PDA

View Full Version : "2nd tier" Linebackers..what do we know about these guys?


Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 09:55 AM
I'm thinking since we are no longer pursuing Hartwell, perhaps we could sign another LB after we get some secondary help?

What does anyone know/think about these guys:

Tommy Polley
Warrick Holdman
Matt Stewart
Ike Reese


They are all listed as FA's...

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 09:56 AM
We know they are 2nd tier.....which means any one of them could be a chief within a week.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 09:57 AM
Holdman has single-handedly won more games for the Chiefs than any LB on our current roster ;)

I actually would like to see us sign Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincy

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 10:00 AM
Mar. 9 - The Ravens are quietly shopping Peter Boulware around the league, The Baltimore Sun, citing a league source, reports.

But GM Ozzie Newsome denied any trade talk. "At this point, Peter is rehabbing," Newsome told The Sun. Boulware is coming off toe surgery.

Count Alex's Losses
03-09-2005, 10:01 AM
Ike Reese is like a clone of Shawn Barber.

KevB
03-09-2005, 10:02 AM
Holdman has single-handedly won more games for the Chiefs than any LB on our current roster ;)

I actually would like to see us sign Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincy

I think you mean Anthony Simmons, from Seattle. Brian Simmons isn't a free agent. And yes, Simmons does have some talent...although he's also struggled to stay on the field due to injuries.

tyton75
03-09-2005, 10:05 AM
I would actually love us to sign Tommy Polley.. yes he is undersized and will make a mistake here and there.. but he is aggressive and doesnt' seem to shy away from contact... BTW.. he is FAST

I think he would be a great addition on the Weak Side

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 10:07 AM
I would actually love us to sign Tommy Polley.. yes he is undersized and will make a mistake here and there.. but he is aggressive and doesnt' seem to shy away from contact... BTW.. he is FAST

I think he would be a great addition on the Weak Side
K. Mitchell is fast that doesn't always translate to good...

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:08 AM
I think you mean Anthony Simmons, from Seattle. Brian Simmons isn't a free agent. And yes, Simmons does have some talent...although he's also struggled to stay on the field due to injuries.

No, I mean Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincinatti. That's why I said Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincy. If I MEANT Anthony Simmons, OLB, Seattle, that's what I would have said. :p

Someone posted an article here regarding Brian Simmons a while back. He wanted out of Cincy... was even rumored to be a possible June 1 cut.

shaneo69
03-09-2005, 10:08 AM
I'm thinking since we are no longer pursuing Hartwell, perhaps we could sign another LB after we get some secondary help?

What does anyone know/think about these guys:

Tommy Polley
Warrick Holdman
Matt Stewart
Ike Reese


They are all listed as FA's...


The Rams run defense was as bad as ours, and Polley was a big reason for it.

Holdman I wouldn't mind having, won't be 30 until November, and has Carl's buddy Marvin Demoff as an agent. The Bears were talking about bringing him back at the vet's minimum plus incentives.

Stewart? Not a big fan. We killed Atlanta on the ground this year. He's nothing special.

Ike Reese is strictly special teams.

One other 2nd tier guy who may be appealing is Kevin Bentley, formerly of the Browns. I remember before the draft that year, Chuck Cook specifically mentioned him as a guy the Chiefs liked. He's only played 3 yars, so he's still young, and he started his second year before being beat out in 2004 by Chaun Thompson. The Seattle P-I mentioned that the Seahawks were going to have him in for a visit. He was scheduled to be a restricted FA, but the Browns didn't tender him, so he's a UFA.

tomahawk kid
03-09-2005, 10:08 AM
What Holdman looking like these days?

I know the Chiefs signed him to an offer sheet a couple of years back.

kc rush
03-09-2005, 10:09 AM
We know they are 2nd tier.....which means any one of them could be a chief within a week.

Should that read "We know they are 2nd tier.....which means any one of them would be better than what the chiefs have now."

edit - outside of Bell of course.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 10:12 AM
Should that read "We know they are 2nd tier.....which means any one of them would be better than what the chiefs have now."
No it should read they are equal to which would put us right back at #32 overall in defense. If you want to change this D you've got to get play makers not role players.

Mr. Kotter
03-09-2005, 10:12 AM
I'd consider Polley and Holdman, for the right money.

ChiefsCountry
03-09-2005, 10:19 AM
Holdman has single-handedly won more games for the Chiefs than any LB on our current roster ;)

I actually would like to see us sign Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincy

I think you are referring to Dwayne Rudd instead.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:19 AM
I think you are referring to Dwayne Rudd instead.

Shit... was that Rudd?!

KevB
03-09-2005, 10:20 AM
No, I mean Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincinatti. That's why I said Brian Simmons, OLB, Cincy. If I MEANT Anthony Simmons, OLB, Seattle, that's what I would have said. :p

Someone posted an article here regarding Brian Simmons a while back. He wanted out of Cincy... was even rumored to be a possible June 1 cut.

