PDA

View Full Version : Sammy Knight a Chief according to Metro Sports


BigChiefFan
03-10-2005, 09:50 PM
I haven't seen it posted anywhere, but Metro Sports reported that Sammy Knight HAS been signed by the Chiefs. I saw it on the 10:00 news addition. Anybody else bear witness?

nychief
03-10-2005, 09:52 PM
super bowl here we come!

elvomito
03-10-2005, 09:53 PM
wooooo hoooooooo

nychief
03-10-2005, 09:54 PM
Willie Pile we hardly new thee

jspchief
03-10-2005, 09:55 PM
I think it's a good aquisition. He's been good for the Dolphins and Saints. He's twice the ballhawk that any of our safeties are.

Hopefully it wasn't a ridiculous contract. I'm not a big fan of spending large on the safety position. I also still think we need a top CB, but can only wonder if we can afford one.

BigChiefFan
03-10-2005, 09:56 PM
Not a bad move. I trust Dave Stewart, but I've never known them to break a story. Maybe being at the roast tonight for Carl Peterson paid off.

J Diddy
03-10-2005, 09:59 PM
Willie Pile we hardly new thee


I've been practicing my rap gig, check it out.

You say "willie pile we hardly new thee"
But I think the chief in trouble
is the one named greg wesley

WORD DOG

Woodrow Call
03-10-2005, 09:59 PM
Wesley and Knight will make a good safety tandem. Should be a reasonable deal.

whoman69
03-10-2005, 09:59 PM
I got nothin' here.

unlurking
03-10-2005, 10:00 PM
Knight a FS or a SS?

Woodrow Call
03-10-2005, 10:00 PM
I've been practicing my rap gig, check it out.

You say "willie pile we hardly new thee"
But I think the chief in trouble
is the one named greg wesley

WORD DOG

I agree Wesley has no reason to feel comfortable with his situation.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:01 PM
I've been practicing my rap gig, check it out.

You say "willie pile we hardly new thee"
But I think the chief in trouble
is the one named greg wesley

WORD DOG


keep practicing.

Cochise
03-10-2005, 10:01 PM
Wesley and Knight will make a good safety tandem. Should be a reasonable deal.

I'm happy with it. If we're going to play more aggressive with the front seven, then we need a secondary that can focus more on coverage than run support.

beer bacon
03-10-2005, 10:01 PM
This signing is pretty good, but we better pick up Hartwell and Herndon/Dyson or Law or Surtain.

J Diddy
03-10-2005, 10:02 PM
keep practicing.

you know that's not very nice...

I thought it was better than "ice, ice baby"

:)

Woodrow Call
03-10-2005, 10:03 PM
I'm happy with it. If we're going to play more aggressive with the front seven, then we need a secondary that can focus more on coverage than run support.

With Bell and Knight the Chiefs have upgraded the tackling on this team at 2 critical spots. Missed tackles are the root of all the defenses ills IMO.

Pants
03-10-2005, 10:03 PM
I think Woods is probably in trouble here.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:03 PM
This signing is pretty good, but we better pick up Hartwell and Herndon/Dyson or Law or Surtain.


I get the terrible sinking feeling everytime I hear about Kelly Herndon... like the FO will convince its self that Ty Law and Herndon are the same thing...

BigChiefFan
03-10-2005, 10:04 PM
He's a STRONG Safety.
He puts up solid numbers every year...

DEFENSIVE STATS

Year Team G Total Tckl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def
1997 New Orleans Saints 16 93 76.0 17 0 5 75 15.0 39 0 7
1998 New Orleans Saints 14 75 62.0 13 0 6 171 28.5 91 2 3
1999 New Orleans Saints 16 104 78.0 26 0 1 0 0.0 0 0 5
2000 New Orleans Saints 16 101 75.0 26 2 5 68 13.6 37 2 1
2001 New Orleans Saints 16 96 78.0 18 1 6 114 19.0 40 0 4
2002 New Orleans Saints 16 104 80.0 24 2 5 36 7.2 17 0 6
2003 Miami Dolphins 16 96 64.0 32 0 3 98 32.7 70 0 3
2004 Miami Dolphins 16 98 52.0 46 0 4 32 8.0 32 0 0
TOTAL 126 767 565.0 202 5 35 594 17.0 91 4 29

ceebz
03-10-2005, 10:04 PM
I think Woods is probably in trouble here.

He deserves to be cut after the way he played last year

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:05 PM
I just registered www.oldsafety.com

J Diddy
03-10-2005, 10:05 PM
I think Woods is probably in trouble here.

I disagree. The only thing I heard about safeties this offseason was DV talking about Wesley's play being substandard and how he was always out of position.

BigChiefFan
03-10-2005, 10:06 PM
I disagree. The only thing I heard about safeties this offseason was DV talking about Wesley's play being substandard and how he was always out of position.
I've heard rumblings that Wesley might move over to FS.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:07 PM
I've heard rumblings that Wesley might move over to FS.

where did you hear these rumblings? your belly?

Rausch
03-10-2005, 10:07 PM
Hopefully there's still enough money to trade for a S, draft a S, and then sign a S after the cuts start...

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:08 PM
Hopefully there's still enough money to trade for a S, draft a S, and then sign a S after the cuts start...
ROFL

Manila-Chief
03-10-2005, 10:12 PM
Hopefully there's still enough money to trade for a S, draft a S, and then sign a S after the cuts start...

ROFL ROFL :LOL: :LOL:

Hey, don't we need a back up QB? Maybe one of them can fill in at QB???

Coach
03-10-2005, 10:12 PM
Hopefully there's still enough money to trade for a S, draft a S, and then sign a S after the cuts start...

ROFL That's rep.

BigChiefFan
03-10-2005, 10:12 PM
where did you hear these rumblings? your belly?
I don't recall. With as much scouring of football sites I've done during FA, I honestly can't remember. Don't take it as the gospel, just something I recall reading.

Coach
03-10-2005, 10:14 PM
I disagree. The only thing I heard about safeties this offseason was DV talking about Wesley's play being substandard and how he was always out of position.

Or it could be one of King Carl's plan to convert a f**king safety to a f**king corner. Just like Bartee and Battle.

Woodrow Call
03-10-2005, 10:14 PM
Hopefully there's still enough money to trade for a S, draft a S, and then sign a S after the cuts start...

If cutting all 12 safeties currently on our roster means I will have 2 competent ones back there then I am all for it.

I admit that the Chiefs are retarted for the whole CB/S tweener stockpile but I am not going to be pissed at a potential upgrade at the Safety position. I was probably yelled at Woods and Wesley more than anyone else on the defense last year.

Deberg_1990
03-10-2005, 10:14 PM
Decent pickup. Now if we can still nab Hartwell and either Law/Surtain, i will bow down and personally shine carl's knob.

