04 PM
I'd like to have both. F*ck it. I say go balls to the wall.

That would Surtainly be unLawful