So how can we sign Brian Simmons, as you suggest, if he isnt' a free agent? His contract is through the 2008 season, so I can't imagine they're already looking to cut him. He's one of their best players, hasn't really been injury prone, and he's in his prime. Not to mention, he wouldn't be grouped with these 2nd tier LB's....he'd be a 1st tier guy. :thumb:

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:22 AM
So how can we sign Brian Simmons, as you suggest, if he isnt' a free agent? His contract is through the 2008 season, so I can't imagine they're already looking to cut him. He's one of their best players, hasn't really been injury prone, and he's in his prime. Not to mention, he wouldn't be grouped with these 2nd tier LB's....he'd be a 1st tier guy. :thumb:

We'd probably have to trade for him. Again, someone posted an article here... I'll google his name and see if I can find it. And, btw, I totally agree re: him being a "first tier" LB option - the guy would be a great addition :D

kc rush
03-09-2005, 10:23 AM
No it should read they are equal to which would put us right back at #32 overall in defense. If you want to change this D you've got to get play makers not role players.

I have no problem having role-players on the staff if there are playmakers sprinkled in there to make those around them better.

I don't think anyone would argue that we have one of the top offenses in the league, but our receivers are nothing special. The playmakers on the O-Line, Priest, and Tony G raise the level of play for the outside guys.

Given financial constraints, I would say we NEED to pick up a playmaker at corner and can get by with a role player at linebacker now that Bell is in the middle. I would rather have an established 2nd tier LB than what we have now in Fox and Mitchell. Getting an established LB will allow those guys to provide depth and develop.

PHOG
03-09-2005, 10:23 AM
There's also that McKinnon guy from Arizona.

Up there in years but solid from what I've read. :shrug:

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 10:24 AM
Yep..even with Bell, we have pretty much ZERO depth at linebacker.

Warrior5
03-09-2005, 10:25 AM
So how can we sign Brian Simmons, as you suggest, if he isnt' a free agent? His contract is through the 2008 season, so I can't imagine they're already looking to cut him. He's one of their best players, hasn't really been injury prone, and he's in his prime. Not to mention, he wouldn't be grouped with these 2nd tier LB's....he'd be a 1st tier guy. :thumb:

Crap...color me puzzled; I didn't know Brian Simmons was signed through 08. Could've sworn he was a UFA (had him ranked #3 on my LB wish list).

Thanks for the update KevB.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:28 AM
Crap...color me puzzled; I didn't know Brian Simmons was signed through 08. Could've sworn he was a UFA (had him ranked #3 on my LB wish list).

Thanks for the update KevB.

Yep - they inked him to a long-term deal instead of Spikes (bad move on their part IMO).

I can't find anything on him other than stats via Google. I wsih the search function were on here :(

Warrior5
03-09-2005, 10:31 AM
What about Ayodele (JAX)? Anybody know anything on him?


...obviously needs to update his wishlist.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 10:34 AM
What about Ayodele (JAX)? Anybody know anything on him?


...obviously needs to update his wishlist.

I'm pretty sure Jax tendered an offer to him.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 10:53 AM
I have no problem having role-players on the staff if there are playmakers sprinkled in there to make those around them better.

I don't think anyone would argue that we have one of the top offenses in the league, but our receivers are nothing special. The playmakers on the O-Line, Priest, and Tony G raise the level of play for the outside guys.

Given financial constraints, I would say we NEED to pick up a playmaker at corner and can get by with a role player at linebacker now that Bell is in the middle. I would rather have an established 2nd tier LB than what we have now in Fox and Mitchell. Getting an established LB will allow those guys to provide depth and develop.
I agree we need a playmaker at corner but we also need another playmaker at LB we all ready have roll players at that position...
Polley 2004 78 tac. 13 ass. 3.5 sacks
Holdman 2004 49 29 .5
Mitchell 2004 58 14 1
These are roleplayer numbers all of them. Give me playmakers.

KevB
03-09-2005, 10:54 AM
Crap...color me puzzled; I didn't know Brian Simmons was signed through 08. Could've sworn he was a UFA (had him ranked #3 on my LB wish list).

Thanks for the update KevB.

I still think the other Simmons, Anthony from Seattle (who was recently cut), is a cost effective viable option. He's been injury prone, but all of the free agents have warts at this point. He's got the talent to be a playmaker if healthy.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:57 AM
I still think the other Simmons, Anthony from Seattle (who was recently cut), is a cost effective viable option. He's been injury prone, but all of the free agents have warts at this point. He's got the talent to be a playmaker if healthy.

Sounds exactly like Bell...

KevB
03-09-2005, 10:59 AM
Sounds exactly like Bell...

More on Simmons:
OLB Anthony Simmons (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=citadel-2_356419_114&prov=citadel&type=story)

kc rush
03-09-2005, 11:01 AM
I agree we need a playmaker at corner but we also need another playmaker at LB we all ready have roll players at that position...
Polley 2004 78 tac. 13 ass. 3.5 sacks
Holdman 2004 49 29 .5
Mitchell 2004 58 14 1
These are roleplayer numbers all of them. Give me playmakers.