Pants
03-10-2005, 10:15 PM
Don't think we'll be signing Hartwell now.

jspchief
03-10-2005, 10:15 PM
I've heard rumblings that Wesley might move over to FS.
Knight is definately a SS. I haven't heard any rumblings, but I thought that moving Wesley to FS might be an option. My guess is Woods and Wesley will battle for the FS spot.

beer bacon
03-10-2005, 10:16 PM
Don't think we'll be signing Hartwell now.

Maybe the reason we signed Knight was because we finally hammered out the contract with Hartwell and we know what kind of cap space we are going to have.

Right?

Right... :( ?

HolmeZz
03-10-2005, 10:16 PM
Don't think Knight and Hartwell hinged on one another.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Don't think we'll be signing Hartwell now.

there has been no real reports that we are still in the mix for hartwell anyway.. all on conjecture and word play. But I agree... I bet we grab Herndon or (please) law - then focus on the draft....

beer bacon
03-10-2005, 10:18 PM
there has been no real reports that we are still in the mix for hartwell anyway.. all on conjecture and word play. But I agree... I bet we grab Herndon or (please) law - then focus on the draft....

If they grab Herndon and call it a day then they have been ****ing around with us since free agency started. They should have more money/cap space then that.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Ummmm I have yet to see this reported anywhere, and after carl's roasting methinks he be hiding all weekend.

ZootedGranny
03-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Not a bad move. I trust Dave Stewart, but I've never known them to break a story. Maybe being at the roast tonight for Carl Peterson paid off.

They broke the story about Priest having surgery on his hip a while back, scooping the Star and the radio. Every once in a while they let us know about details and show some nice footage, but you're right, they don't break stories often.

As for Knight being a Chief...eh, don't really care. He's not horrible, but has never been outstanding in New Orleans or Miami. I don't think Wesley should be looking out for his job, as he's shown the most range at safety in KC the past few years (which speaks to how hard Woods fell off). I'm not too eager to see him moved to FS though.

Miles
03-10-2005, 10:20 PM
Don't think we'll be signing Hartwell now.

Not necissarily. Safties dont really get paid all that well and Knight isnt really a high profile FA.

I like the signing (providing its true) if it wasnt too expensive. Maybe the competition among Woods, bartee and maybe wesley will acually lead to a sold starter.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:20 PM
Sammy "The Black" Knight

Hooray my first nickname!

beer bacon
03-10-2005, 10:20 PM
Not necissarily. Safties dont really get paid all that well and Knight isnt really a high profile FA.

I like the signing (providing its true) if it wasnt too expensive. Maybe the competition among Woods, bartee and maybe wesley will acually lead to a sold starter.

Somebody needs to get in Wesley's head and get him to start hitting again.

tk13
03-10-2005, 10:21 PM
Decent pickup. Now if we can still nab Hartwell and either Law/Surtain, i will bow down and personally shine carl's knob.
I don't think there's any way we can do both there... Law/Surtain are going to want too much money. If we could get them and get Hartwell and fit them all under the cap it'd be quite a feat. I think if we get one of them we'll have to get more of a "value" pickup at the other position....

beer bacon
03-10-2005, 10:22 PM
Sammy "The Black" Knight

Hooray my first nickname!

I think his nickname should be Knight Herndon. It is really catchy.

Coach
03-10-2005, 10:22 PM
Hmm.. strange.

I've gone to the KC Star, the Chiefs' site, the Miami Herald, ESPN.com, SI.com, The Palm Beach Post, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Foxsports.com, Finnheaven, The phins' site & KFFL and have yet to find anything to support it.

Anyone else find anything?

KILLER_CLOWN
03-10-2005, 10:24 PM
I just saw it reported on metrosports, I guess the local sportscasters as well as national media don't consider it newsworthy.

jspchief
03-10-2005, 10:24 PM
He's not horrible, but has never been outstanding in New Orleans or Miami.

He was outstanding for a few years in NO, including at least one Pro Bowl.

Deberg_1990
03-10-2005, 10:24 PM
I don't think there's any way we can do both there... Law/Surtain are going to want too much money. If we could get them and get Hartwell and fit them all under the cap it'd be quite a feat. I think if we get one of them we'll have to get more of a "value" pickup at the other position....

It could be done. Especially if Law runs out of options and he signs for les than his market value like Whitlock claims he would.

nychief
03-10-2005, 10:26 PM
It could be done. Especially if Law runs out of options and he signs for les than his market value like Whitlock claims he would.

I think whitlock gets 10% of Ty's contract if he signs with KC....

jspchief
03-10-2005, 10:27 PM
Who the hell is "metro sports" anyway? Is this a legit source?

RINGLEADER
03-10-2005, 10:27 PM
ROFL ROFL :LOL: :LOL:

Hey, don't we need a back up QB? Maybe one of them can fill in at QB???

We've got one. He's playing safety...

tk13
03-10-2005, 10:27 PM
It could be done. Especially if Law runs out of options and he signs for les than his market value like Whitlock claims he would.
I don't know about that. Less than market value for Ty Law would still be 10 million in signing bonus I'd imagine. That's purely a guess on my part... I think Law would've gotten 15-17 million in signing bonus had he been healthy, he'd been the number 1 corner on the market.

tk13
03-10-2005, 10:29 PM
Who the hell is "metro sports" anyway? Is this a legit source?
Sports channel in Kansas City... they do the nightly sports report on Channel 5 (CBS affiliate) in KC...

KILLER_CLOWN
03-10-2005, 10:30 PM
Who the hell is "metro sports" anyway? Is this a legit source?

Well ya i guess it's our local version of espn news.

Pants
03-10-2005, 10:30 PM
Who the hell is "metro sports" anyway? Is this a legit source?

They are pretty legit, I believe them. They are kind of like the local news of EPSN (you know, like KCTV5 is CBS or whatever).

keg in kc
03-10-2005, 10:31 PM
Metro sports has been known to make mistakes in the past, but they're generally reliable.

I expected this. We wouldn't have brought in Smith and Knight if we didn't intend to sign a safety to, I believe, replace Woods in the starting lineup.

Now if we can get Law.

Chiefs Pantalones
03-10-2005, 11:11 PM
I hear he has a narrow spine.

Cochise
03-10-2005, 11:18 PM
From the fins board:


He is hard hitting, but slow. He will get burnt in coverage. I personally liked him as our SS.

Ballhawk. Playmaker. Veteran. Leadership. Slow. Good COverage for the limited speed he has. Hard Hitter. Can't blitz all that well. If you sign him, you will be getting a pretty damn good safety. I'll miss him If he leaves.

Please, take him. He left all his playmaking ability in N.O. Maybe he rediscovers it there but I wont miss him. Good hitter, cant cover.

I agree with what PrimeTime said. He's good in coverage for his speed, he has excellent ball skills, he will get burned at times, plays very well as the 8th man in the box, and he can knock anyone on their ***. I liked him alot but we gotta get younger and faster, not to mention cheaper in the secondary. We would end up payin too much for Knight.

Though he didn't have the numbers with us that he had with NO, you can't take away from the guy that he is a playmaker. Besides, I don't think that the coverages that we played really help the SS position. Look at Freeman, B Walker and Knight.... none of them posted amazing numbers while at the SS position. I think our defense catered more to the FS position as far as INT's are concerned...

He'll make some plays for you. He works best in traffic. Get him out in space and he is in trouble. Takes bad angles on deep coverage and is often late giving help. Good player in run support. Solid tackler although his "hard hitter" reputation is more myth then reality in my opinion. He's too slow to hammer guys coming across the middle but he will smoke some people in run support. Good leader. He'll make big plays in bunches.

Sammy played better than any defender on the team after Bates took over as HC. He made more plays with the Saints because he wasnt stuck in deep cover 2 most the time. Once Bates took over he was allowed to roam the flats and became a one man wrecking crew on the strongside against the run and pass. If he's allowed to play close tothe LOS, he's one of the best SS in the league. Even when in deep cover 2 he played disciplined ball for us.

Bottom line is he's made more plays in the NFL from his SS spot than 99% of the other SS in the league. So if he is average speed or "slow" it really doesnt matter much.


Sounds like a guy who isn't going to enhance coverage from the SS position, but can lay the wood and is good in run support.

Nightfyre
03-10-2005, 11:45 PM
Wesley will be a killer FS. He's a total ballhawk. I think You will see knight in the SS position.

jspchief
03-10-2005, 11:51 PM
From the fins board:.....




Rep :thumb:

Great post, thanks for the info. It's nice to hear good things form the guys that have been watching him closely. I'm really warming to this (assuming it's true).

Spicy McHaggis
03-10-2005, 11:59 PM
I like the signing, I haven't seen the $$$ numbers on the deal but I'm assuming it wasn't huge. A tandem of Wesley and Knight would be nice as long as we continue to upgrade the secondary. Here's to Knight reclaiming his Pro Bowl status this year with us.

Nightfyre
03-11-2005, 12:03 AM
From the fins board:



Sounds like a guy who isn't going to enhance coverage from the SS position, but can lay the wood and is good in run support.
Sounds like he was a victim of cover 2. He wont be playing as much zone in Gun's scheme. This could lead to better matchups for him, making him look better in coverage.

tk13
03-11-2005, 12:04 AM
Knight's only 29, he'll be 30 right about when the season starts. I thought he was older than that for some reason. Probably a pretty good pickup.... I worry he's going to squeeze enough money out of us to make it hard to add a LB and CB though.

Wallcrawler
03-11-2005, 12:10 AM
Ill only like this deal if we end up signing someone to help at the CB position, and if Wesley is able to stay on the field.

If Woods keeps his job over Wesley, im going to be pissed. Wesley has played well for us, but this past season he had some injuries that slowed him up and hindered his play.

In the 13-3 season, he was the one that should have been going to the Pro Bowl instead of Jerome Woods IMO. Woods had that big INT TD return against Green Bay to turn the tide of that game, but other than that, he never did anything that Greg Wesley didnt do just as well.


If Wesley moves to Free Safety, and Knight plays SS, that might be pretty good, especially if he is as good as what some of those posters say he is.


But as I said, I wont like this if we end up not having the cash to sign some help at corner.


We had some guys who could have competed for the FS job with Woods already. We didnt really need another safety on the roster.

But, if the guy can hit, and tackle, then he will be a welcome addition to the defense.

If we can land a good solid Cornerback now, I think that the groundwork has been laid for a real defensive improvement this season. Throw in the guys that we draft, and it will be looking good.

Id love to see them trade the #2 to miami and get Surtain, he can cover and tackle, and Id feel worlds better about our secondary.


If Bell stays healthy, Wesley moves to free safety, and Knight is used according to his strengths, close to the LOS, and we get a decent CB, I think Gun might have something to work with this year.

It could have been so much better, (Rolle/Hartwell), but thats over and done with. Right now, we got Bell and Knight, a couple of hard hitting guys who hopefully can get some of the attitude back in this defense.


From what I read in various places, Kendrell Bell when he is healthy doesnt just hit, he destroys ball carriers, and Ive read similar things about Knight.

It will be nice to see someone in a Red Jersey lay out an opposing ball carrier again. Its been a while since Ive seen that happen.

Pants
03-11-2005, 12:10 AM
Knight's only 29, he'll be 30 right about when the season starts. I thought he was older than that for some reason. Probably a pretty good pickup.... I worry he's going to squeeze enough money out of us to make it hard to add a LB and CB though.

That's why I said we won't be getting Hartwell now. I'm cool with Barber, Fuj and Bell, though. Hopefully Barber will be ready in time.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 12:14 AM
I'm wondering what Jerome Woods thinks about this...is he a candidate to be cut?

CASHMAN is probably crying in his beer right about now.

Pants
03-11-2005, 12:14 AM
Ill only like this deal if we end up signing someone to help at the CB position, and if Wesley is able to stay on the field.

If Woods keeps his job over Wesley, im going to be pissed. Wesley has played well for us, but this past season he had some injuries that slowed him up and hindered his play.

In the 13-3 season, he was the one that should have been going to the Pro Bowl instead of Jerome Woods IMO. Woods had that big INT TD return against Green Bay to turn the tide of that game, but other than that, he never did anything that Greg Wesley didnt do just as well.


If Wesley moves to Free Safety, and Knight plays SS, that might be pretty good, especially if he is as good as what some of those posters say he is.


But as I said, I wont like this if we end up not having the cash to sign some help at corner.


We had some guys who could have competed for the FS job with Woods already. We didnt really need another safety on the roster.

But, if the guy can hit, and tackle, then he will be a welcome addition to the defense.

If we can land a good solid Cornerback now, I think that the groundwork has been laid for a real defensive improvement this season. Throw in the guys that we draft, and it will be looking good.

Id love to see them trade the #2 to miami and get Surtain, he can cover and tackle, and Id feel worlds better about our secondary.


If Bell stays healthy, Wesley moves to free safety, and Knight is used according to his strengths, close to the LOS, and we get a decent CB, I think Gun might have something to work with this year.

It could have been so much better, (Rolle/Hartwell), but thats over and done with. Right now, we got Bell and Knight, a couple of hard hitting guys who hopefully can get some of the attitude back in this defense.


From what I read in various places, Kendrell Bell when he is healthy doesnt just hit, he destroys ball carriers, and Ive read similar things about Knight.

It will be nice to see someone in a Red Jersey lay out an opposing ball carrier again. Its been a while since Ive seen that happen.

I think we'll be going for Law, Surtain being the last resort. As far as Hartwell, I think Bell might actually be better, nobody wanted him because of his "injury" problems.

Spicy McHaggis
03-11-2005, 12:15 AM
That's why I said we won't be getting Hartwell now. I'm cool with Barber, Fuj and Bell, though. Hopefully Barber will be ready in time.