The problem there is budget. CB has to be more of a priority than LB at this point, and I don't know that it is possible to pick up a playmaker CB and playmaker LB under the cap.

Get the CB, if you can afford a playmaker LB after that - do it. If you can't afford it, go for a 2nd tier guy who would be an upgrade over our current prospects and would at least provide depth.

Tuckdaddy
03-09-2005, 11:01 AM
Holdman can flat play. It would be great to have him along side Bell.

tyton75
03-09-2005, 11:01 AM
Polley would instantly be the 2nd best LB on the team behind Bell... he may be role player, but with Bell healthy in the middle.. I think Polley would be nice to have on the outside.. for coverage on screens and whatnot

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:05 AM
I agree we need a playmaker at corner but we also need another playmaker at LB we all ready have roll players at that position...
Polley 2004 78 tac. 13 ass. 3.5 sacks
Holdman 2004 49 29 .5
Mitchell 2004 58 14 1
These are roleplayer numbers all of them. Give me playmakers.

Like who?

This isn't a banner year for OLB's, in free agency or the draft. The only "playmaker" available is Derrick Johnson.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 11:27 AM
Like who?

This isn't a banner year for OLB's, in free agency or the draft. The only "playmaker" available is Derrick Johnson.
Hartwell then have Bell play outside.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 11:29 AM
Hartwell then have Bell play outside.

EXACTLY.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:36 AM
Bell is a MLB. Even thought the coaching staff said he's versatile, we didn't pay him $10M up front to play out of position.

We're not going to sign Hartwell.

So let's be realistic here - who are we going to get to play OLB?

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:37 AM
Let me change that up a bit.

If we do move Bell to OLB it will be at Sam, replacing Scott Fujita. We don't have a need at Sam.

We have a need at Will, which would be filled even if we did sign Hartwell.

So what do you propose now?

Gaz
03-09-2005, 11:39 AM
...So let's be realistic here - who are we going to get to play OLB?

Derrick Johnson.

xoxo~
Gaz
Okay, has to admit that “realistic” is a bit of a stretch.

Woodrow Call
03-09-2005, 11:39 AM
Polley would instantly be the 2nd best LB on the team behind Bell... he may be role player, but with Bell healthy in the middle.. I think Polley would be nice to have on the outside.. for coverage on screens and whatnot

Maybe I watched different Rams games because I usually saw Polley on the ground or missing a tackle or sitting on the bench. He is fast but nothing more IMO. Of course my opinion is usually wrong. :banghead:

I like Simmons and Holdman after that they might as well drop Mitchell or Fox in there.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 11:41 AM
Bell is a MLB. Even thought the coaching staff said he's versatile, we didn't pay him $10M up front to play out of position.

We're not going to sign Hartwell.

So let's be realistic here - who are we going to get to play OLB?
I'm not saying we will sign Hartwell I'm saying I would. If we are being realistic I'm not gonna spend any time thinking about the soon to be 8-8(at best) 2005 chiefs.

Gaz
03-09-2005, 11:42 AM
...If we are being realistic I'm not gonna spend any time thinking about the soon to be 8-8(at best) 2005 chiefs.

Hey! How about a spoiler alert when you give away the ending?

xoxo~
Gaz
Has no reason to even watch the games now.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:43 AM
I'm not saying we will sign Hartwell I'm saying I would. If we are being realistic I'm not gonna spend any time thinking about the soon to be 8-8(at best) 2005 chiefs.

Oh, I forgot. Anything other than doom and gloom is not realistic. :rolleyes:

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 11:45 AM
Oh, I forgot. Anything other than doom and gloom is not realistic. :rolleyes:
Oh and I forgot we are just waiting to sign another LB until we get the deal done with Rolle.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:47 AM
Oh and I forgot we are just waiting to sign another LB until we get the deal done with Rolle.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not the one suggesting I can accurately predict the future.

But I should expected a shot out of left field - that's all you have.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 11:48 AM
What does that have to do with anything? I'm not the one suggesting I can accurately predict the future.

But I should expected a shot out of left field - that's all you have.
Uhh the Rolle prediction was your shot out of left field not mine.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:50 AM
Uhh the Rolle prediction was your shot out of left field not mine.

Oh, so I see you've turned to stretching the truth.

I said I had a GUT FEELING they would sign. I said, UP FRONT, that I had no info, no facts, and no other reason other than a gut feeling.

Keep trying.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2005, 11:50 AM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 11:52 AM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?

Only if we've resigned ourselves to not bringing in any OLB free agents.

That being said, I'd rather see Fox at WSLB than Mitchell. If Mitchell can't play MLB, sit his ass on the bench.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 11:53 AM
Maybe I watched different Rams games because I usually saw Polley on the ground or missing a tackle or sitting on the bench. He is fast but nothing more IMO. Of course my opinion is usually wrong. :banghead:

I like Simmons and Holdman after that they might as well drop Mitchell or Fox in there.