Barber's time is done and out of the shadows emerges...FOX!!!

Wallcrawler
03-11-2005, 12:19 AM
That's why I said we won't be getting Hartwell now. I'm cool with Barber, Fuj and Bell, though. Hopefully Barber will be ready in time.



I keep hearing mixed reports.

DV on the radio a while back said that Barber was in the plans, but would likely start the season on the PUP list and be out 6 weeks.

Then I read in other places in articles concerning the Chiefs D, where they say that Barber will miss training camp, and maybe only the first game or two of the season.


I wish there was a definitive report on Barber's status right now.

If he can play, Im happy with our LBs right now. Barber, Bell, and Fujita. I think some really good things can happen with that group of guys if they are all healthy for the entire season. Fujita and Barber both racked up over 110 tackles in the 13-3 season, and that was without any help in the middle for about 9 games. Maz was hurt about halfway through that season, and then things started to go downhill from there when Kawika Mitchell came in.

This past season, Fujita led the team in tackles with 90, and had 5.5 sacks. If Barber can come back healthy, and you throw a healthy Kendrell Bell in there in the middle to shore up that rush D, Im liking the potential of what could happen with those guys all playing together.

Pants
03-11-2005, 12:20 AM
I keep hearing mixed reports.

DV on the radio a while back said that Barber was in the plans, but would likely start the season on the PUP list and be out 6 weeks.

Then I read in other places in articles concerning the Chiefs D, where they say that Barber will miss training camp, and maybe only the first game or two of the season.


I wish there was a definitive report on Barber's status right now.

If he can play, Im happy with our LBs right now. Barber, Bell, and Fujita. I think some really good things can happen with that group of guys if they are all healthy for the entire season. Fujita and Barber both racked up over 110 tackles in the 13-3 season, and that was without any help in the middle for about 9 games. Maz was hurt about halfway through that season, and then things started to go downhill from there when Kawika Mitchell came in.

This past season, Fujita led the team in tackles with 90, and had 5.5 sacks. If Barber can come back healthy, and you throw a healthy Kendrell Bell in there in the middle to shore up that rush D, Im liking the potential of what could happen with those guys all playing together.

Yeap.

beer bacon
03-11-2005, 12:22 AM
I don't want to start with Barber and Warfield both out the first games of the season with nobody decent to replace them.

Wallcrawler
03-11-2005, 12:25 AM
I think we'll be going for Law, Surtain being the last resort. As far as Hartwell, I think Bell might actually be better, nobody wanted him because of his "injury" problems.


Im really not liking the Ty Law situation.

Adam Schefter on Total Access said that for all intents and purposes, Ty Law would not be ready to go full tilt until probably August.

That only gives him a month to get back into football shape. At 31, that could be tough, especially with what Gun expects from his corners.

I think it was october when Ty Law broke his foot. By the time August gets here, that will be roughly TEN MONTHS since Ty Law has been able to run.

Thats a long time to be sitting around. It takes time to get your wind back, it doesnt just happen overnight. Especially at 31.

Hopefully he will rehab pissed off, with something to prove, like Priest Holmes does. A month isnt very long to try to make up for 10 months of not keeping in shape.


Id much rather just see them go after Surtain, and not have a question mark heading into the season opener. We are already going to be without Eric Warfield for at least one game, possibly four games. We are going to need a presence out on the corner to step in for him in his absence, and hope that the offense is firing on all cylinders early.

booger
03-11-2005, 12:28 AM
I think this could be a good fit. Woods and Wesley are so alike in their body type and the type of players they are. Both are the Tall and rangy type of safties and both have a mean streak in them, even though that has been missing. More than likely it looks like Woods is gone. Injuries and age have caught up with him. It might take a change of scenery to get his game back.

The year Woods was out with his broken leg, Wesley played some deep safety and looks like he has a knack for breaking up or picking of the deep ball. Even though he has good size, I think he is a little to frail to be up in the box all of the time at SS. He is probably the best blitzer in our secondary as well. If this signing is true all signs point to him sliding over to FS.

The one guy Knight reminds me a bit of is Rodney Harrison. I hate the guy but he is a good player and brings alot to the table. Knight was all over the highlight reels when he was in NO and made a ton of plays and picked off alot of passes. Sounds like his pass coverage skills have declined a bit, but we won't use it that much anyway.

One good thing is leadership and accountability. Add in Law or Surtain and that is taking some good steps to rebuild not only the play but the leadership of the secondary.

If this signing is true, it really puts doubt in my mind about landing Hartwell. For cash and cap reasons obviously, but from a pass coverage standpoint as well. I can't see spending that kinda money on Knight, Bell, Hartwell, and whichever corner we get and then fitting them all in on all 3 downs of defense might make us weak against the pass.

I guess it still could happen (landing Hartwell) so I'll just trust Gunther's judgement.

Pants
03-11-2005, 12:30 AM
Im really not liking the Ty Law situation.

Adam Schefter on Total Access said that for all intents and purposes, Ty Law would not be ready to go full tilt until probably August.

That only gives him a month to get back into football shape. At 31, that could be tough, especially with what Gun expects from his corners.

I think it was october when Ty Law broke his foot. By the time August gets here, that will be roughly TEN MONTHS since Ty Law has been able to run.

Thats a long time to be sitting around. It takes time to get your wind back, it doesnt just happen overnight. Especially at 31.

Hopefully he will rehab pissed off, with something to prove, like Priest Holmes does. A month isnt very long to try to make up for 10 months of not keeping in shape.


Id much rather just see them go after Surtain, and not have a question mark heading into the season opener. We are already going to be without Eric Warfield for at least one game, possibly four games. We are going to need a presence out on the corner to step in for him in his absence, and hope that the offense is firing on all cylinders early.

I agree, but I think Carl is drooling over cheap Law. I've been against getting Law since the start of FA, but knowing Carl, he'll probably sign the "best" CB for cheap than an actual good CB for a lot. Unless, of course, Ty pulls some retarded shit and asks for a huge bonus.

Nightfyre
03-11-2005, 12:43 AM
Barber's time is done and out of the shadows emerges...FOX!!!
This would give a new meaning to my phrase "Like a fox!"

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 12:59 AM
This guy over at another site says that JT the Brick said that Hartwell and Knight were being announced together. This is far from fact just wanted to see if anyone listened to JT tonight.

http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=23758&st=30

Pants
03-11-2005, 01:02 AM
This guy over at another site says that JT the Brick said that Hartwell and Knight were being announced together. This is far from fact just wanted to see if anyone listened to JT tonight.

http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=23758&st=30

Holy shit, I'd nut my pants.

ZootedGranny
03-11-2005, 01:02 AM
I didn't listen to JT tonight, but I know he was credited last week with saying we had signed someone last week that didn't end up happening.

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 01:03 AM
JT the Prick is an assclown. You'd have to pay me to listen to his bullshit.

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 01:06 AM
JT the Prick is an assclown. You'd have to pay me to listen to his bullshit.

My thoughts exactly that is why I didnt hear it.

beer bacon
03-11-2005, 01:07 AM
I am Sarcastro over on that board. I was listening to JT and a guy called in about Knight. JT said he had already talked about Knight about an hour and a half ago, and that he was going to be a good signing, but he wasn't going to talk about him again.

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 01:14 AM
I am Sarcastro over on that board. I was listening to JT and a guy called in about Knight. JT said he had already talked about Knight about an hour and a half ago, and that he was going to be a good signing, but he wasn't going to talk about him again.

:thumb:

ZootedGranny
03-11-2005, 01:16 AM
Well, if it is indeed a packaged signing, with Hartwell and Knight signing together, it isn't mentioned in Posnanski's Star article:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/11104194.htm

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 01:18 AM
Well, if it is indeed a packaged signing, with Hartwell and Knight signing together, it isn't mentioned in Posnanski's Star article:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/11104194.htm

Or the other article. Its either super secret or more than likely bogus. I am starting to think the rest of the money is Laws anyway.

HipHopper4Life
03-11-2005, 01:32 AM
Im really not liking the Ty Law situation.

Adam Schefter on Total Access said that for all intents and purposes, Ty Law would not be ready to go full tilt until probably August.

That only gives him a month to get back into football shape. At 31, that could be tough, especially with what Gun expects from his corners.

I think it was october when Ty Law broke his foot. By the time August gets here, that will be roughly TEN MONTHS since Ty Law has been able to run.

Thats a long time to be sitting around. It takes time to get your wind back, it doesnt just happen overnight. Especially at 31.

Hopefully he will rehab pissed off, with something to prove, like Priest Holmes does. A month isnt very long to try to make up for 10 months of not keeping in shape.


Id much rather just see them go after Surtain, and not have a question mark heading into the season opener. We are already going to be without Eric Warfield for at least one game, possibly four games. We are going to need a presence out on the corner to step in for him in his absence, and hope that the offense is firing on all cylinders early.


My thoughts exactly. If we go into next season with our top 2 FA signings having played a grand total of maybe 8 games last year, the odds of it blowing up in our face is pretty good.

If we had another decent corner on the roster, then taking a chance on Ty Law would be great. As it is we have no fallback guys to speak of. Just trade for Surtain already.

chiefsfolife
03-11-2005, 05:03 AM
They broke the story about Priest having surgery on his hip a while back, scooping the Star and the radio. Every once in a while they let us know about details and show some nice footage, but you're right, they don't break stories often.

As for Knight being a Chief...eh, don't really care. He's not horrible, but has never been outstanding in New Orleans or Miami. I don't think Wesley should be looking out for his job, as he's shown the most range at safety in KC the past few years (which speaks to how hard Woods fell off). I'm not too eager to see him moved to FS though.

not happy bout are safetys getting upgraded huh?

Tuckdaddy
03-11-2005, 05:17 AM
Good move. He will help alot back there. Carl is almost in my good graces.

the Talking Can
03-11-2005, 05:22 AM
hmm..."Takes bad angles on deep coverage and is often late giving help."...sounds like Wood's brother....hopefully we'll sign a CB soon not named Chad Scott or Herndon

Cochise
03-11-2005, 06:03 AM
Sounds like he was a victim of cover 2. He wont be playing as much zone in Gun's scheme. This could lead to better matchups for him, making him look better in coverage.

That's what I got too.

It increasingly seems to me that there are guys in the NFL who excel in cover 2 and those don't often translate well to other schemes. Dexter McCleon might be a prime example. He played a lot better in '03, esp. the first part of the year. Might also explain our lack of interest in the Ronde Barbers and (to a lesser degree) Smoot's of the world

the Talking Can
03-11-2005, 06:05 AM
here's some speculation on his Contract from Nick "Me No Write Well" Athan:

"With Kendrell Bell in the fold, the Kansas City Chiefs announced the signing of Miami Dolphin Safety Sammy Knight late Thursday evening. Though no terms of the deal were announced, we believe it’s a four or five year contract with a signing bonus around $2.5 -3.5 million that could have a total value of $16 million from what our source indicated to us early Friday morning. However, we’ve not been able to verify that with a second source."

Otter
03-11-2005, 06:32 AM
So we got Warfield out for 4 games and last years crew at cornerback.

Yep, this is a Chiefs move through and through.

Chief Henry
03-11-2005, 07:02 AM
It will be nice to see someone in a Red Jersey lay out an opposing ball carrier again. Its been a while since Ive seen that happen.



:cuss: Amen to that...

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:05 AM
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/8070/28040594rk.jpghttp://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=10861&stc=1

InChiefsHell
03-11-2005, 07:11 AM
How come this isn't on the Chiefs.com website?

Lzen
03-11-2005, 08:16 AM
How come this isn't on the Chiefs.com website?

CHIEFS AGREE TO TERMS OF FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH UFA S SAMMY KNIGHT
Mar 11, 2005, 9:03:56 AM


Kansas City Chiefs President Carl Peterson announced on Friday that the club has agreed to terms of a five-year contract with unrestricted free agent S Sammy Knight. As per Chiefs policy, no other terms of the agreement were made available.

“Sammy brings a great deal of experience to our defense,” Peterson commented. “He’s an eight-year veteran and has performed at a high level over that span. Bill Kuharich, our Vice President of Pro Personnel, was instrumental in the acquisition of Sammy, a player he has known since signing him as a rookie free agent with New Orleans in ‘97. We went into free agency wanting to acquire a linebacker, safety and a corner. We have two of those positions right now.”

Knight (6-0, 215) has appeared in 126 games (121 starts), including a streak 108 consecutive games played and 96 straight starts. A Pro Bowl performer for the Saints inknight 2001, Knight has recorded 862 tackles (587 solo), 5.0 sacks (-26.0 yards), 74 passes defensed, 11 fumble recoveries and 10 forced fumbles during his previous eight NFL campaigns. Since entering the league in ‘97, he has intercepted 35 passes for 594 yards with four returns for touchdowns. Those 35 INTs are the second-highest total in the league over the past eight seasons, trailing only S Darren Sharper (36). Knight has also started two playoff games, registering nine tackles, four passes defensed and two interceptions for the Saints in 2000.

Knight has played both strong and free safety during his NFL tenure and has registered six consecutive seasons with 100+ tackles, including 127 stops (74 solo) for the Dolphins in 2004. He also tied for the team lead in Miami last season with four interceptions (32 yards) to go with five passes defensed, one fumble recovery and three forced fumbles.

The 29-year-old performer originally entered the NFL when he was signed by Kuharich as a rookie free agent with New Orleans in ‘97. Knight earned a Pro Bowl invitation as a starter in 2001 with the Saints when he registered 120 tackles (74 solo), 10 passes defensed, five fumble recoveries, two forced fumbles and led the club with six interceptions for 114 yards.