I'm not saying Polley is a great player, but I think part of the problem he has faced is that he has been moved to all three LB positions. Sometimes a guy just can't adapt to the moves. In 2003 playing WILL and some MLB he was tied for 1st on the team in INTs and PDs and was 2nd in tackles. His run support might not be great, but statistically he seems to be able to defend the pass well which is an area the Chiefs desperately need help with.

MGRS13
03-09-2005, 11:53 AM
Oh, so I see you've turned to stretching the truth.

I said I had a GUT FEELING they would sign. I said, UP FRONT, that I had no info, no facts, and no other reason other than a gut feeling.

Keep trying.
No you said you had a gut feeling Hartwell and Rolle would sign. After a day of that not happening you said the Chiefs just want to get the deal signed with Rolle before signing any free agents. Either way its no big deal I didn't value your opinion then nor do I now. :thumb:

Frankie
03-09-2005, 11:53 AM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?
I just love for this guy to pan out for us.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 11:54 AM
That being said, I'd rather see Fox at WSLB than Mitchell. If Mitchell can't play MLB, sit his ass on the bench.

WHy? Mitchell played most of his college ball on the outside.

Frankie
03-09-2005, 11:55 AM
BTW,... we probably will sign a couple of "2nd tier LBs" after June 1.

Woodrow Call
03-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?

Gun compared him to Donnie Edwards but then again DV compared Mitchell to Lanier. :doh!:

Logical
03-09-2005, 11:58 AM
No it should read they are equal to which would put us right back at #32 overall in defense. If you want to change this D you've got to get play makers not role players.

I disagree, all of our linebackers with the exception of Fujita are slow, slow, slow (Barber was an exception but with his injury he will miss at least half the season and who knows if he will have lost his speed after). Several of those mid tier linebackers listed are fast and IMO better than what we have now.

Frankie
03-09-2005, 11:59 AM
WHy? Mitchell played most of his college ball on the outside.

Dontcha get a feeling if the Chiefs stopped this damn experimenting with young players and played them in their natural position, maybe the group of Mitchel, Battle, Bartee, etc. would yield at least ONE reliable player? :hmmm:

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 12:00 PM
No you said you had a gut feeling Hartwell and Rolle would sign. After a day of that not happening you said the Chiefs just want to get the deal signed with Rolle before signing any free agents. Either way its no big deal I didn't value your opinion then nor do I now. :thumb:

No, I didn't say that. I said I READ that (it was posted here).

And no, it's not a big deal. I didn't figure you'd value the opinion of someone who actually makes an effort not to talk out of their ass...

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 12:04 PM
WHy? Mitchell played most of his college ball on the outside.

Because he can't cover worth a shit.

CHIEF4EVER
03-09-2005, 12:05 PM
No, I didn't say that. I said I READ that (it was posted here).

And no, it's not a big deal. I didn't figure you'd value the opinion of someone who actually makes an effort not to talk out of their ass...

Any opinion other than your genius takes = people talking out of their azz. Glad you cleared that up. After all, you are the resident authority on all sports related matters. Hence your employment by the Chiefs and Royals front offices. :shake:

Gaz
03-09-2005, 12:05 PM
Dontcha get a feeling if the Chiefs stopped this damn experimenting with young players and played them in their natural position, maybe the group of Mitchel, Battle, Bartee, etc. would yield at least ONE reliable player? :hmmm:

No argument here.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would prefer a CB born to the position.

Braincase
03-09-2005, 12:06 PM
K. Mitchell is fast that doesn't always translate to good...

I thought Mitchell was slow, then realized he was merely catching a ride on the back of someone he should've been tackling.

Woodrow Call
03-09-2005, 12:07 PM
I thought Mitchell was slow, then realized he was merely catching a ride on the back of someone he should've been tackling.

Good one ROFL

milkman
03-09-2005, 12:11 PM
I thought Mitchell was slow, then realized he was merely catching a ride on the back of someone he should've been tackling.

That was a pretty good line, but more of a Donnie Edwards trait than Mitchell.

Mitchell problem, other than the fact he didn't seem to understand that the idea was to sniff out the ballcarrier, not the blocker, was that when he did accidentally run into ballcariers, his arms were like freakin' turnstiles.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Any opinion other than your genius takes = people talking out of their azz. Glad you cleared that up. After all, you are the resident authority on all sports related matters. Hence your employment by the Chiefs and Royals front offices. :shake:

Opinions not backed up by information = people talking out of their azz.

You'll notice that the negative people that actually make the effort to be INFORMED (ie. HC Chief, Laz, The Bad Guy) don't EVER hear from me.

Gaz
03-09-2005, 12:17 PM
...You'll notice that the negative people that actually make the effort to be INFORMED (ie. HC Chief, Laz, The Bad Guy) don't EVER hear from me.