The Fontina, California native was a four-year letterman at Southern California where he recorded 290 tackles and five interceptions, playing under legendary coach John Robinson. Knight led the squad his senior season with 121 tackles, including 11.0 for loss and was a first-team All-Pac 10 selection. Before entering the collegiate ranks, he was a Parade All-America selection at Rubidoux High School in Riverside, California. He compiled 153 tackles, 11 interceptions, five forced fumbles and five blocked kicks as a high school senior.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2005/03/11/chiefs_agree_to_terms_of_fiveyear_contract_with_ufa_s_sammy_knight/

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 08:21 AM
Great... FA money spent on a SAFETY instead of a true area of need.

We already have TWELVE on the roster. Oops, scratch that, now we have THIRTEEN. (0 cornerbacks, 1 LB, 1 DE)

Nice.
Pack of f*cktards

jspchief
03-11-2005, 09:04 AM
Great... FA money spent on a SAFETY instead of a true area of need.

We already have TWELVE on the roster. Oops, scratch that, now we have THIRTEEN. (0 cornerbacks, 1 LB, 1 DE)

Nice.
Pack of f*cktards

Safety isn't an area of need? I take it you didn't watch any games last year.

Just because we have 12 sh*tty ones, that doesn't mean it's not an area of need. The local junk yard has a lot of cars, that doesn't mean any of them are driveable...

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:08 AM
I watched every game... apparently you did not (or you don't know shit about football). Safety is a utility role - a cross between LB and corner. Our CBs sucked ass as did our LBs, so our safeties were forced to compensate. That constantly put them in a position to be exploited by our opposition. Knowing our LBs could not tackle or stop the run, they ran play-action to draw in the safeties, then threw over top of them to poorly-covered (if covered at all) receivers. The safeties would then drop back into coverage to aid the corners, leaving the underneath unguarded... also leacing our piss-poor LBs alone to stop the run; which is a frigging joke.

jspchief
03-11-2005, 09:24 AM
I watched every game... apparently you did not (or you don't know shit about football). Safety is a utility role - a cross between LB and corner. Our CBs sucked ass as did our LBs, so our safeties were forced to compensate. That constantly put them in a position to be exploited by our opposition. Knowing our LBs could not tackle or stop the run, they ran play-action to draw in the safeties, then threw over top of them to poorly-covered (if covered at all) receivers. The safeties would then drop back into coverage to aid the corners, leaving the underneath unguarded... also leacing our piss-poor LBs alone to stop the run; which is a frigging joke.

Ok dickwad, I bow to the great football prodigy.

Tell me, all knowing and powerful, Why were our safeties out of position even on obvious passing downs? Why did our excellent safeties bite on every play fake in the second half of the Colts game, in spite of the fact that Indy didn't run the ball once? The fact that our safeties constantly bit on play fakes just reinforces the need. Our corners were repeatedly left on an island.

If our safeties were playing the run so much, why did our run D suck so bad? Why did we give career days to nobodys like Pittman and Foster? If these guys were supporting the run so much, why were they never in position to contain big runs that busted through the front 7?

I suppose they just guessed wrong on every single play....which is still a reason to replace them.

I'm not the only one that "doesn't know sh*t about football" apparently. A bunch of proffessionals at 1 Arrowhead were stupid enough to think it was a need also.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:31 AM
Re-read my post... the one you quoted. You're asking questions that have already been answered.

Shit for brains. 4321

Lzen
03-11-2005, 09:34 AM
Cat fight!! Cat fight!!



:p

Lzen
03-11-2005, 09:35 AM
Actually, I think a lot of us on here agree that our safeties played like crap last year. And especially Woods. I think safety was a position in need of upgrade. But CB still needs upgraded. I hope we still sign a high caliber FA CB and draft one in the 1st round.

jspchief
03-11-2005, 09:42 AM
Re-read my post... the one you quoted. You're asking questions that have already been answered.

Shit for brains. 4321

Your post doesn't answer my questions at all.

A safety's job is to support the run when it's a running play, and the pass when it's a pass play. Jerome Woods faced the same task as every other free safety in the NFL faces.

Basically you're saying the reason they were so bad was because they were supporting the wrong area every time. That just tells me that they suck mentally.

Why were they exploited by the Colts, if the Colts weren't running the ball?

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:44 AM
I'm just a vocal minoirty - I see absolutely no reason to bring in a safety. We need LBs, CBs, and DL. Consistent line play + consistent LB play + consistent coverage outside are far more important than upgrading a utility position.

I'm not shocked that we went this route however, as Carl has a woody for safeties... why else would we have THIRTEEN on the roster? You'd think that he would realize it's better to have corners play cornerback and LBs play LB. But, I suppose, if you want to be a cheapass when it comes to building a defensive roster - LBs and CBs aren't cheap; safeties cost less....

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:52 AM
Your post doesn't answer my questions at all.

A safety's job is to support the run when it's a running play, and the pass when it's a pass play. Jerome Woods faced the same task as every other free safety in the NFL faces.

Basically you're saying the reason they were so bad was because they were supporting the wrong area every time. That just tells me that they suck mentally.

Why were they exploited by the Colts, if the Colts weren't running the ball?

Free safety doesn't support the run - he's the "safety valve" that must ensure receivers don't get behind the secondary.

Look, I agree that Woods sucked last year - but Harts and Pile did fine in his place. The problem is lack of coverage outside and lack of decent LB play. Our LBs SUCKED last year. Worst I've ever seen on an NFL roster. Our CBs SUCKED last year. Bartee, Battle and McCleon have to hire people to tuck their kids in at night because they can't cover <i><b>anyone</i></b>.

Is Knight an upgrade over Woods? Hell yes. I'm not arguing that.... my point is we already had players who were upgrades over him. And, by improving the LB and CBs, you inherrently improve the safeties. Prior to last year, the consensus view of our safeties was MOST favorable. Woods was an all-pro and Wesley was considered as good, if not better. Suddenly Maz is gone, Barber is gone, we do NOTHING to fix the LB corps, and McCleon forgets how to cover and suddenly it's the SAFETIES who suck? Nuh uh, nope. The safety play didn't just go to shit - everything around them did.

And, as usual, instead of paying to fix the real problem (LB and CB), CP takes a half-assed approach and signs a safety (costs less than a LB or CB)... and we're to "make due" with that. :grr:

jspchief
03-11-2005, 09:55 AM
I'm just a vocal minoirty - I see absolutely no reason to bring in a safety. We need LBs, CBs, and DL. Consistent line play + consistent LB play + consistent coverage outside are far more important than upgrading a utility position.


Fair enough. What if we still get a CB? Is it still a bad aquisition?

I agree that if it makes signing a CB unaffordable it's a bad move. But I think we will still get a CB. And after the CB contract, a safety was probably the only other thing we could afford.

philfree
03-11-2005, 09:58 AM
I wonder how much input Gun has had in the acquisition of Knight and Kindrell Bell? Are these his guys? I'd like to hear what Gun thinks about his new toys.