I am as negative as they come, man. I am darkness itself. Those guys are floodlights compared to shadow I cast.

I should be on that list.

xoxo~
Gaz
A pessimistic as the day is long.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 12:19 PM
Because he can't cover worth a shit.

you'd be correct, except for the fact that even as a MLB he led all Chief LB's in passes defensed.

eazyb81
03-09-2005, 12:19 PM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?

Yes he is, especially when people are talking about drafting Kevin Burnett in the 2nd come in at OLB. Fox and Burnett are basically the same players and both will grade out similarly. Fox was injured in training camp and fell to the bottom of the LB totem pole last year, but he has the size and the skills to make a push this year for a starting spot if he stays healthy. I think Fox and Mitchell should fight it out in training camp to see who gets the starting nod.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 01:12 PM
you'd be correct, except for the fact that even as a MLB he led all Chief LB's in passes defensed.

I imagine he led the LEAGUE in passes defensed with the back of his helmet! :D

Seriously, just because he was the best on THIS team, doesn't mean he's any good. JMO.

Chris Meck
03-09-2005, 01:35 PM
and I disagree that 2nd tier free agents wouldn't be better than what we've got-we've got guys that are starting that aren't even 2nd tier. We've got ONE playmaker at LB now, and one young rising player in Allen that may be one soon.

whoman69
03-09-2005, 01:40 PM
At this point KC had to overpay for Bell. He was the best player out there we could get and we had nothing. It means that some of our other targets, like signing another top flight LB need to be tossed out. Many of the people on the list would be an upgrade of what we have now. If they can be gotten cheap, it would improve our depth greatly.

Coogs
03-09-2005, 01:54 PM
Is Keyaron Fox worth talking about?

I know it was just preseason games, but I thought Fox was a beast on the field. He flat out hit people. He was able to cover receivers. Really looked good.

Chris Meck
03-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Fox is a possibility, but only Gun and his staff can say for sure, because we haven't seen enough on Sunday to say.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 02:42 PM
Fox is a possibility, but only Gun and his staff can say for sure, because we haven't seen enough on Sunday to say.

Correction: Gun and <I>Robinson/Vermeil's</i> staff...
:grr:

Kyle401
03-09-2005, 05:23 PM
Dolphins Sign Spragan

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2008754&type=story

Reese goes to Falcons

http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/article.jsp?id=4925

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 06:07 PM
At this point KC had to overpay for Bell. He was the best player out there we could get and we had nothing. It means that some of our other targets, like signing another top flight LB need to be tossed out. Many of the people on the list would be an upgrade of what we have now. If they can be gotten cheap, it would improve our depth greatly.

WTF are you talking about? The way I understand it, Bell's contract was structured so that, although he got $10M in guaranteed money, his SB was only $3.5M and his base for next year was less than $1M. Bell's cap hit should be less than $2M overall.

Nightfyre
03-09-2005, 06:09 PM
WTF are you talking about? The way I understand it, Bell's contract was structured so that, although he got $10M in guaranteed money, his SB was only $3.5M and his base for next year was less than $1M. Bell's cap hit should be less than $2M overall.
less than 1.5 even...

the Talking Can
03-09-2005, 06:12 PM
the best 2nd tier LB available was just signed...Spragan

unlurking
03-09-2005, 06:20 PM
WTF are you talking about? The way I understand it, Bell's contract was structured so that, although he got $10M in guaranteed money, his SB was only $3.5M and his base for next year was less than $1M. Bell's cap hit should be less than $2M overall.
That was my understanding as well.

IMO, that was an EXCELLENT deal.

eazyb81
03-09-2005, 06:24 PM
WTF are you talking about? The way I understand it, Bell's contract was structured so that, although he got $10M in guaranteed money, his SB was only $3.5M and his base for next year was less than $1M. Bell's cap hit should be less than $2M overall.

Where did you find out those details about his contract? I haven't seen anything so far that explains his contract like that. If that info is true, that is a sweet deal, much better then I expected.

unlurking
03-09-2005, 06:26 PM
"It includes an initial $3.5 million signing bonus and guaranteed money of about $10 million."

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8270394

unlurking
03-09-2005, 06:27 PM
IMO, CP made out like a freakin' bandit on this deal.

eazyb81
03-09-2005, 06:27 PM
"It includes an initial $3.5 million signing bonus and guaranteed money of about $10 million."

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8270394

Cool, thanks. How do you figure out that his cap hit will be $1.5-2 mill?

unlurking
03-09-2005, 06:36 PM
His salary is less than 1 mill the first year, 3.5 pro-rated over 5 years (700k), plus any of the "guaranteed" money that comes to fruition in the first year (this is what we don't know about).

Roster bonuses, workout bonuses, attendance bonuses, etc. seem to be called guaranteed money because the player has full control over all of them (except the roster bonus thing, don't understand that one). So he may get another .5 mill just for showing up to all the practices this year and every year, etc.

EDIT: The difference being that player controlled bonus incentives are paid out per terms of the contract, so he basically has another 6 mill paid out in the next few years, but not this year.

EDIT2: Wondering if they put a clause in that if you get cut, all your player controlled incentives come due? Who knows, getting WAY beyond my basic grasp of the cap.

eazyb81
03-09-2005, 06:40 PM
His salary is less than 1 mill the first year, 3.5 pro-rated over 5 years (700k), plus any of the "guaranteed" money that comes to fruition in the first year (this is what we don't know about).

Roster bonuses, workout bonuses, attendance bonuses, etc. seem to be called guaranteed money because the player has full control over all of them (except the roster bonus thing, don't understand that one). So he may get another .5 mill just for showing up to all the practices this year and every year, etc.

EDIT: The difference being that player controlled bonus incentives are paid out per terms of the contract, so he basically has another 6 mill paid out in the next few years, but not this year.

I've always wondered how the cap hit is figured out. Thanks :thumb:

unlurking
03-09-2005, 06:43 PM
I've always wondered how the cap hit is figured out. Thanks :thumb:
I may be wrong, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I am!

Anyway, that's just my understanding!

Personally, I think this is a smokin' deal that CP worked out because it leaves us wiggle room for other players.

Coogs
03-09-2005, 07:03 PM
Fox is a possibility, but only Gun and his staff can say for sure, because we haven't seen enough on Sunday to say.

That was because of an injury though. Don't remember for sure what the injury was but it kept Fox on the shelf for quite some time. Could have been a hamstring. A rookie that can't even practice has a hard time getting on the field once health. I look for good things from Fox based on preseason last year.

philfree
03-09-2005, 07:13 PM
IMO, CP made out like a freakin' bandit on this deal.

Seems that way to me.


PhilFree :arrow:

whoman69
03-09-2005, 08:22 PM
WTF are you talking about? The way I understand it, Bell's contract was structured so that, although he got $10M in guaranteed money, his SB was only $3.5M and his base for next year was less than $1M. Bell's cap hit should be less than $2M overall.
That doesn't jive with the fact that $18 of the $30 million of the contract is due in the first three years.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 08:37 PM
That doesn't jive with the fact that $18 of the $30 million of the contract is due in the first three years.

Year 1
3.5 bonus (spread over 7 years) plus base of 1 mil

Year 2
6.5 bonus (spread over 6 years) plus base of 2.5 million

Year 3
base of 4.5 million

Just a hypo.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 08:52 PM
Year 1
3.5 bonus (spread over 7 years) plus base of 1 mil

Year 2
6.5 bonus (spread over 6 years) plus base of 2.5 million

Year 3
base of 4.5 million

Just a hypo.

Yep.

I heard it on the radio and have since seen it on either ESPN or Sportsline.

His SB for next year is $3.5M spread over the life of the contract and his base is $1M or less.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 08:54 PM
Yep.

I heard it on the radio and have since seen it on either ESPN or Sportsline.

His SB for next year is $3.5M spread over the life of the contract and his base is $1M or less.

The problem if the rumors are correct, is that he's going to have to restructure by his 3rd year.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 08:57 PM
The problem if the rumors are correct, is that he's going to have to restructure by his 3rd year.

Yep. That's the way I understood it too.

Either they did it that way to leave space for signing other FA's, or Carl knows he's on his way out and doesn't care what he leaves for the new GM.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 09:00 PM
Yep. That's the way I understood it too.

Either they did it that way to leave space for signing other FA's, or Carl knows he's on his way out and doesn't care what he leaves for the new GM.

That's really not good because if he pans out he might figure he can cash in another big bonus somewhere else. Or, tag you're it.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 09:01 PM
That's really not good because if he pans out he might figure he can cash in another big bonus somewhere else. Or, tag you're it.

Depends on whether or not you're playing for the future or just playing for NEXT YEAR.

milkman
03-09-2005, 09:06 PM
Depends on whether or not you're playing for the future or just playing for NEXT YEAR.

Even if you are only playing for next year, if he pans out, he's young enough that he could be part of the process of rebuilding in 3 years.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 09:08 PM
Even if you are only playing for next year, if he pans out, he's young enough that he could be part of the process of rebuilding in 3 years.

Not with the contract that he is rumored to have signed, unless the Chiefs want to tie up 4+ million in cap space per year.

milkman
03-09-2005, 09:12 PM
Not with the contract that he is rumored to have signed, unless the Chiefs want to tie up 4+ million in cap space per year.

That's why you hope that we get an actual competent GM in here that will be able to figure out how to clean up the mess that Carl will be leaving.

unlurking
03-09-2005, 09:17 PM
OK, that makes sense, but I thought everyone was saying that a SB could only be pro-rated over the next 5 years (remaining years on CBA)?

philfree
03-09-2005, 09:35 PM
Not with the contract that he is rumored to have signed, unless the Chiefs want to tie up 4+ million in cap space per year.