PhilFree :arrow:

jspchief
03-11-2005, 09:58 AM
Look, I agree that Woods sucked last year - but Harts and Pile did fine in his place. The problem is lack of coverage outside and lack of decent LB play. Our LBs SUCKED last year. Worst I've ever seen on an NFL roster. Our CBs SUCKED last year. Bartee, Battle and McCleon have to hire people to tuck their kids in at night because they can't cover anyone.

Is Knight an upgrade over Woods? Hell yes. I'm not arguing that.... my point is we already had players who were upgrades over him. And, by improving the LB and CBs, you inherrently improve the safeties. Prior to last year, the consensus view of our safeties was MOST favorable. Woods was an all-pro and Wesley was considered as good, if not better. Suddenly Maz is gone, Barber is gone, we do NOTHING to fix the LB corps, and McCleon forgets how to cover and suddenly it's the SAFETIES who suck? Nuh uh, nope. The safety play didn't just go to shit - everything around them did.

And, as usual, instead of paying to fix the real problem (LB and CB), CP takes a half-assed approach and signs a safety (costs less than a LB or CB)... and we're to "make due" with that. :grr:

I guess our main disagrement is on whether Carl will still get a FA CB, and the quality of the guys behind our starting safeties ( I think Harts and Pile are career back-ups).

BigChiefFan
03-11-2005, 09:58 AM
Here's the official signing information...






Kansas City Chiefs President Carl Peterson announced on Friday that the club has agreed to terms of a five-year contract with unrestricted free agent S Sammy Knight. As per Chiefs policy, no other terms of the agreement were made available.



"Sammy brings a great deal of experience to our defense," Peterson commented. "He's an eight-year veteran and has performed at a high level over that span. Bill Kuharich, our Vice President of Pro Personnel, was instrumental in the acquisition of Sammy, a player he has known since signing him as a rookie free agent with New Orleans in '97. We went into free agency wanting to acquire a linebacker, safety and a corner. We have two of those positions right now."

Knight (6-0, 215) has appeared in 126 games (121 starts), including a streak 108 consecutive games played and 96 straight starts. A Pro Bowl performer for the Saints in 2001, Knight has recorded 862 tackles (587 solo), 5.0 sacks (-26.0 yards), 74 passes defensed, 11 fumble recoveries and 10 forced fumbles during his previous eight NFL campaigns. Since entering the league in '97, he has intercepted 35 passes for 594 yards with four returns for touchdowns. Those 35 INTs are the second-highest total in the league over the past eight seasons, trailing only S Darren Sharper (36). Knight has also started two playoff games, registering nine tackles, four passes defensed and two interceptions for the Saints in 2000.

Knight has played both strong and free safety during his NFL tenure and has registered six consecutive seasons with 100+ tackles, including 127 stops (74 solo) for the Dolphins in 2004. He also tied for the team lead in Miami last season with four interceptions (32 yards) to go with five passes defensed, one fumble recovery and three forced fumbles.

The 29-year-old performer originally entered the NFL when he was signed by Kuharich as a rookie free agent with New Orleans in '97. Knight earned a Pro Bowl invitation as a starter in 2001 with the Saints when he registered 120 tackles (74 solo), 10 passes defensed, five fumble recoveries, two forced fumbles and led the club with six interceptions for 114 yards.

The Fontina, California native was a four-year letterman at Southern California where he recorded 290 tackles and five interceptions, playing under legendary coach John Robinson. Knight led the squad his senior season with 121 tackles, including 11.0 for loss and was a first-team All-Pac 10 selection. Before entering the collegiate ranks, he was a Parade All-America selection at Rubidoux High School in Riverside, California. He compiled 153 tackles, 11 interceptions, five forced fumbles and five blocked kicks as a high school senior.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:58 AM
Fair enough. What if we still get a CB? Is it still a bad aquisition?

I agree that if it makes signing a CB unaffordable it's a bad move. But I think we will still get a CB. And after the CB contract, a safety was probably the only other thing we could afford.

No... it's not a "bad" acquisition <i>per se</i>... just an unnecessary one IMO.

I would prefer they had spent time, energy, and money on a CB, LB, DE or DT (in that order). Again, not surprising they went safety. Dick said he wanted a safety. Bell said in his post-signing interview they told him they'd add a safety. My theory as to <i>why</i> has everything to do with money, rather than <i>need</i>... and that pisses me off.

philfree
03-11-2005, 10:10 AM
No... it's not a "bad" acquisition <i>per se</i>... just an unnecessary one IMO.

I would prefer they had spent time, energy, and money on a CB, LB, DE or DT (in that order). Again, not surprising they went safety. Dick said he wanted a safety. Bell said in his post-signing interview they told him they'd add a safety. My theory as to <i>why</i> has everything to do with money, rather than <i>need</i>... and that pisses me off.

The signing of Knight being about the money is just your perception. He's a better tackler then any of our Ss and improved tackling is a big need on this D. Now we need to trade for Surtain and we'll have had a heck of a free agency on paper.


PhilFree :arrow:

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:29 AM
The signing of Knight being about the money is just your perception. He's a better tackler then any of our Ss and improved tackling is a big need on this D. Now we need to trade for Surtain and we'll have had a heck of a free agency on paper

Well duh... hence, I said "my theory". :p

It makes sense: Carl is notoriously cheap... he takes pride in it ("tough SOB negotiator"; adversarial prick is more like it, but I digress). How does one kind of fix a problem, without spending the money to fix it completely? Find a "patchwork" solution! In this case, we are in desperate need of LBs and CBs... and every player and agent knows it. Now, LBs and CBs don't come cheap: they're "skill" defensive postions. So how does Carl fill the desperate needs w/o spending money on acquiring the <i>actual</i> position players (ie LBs and CBs)? Easy: take a "tweener"/utility player... a SAFETY. That player can kinda stop the run and kinda stop the pass - it's what they do; and, they cost a lot less than LBs and CBs. And, in a pinch, we can convert them to a skill position (typically corner), and fill a position without having to pay market!! Woo hoo!

I'm sure he thinks it's a brilliant strategy. Problem is it hasn't worked. It's the same old shit that got us in this mess to begin with. Drafting/signing half-assed "tweeners" and utility players instead of ponying up for a skill player. Or, worse, "reaching" for players in the draft because that player's agent is easy to deal with (wouldn't want to have to actually <i>work</i> to get a player signied and in camp on time ((for once)) ) or his college coach is your buddy and he says that the player is an awful nice guy and a super-duper player. :rolleyes:

It's more of the same, from the makers of the 32 _efense.

philfree
03-11-2005, 10:42 AM
It's not like we haven't signed a LB and made an offer to another. We've also been talking CBs and looking at trade possibilties for Surtain. It don't matter though your minds made up. Enjoy the rest of your day! :)


PhilFree :arrow:

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:46 AM
It's not like we haven't signed a LB and made an offer to another. We've also been talking CBs and looking at trade possibilties for Surtain. It don't matter though your minds made up. Enjoy the rest of your day! :)


PhilFree :arrow:

Yeah, there's been A LOT of CB <H1>TALK</h1>. Problem is there has been little/no ACTION.