Has anyone seen the breakdown of the contract or are we using just the intial raw numbers? Till then the only thing we know is that it's cap friendly for now.


PhilFree :arrow:

unlurking
03-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Has anyone seen the breakdown of the contract or are we using just the intial raw numbers? Till then the only thing we know is that it's cap friendly for now.


PhilFree :arrow:
I'm curious to see an official breakdown too. Guess my google skills aren't what they used to be.

Chiefnj
03-09-2005, 09:49 PM
Has anyone seen the breakdown of the contract or are we using just the intial raw numbers? Till then the only thing we know is that it's cap friendly for now.


PhilFree :arrow:

People are basing this on several articles/reports. One said 18 million is in the first 3 years, one said he had a 10 mil bonus, one said this years bonus figure was only 3.5 million.

philfree
03-09-2005, 10:50 PM
People are basing this on several articles/reports. One said 18 million is in the first 3 years, one said he had a 10 mil bonus, one said this years bonus figure was only 3.5 million.

I missed the $18mil thing and the $10mil "bonus". I saw guaranteed $10mil and $3.5 mil bonus for 2005 but I haven't read every article on the subject.

PhilFree :arrow:

Mr. Laz
03-09-2005, 10:52 PM
fug 2nd tier ... sign Hartwell!!

htismaqe
03-10-2005, 06:11 AM
fug 2nd tier ... sign Hartwell!!

Which is fine.

But we'd STILL need a WLB.

DDay
03-10-2005, 07:20 AM
KC's curse ends when Carl leaves and when Lamar dies.

Kelly Herndon, my hiney.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 08:44 AM
Which is fine.

But we'd STILL need a WLB.

Fujita

CosmicPal
03-10-2005, 08:51 AM
fug 2nd tier ... sign Hartwell!!

I'd rather have a DB or DE.

Not sure why everyone around here is so HIGH on Hartwell- he only had 50 some tackles in the middle linebacker position- AND he was right next to Lewis who had 120 some tackles.

With the emergence of Suggs and Bouleware- Hartwell became expendable.

But, the fact of the matter is- your MLB should have around 90 tackles per season. Hartwell was no where near those numbers. All MLB that have played next to an All-Pro LB with over a hundred tackles have had somewhere around 90 tackles themselves. But, Hartwell obviously isn't anywhere those kind of numbers.

I wouldn't mind having him, just not for the money he's asking for. But, I'd rather give Fox and Mitchell a chance to emerge now that we have Bell.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:03 AM
I'd rather give Fox and Mitchell a chance to emerge now that we have Bell.

*SHUDDER*
Those two have proven one thing: they don't belong on the football field as anything other than ST fodder.

Unfortunately, I think this is the path the FO is planning to take: Bell and Fujita outside with Mitchell in the middle. Fox and Caver and <i>insert other scrub's name here</i> as "depth".

Our LB corps, as a whole, will still suck ass.

CosmicPal
03-10-2005, 09:10 AM
*SHUDDER*
Those two have proven one thing: they don't belong on the football field as anything other than ST fodder.

Unfortunately, I think this is the path the FO is planning to take: Bell and Fujita outside with Mitchell in the middle. Fox and Caver and <i>insert other scrub's name here</i> as "depth".

Our LB corps, as a whole, will still suck ass.

When I say "I'd rather give Fox and Mitchell a chance...." It is relevant to the fact that I believe we would over-pay Hartwell and therefore - limiting our options to upgrade in other areas as well. Adding Hartwell to the mix, based on his numbers, isn't going to make the defense any better.

He's only getting the accolades because of two things: 1. Hartwell comes from Baltimore, and 2. We're desperate to find some help.

Get a DB and a DE and pick up a 2nd tier LB like Simmons, and we'll be an improved defense....

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:18 AM
Hartwell is a stud, period. He is the top player at LB on this year's FA market. He has both lateral speed AND the ability to blast ball carriers in the middle. He would be, without a doubt, the best MLB we've had since Patton. That's why I want him. With Bell and Fujita outside, I think our LB corps would be solid. Our depth would still blow, but we'd have 2 guys that are legit playmakers and one guy who has shown potential (Fujita).

We then must address corner. There WILL BE a solid CB on the board when we pick at #15. There are several guys who could come in and start: A Rolle, C Rogers(my favorite), P Jones. In addition to the pick, give up the #2 for Surtain.

That fixes two areas in most desperate need of upgrading: LB and CB. DE then becomes the only concern: will Allen continue to play at a high level? Who will replace ineffective Hicks?

DT is also a concern. Perhaps a decent addition can be made after the June 1 cuts?

whoman69
03-10-2005, 09:19 AM
I just don't see how we can get another expensive LB when we still have to sign a corner and a safety, especially with what corners are demanding these days.

whoman69
03-10-2005, 09:23 AM
We also need to save cap room to be able to sign draft picks, somewhere between $2.5-3 million.

htismaqe
03-10-2005, 09:30 AM
Fujita

For the Chiefs' sake, I hope you're wrong.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:31 AM
We also need to save cap room to be able to sign draft picks, somewhere between $2.5-3 million.