Who have we brought in since the beginning of FA?

Rolle: We had him here for three(?) days and couldn't get a deal worked out. He flies to B'More and the next evening he's signed, sealed and delivered. So we put out some trumped-up, tired, bullshit excuse and some people are actually stupid enough to fall for it? Ha.

Herndon: a second/third-tier option at best.

And <i>that's it</i>. I guess we were too busy ironing out contract negotiations with a freaking SAFETY, eh? Yeah, safety was a much more pressing need than corner. Or DE. Or DT. Or LB. Or, *gasp* WR.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 10:49 AM
Upgrading SS wasn't a "luxury" move. It was one of our worst positions last year.

I took alot of heat for expressing this prior to free agency, and I'm sure I will now.

We got a top safety and we sure as hell needed it.

And I'm confident we'll get a starting CB as well.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Upgrading SS wasn't a "luxury" move. It was one of our worst positions last year.

You thought WESLEY was one of our biggest weaknesses on D last year? Seriously? With <i>that</i> LB corps and <i>those</i> corners?!

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Yeah, there's been A LOT of CB <H1>TALK</h1>. Problem is there has been little/no ACTION.

Who have we brought in since the beginning of FA?

Rolle: We had him here for three(?) days and couldn't get a deal worked out. He flies to B'More and the next evening he's signed, sealed and delivered. So we put out some trumped-up, tired, bullshit excuse and some people are actually stupid enough to fall for it? Ha.

Herndon: a second/third-tier option at best.

And <i>that's it</i>. I guess we were too busy ironing out contract negotiations with a freaking SAFETY, eh? Yeah, safety was a much more pressing need than corner. Or DE. Or DT. Or LB. Or, *gasp* WR.

Dude. Do you really think the Chiefs are going to go through free agency without upgrading the worst position on the team? After saying it was a priority?

If they wanted to deliver a half-assed solution, they'd have inked Herndon to a cheap deal.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:57 AM
You thought WESLEY was one of our biggest weaknesses on D last year? Seriously? With <i>that</i> LB corps and <i>those</i> corners?!

I think he meant Woods. McCleon and Bartee made more plays than that bum last year.

BigChiefFan
03-11-2005, 11:00 AM
I'm not willing to give Carl too much props yet, but he has done a good job so far. If we go into the draft with Bell, Knight and either Surtain or Law, I will be very pleased with Carl's and Gunther's approach to improving the team. They've addressed TWO problem areas(so far) with very good players, I don't see what there is to be upset with, yet. I agree, CB is a MAJOR NEED, but the Chiefs obviously realize this or Law wouldn't be coming in for a visit. I give Carl shit, but I'm not willing to break out the pitchforks until the premier guys aren't Chiefs.

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 11:00 AM
Dude. Do you really think the Chiefs are going to go through free agency without upgrading the worst position on the team? After saying it was a priority?

If they wanted to deliver a half-assed solution, they'd have inked Herndon to a cheap deal.

I think once they realize that Law isnt going to sign for the sweetheart deal that everyone thinks he will for some reason, they will be scrabbling fast to find anyone. Im not trying to be negative I like Bell and Knight but I dont see the Chiefs getting Law or Surtain. I hope I am wrong.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:02 AM
Dude. Do you really think the Chiefs are going to go through free agency without upgrading the worst position on the team? After saying it was a priority?

Until I see action, actual results, not a lot of bullshit and hot wind, then they haven't done squat.

The Bell signing is nice - but they follow it up by saying he'll <i>compete</i> for a position. Typical Chiefs shit. The rest of the LB corps still sucks. Bell alone can't make up for Mitchell's suck play or Fujita's missed tackles.

The Knight signing is an upgrade at a postion, IMO, that was in least need of upgrading.

The corner position has gone virtually neglected - when everyone with >= half a brain knows is KC's most desperate need. They brought in TWO people: a top-notch player, whom they dicked around with and allowed to go elsewhere, and a second/third-tier option.

There has not been enough of a concerted effort to FIX THE F*CKING MESS THEY CREATED. Perhaps, if they keep dragging ass and dicking around, Surtain & Law will go elsewhere... as the rest of the FA CBs have done? Maybe <i>then</i> they'll get serious? Of course, by then we'll be doing what we always do: picking over the scraps left behind in the third-wave of free agency. :grr:

buddha
03-11-2005, 11:11 AM
(King Carl) We went into free agency wanting to acquire a linebacker, safety and a corner. We have two of those positions right now."

Can we stop mentioning Hartwell now? Anything "could" happen, but isn't it fairly certain at this point that KC will now focus on finding a corner and do the rest in the draft?

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 11:15 AM
Until I see action, actual results, not a lot of bullshit and hot wind, then they haven't done squat.

The Bell signing is nice - but they follow it up by saying he'll <i>compete</i> for a position. Typical Chiefs shit.

Uh...where did they say he was going to "compete for a position?"

It's clear you're letting your hatred for Carl get in the way. What are you going to say when the Chiefs DO sign a corner?

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:17 AM
Uh...where did they say he was going to "compete for a position?"

Carl said it in the announcement of his signing. He was asked if Bell was going to be the MLB. He said (paraphrasing) "No, that will be worked out in competition up in training camp". Look it up.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 11:20 AM
Carl said it in the announcement of his signing. He was asked if Bell was going to be the MLB. He said (paraphrasing) "No, that will be worked out in competition up in training camp". Look it up.

They said "where he lines up" will be determined. He's got one of the spots locked down. He's not going to be a backup.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:21 AM
They said "where he lines up" will be determined. He's got one of the spots locked down. He's not going to be a backup.

Didn't say he would be. He will most definitely be a starter - WHERE, however, is undetermined. That means, barring another LB acquisition, Mitchell will be a starter... which is unacceptable.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 11:47 AM
You thought WESLEY was one of our biggest weaknesses on D last year? Seriously? With <i>that</i> LB corps and <i>those</i> corners?!

Yep. But even worse was Woods.

Knight will push Wesley to FS, where he belongs.

Nightfyre
03-11-2005, 12:37 PM
Yep. But even worse was Woods.

Knight will push Wesley to FS, where he belongs.
htis, you and I agree far too much.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 12:43 PM
htis, you and I agree far too much.

I feel sorry for you.

My opinions are the object of much scorn and ridicule on this board...

Nightfyre
03-11-2005, 12:44 PM
I feel sorry for you.

My opinions are the object of much scorn and ridicule on this board...
I roll with it... :shrug:

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Me three...