We need to have sweeping cuts on our current roster.

GONE: Pillowbiter (Morton), Bartee, Battle, McCleon, Woods, Caver, Barber, Hicks

htismaqe
03-10-2005, 09:33 AM
I'd rather have a DB or DE.

Not sure why everyone around here is so HIGH on Hartwell- he only had 50 some tackles in the middle linebacker position- AND he was right next to Lewis who had 120 some tackles.

With the emergence of Suggs and Bouleware- Hartwell became expendable.

But, the fact of the matter is- your MLB should have around 90 tackles per season. Hartwell was no where near those numbers. All MLB that have played next to an All-Pro LB with over a hundred tackles have had somewhere around 90 tackles themselves. But, Hartwell obviously isn't anywhere those kind of numbers.

I wouldn't mind having him, just not for the money he's asking for. But, I'd rather give Fox and Mitchell a chance to emerge now that we have Bell.

Hartwell had 55 tackles, but he also had 41 assists. That happens in a 3-4. In his one season as the "man" he had 103 solo tackles and 39 assists.

CosmicPal
03-10-2005, 09:34 AM
Hartwell is a stud, period. He is the top player at LB on this year's FA market.

How in the world can you call a MLB that averaged 50 tackles per season a stud? Seriously- a good, reputable MLB is supposed to average 90 tackles a season- Hartwell is nowhere near that....

He is the top player at LB, 'cause there really is no other LB available- other than Bell who we already picked up.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:36 AM
For the Chiefs' sake, I hope you're wrong.

Who else? :shrug:
Bell is a Sam/Mike; same goes for Hartwell. Bell and Hartwell are both vastly superior to Mitchell and Fujita, so that leaves him as the odd man out.

Besides, Fujita has excellent size/speed combination. He can cover well OR blitz from outside. I'd like to see him wrap up a bit more.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:37 AM
How in the world can you call a MLB that averaged 50 tackles per season a stud? Seriously- a good, reputable MLB is supposed to average 90 tackles a season- Hartwell is nowhere near that....

He is the top player at LB, 'cause there really is no other LB available- other than Bell who we already picked up.

Read rufusmages' post

CosmicPal
03-10-2005, 09:40 AM
Read rufusmages' post

Ok....let's put it this way- IF THE GUY WAS A STUD, THEN WHY IS BALTY LETTING HIM GO?

htismaqe
03-10-2005, 09:42 AM
Who else? :shrug:
Bell is a Sam/Mike; same goes for Hartwell. Bell and Hartwell are both vastly superior to Mitchell and Fujita, so that leaves him as the odd man out.

Besides, Fujita has excellent size/speed combination. He can cover well OR blitz from outside. I'd like to see him wrap up a bit more.

The ideal situation would be for Barber to get healthy. A LB corp or Barber, Hartwell, and Bell would be formidable, IMO.

htismaqe
03-10-2005, 09:43 AM
Ok....let's put it this way- IF THE GUY WAS A STUD, THEN WHY IS BALTY LETTING HIM GO?

Come on.

They just paid Ray Lewis. It's simple - he wants money and they can't afford to give it to him.

Saggysack
03-10-2005, 09:44 AM
There are several guys who could come in and start: A Rolle, C Rogers(my favorite), P Jones. In addition to the pick, give up the #2 for Surtain.

My first choice used to be Rogers. I don't know why but for some reason I think now he will be a bust. Don't know what exactly changed my feelings on him, I just feel it. I'll end up being wrong though, without a doubt

The 2 who I like in the draft for the 1st round right now is Antrel Rolle, who I'm not convinced he will be there at 15 though. And the other is Justin Tuck. I know he is maybe alittle overvalued at 15 and he is just a tad on the small side on his weight for a DE but the guy has alot of room to get bigger. And his upside as a premium pass russing DE cannot be denied. Huge upside with Tuck.

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:47 AM
Antrel Rolle is my second favorite. Rogers I see as the best potential. He has a good build, good speed, is quick, and mean as hell. Plus, he performed well on a great defensive team. He should come in with attitude and 'cockyness' - which I like in CBs. They're arrogant, nasty, foul-mouthed, self-centered a-holes... at least, the good ones are :D

HC_Chief
03-10-2005, 09:47 AM
The ideal situation would be for Barber to get healthy. A LB corp or Barber, Hartwell, and Bell would be formidable, IMO.

I keep hearing KC and Barber came to terms on an injury settlement. With that I'm assuming he's done.

CosmicPal
03-10-2005, 10:11 AM
OK...HC and rufus- I just have this sinking feeling Hartwell may be over-rated. If we do pick him up- let's just hope I'm terribly wrong in my assessment. I do believe he will be a factor in our D should we pick him up, but I'm just a little skeptical of rating....

TEX
03-10-2005, 10:46 AM
Jamie Sharper is available via trade...:hmmm: