PDA

View Full Version : Is it just me or do some of you have a bad attitude towards Sammy?


Tuckdaddy
03-11-2005, 05:35 AM
We should be happy to have Knight. Our safety has been terrible. Woods solid play has completely gone bye bye since he was hurt in SF. Knoght is a good safety.

Braincase
03-11-2005, 05:53 AM
I think it's more of a recognized need at CB rather than S.

the Talking Can
03-11-2005, 05:57 AM
I'll be happy about signing Woods twice when they finally sign a #1 CB.

Cochise
03-11-2005, 09:02 AM
I think it's a case of knee-jerk bashing someone people know very little about, because his name isn't Law and because the guy who signed him's name is Carl.

morphius
03-11-2005, 09:06 AM
I have nothing against the guy, and have thought that he was a pretty good player, its just I really want a #1 CB to go with the CB we pick up in the first round. I also would have liked to see us have the oppertunity to find a replacement for Hicks as well. Then there is the fact that I believe we could have moved any of our CB's to safety and they probably would have excelled.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-11-2005, 09:09 AM
I'm glad to have him....I just hope we can still afford a top flight corner.

Hoover
03-11-2005, 09:09 AM
I like it. I think there is no question that we needed help back there. Now we can have an open competition for both saftie spots.

eazyb81
03-11-2005, 09:11 AM
I think people are pissed because we have bigger needs right now and signing another safety doesn't make much sense. I would have been more content to have Battle/Bartee/Pile fight it out for Woods' spot rather then wasting money on Knight. Furthermore, Knight is not good in coverage, he is more of a big hitting SS, so I have no idea why they brought him in. We have limited cap space, so to sign a guy like Knight isn't a priority when we could have had a #1 CB and/or Hartwell.

Chiefnj
03-11-2005, 09:12 AM
The bigger problem has always been corner. That needed to be addressed before safety. I would have preferred that the Chiefs kept all available cap money open for at least one corner before filling in yet another safety.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:18 AM
The bigger problem has always been corner. That needed to be addressed before safety. I would have preferred that the Chiefs kept all available cap money open for at least one corner before filling in yet another safety.

And there it is.

Knight is a fine safety, no doubt about it. Problem is we didn't need another freaking safety - we need corners (2, minimum), another LB, and another DE.

Pants
03-11-2005, 09:21 AM
And there it is.

Knight is a fine safety, no doubt about it. Problem is we didn't need another freaking safety - we need corners (2, minimum), another LB, and another DE.

Heh, watch Carl trade a few safeties for Surtain instead of the 2nd round pick..

Warrior5
03-11-2005, 09:21 AM
I don't have a bad attitude...I'm just scratching my head at this point.

Obviously, I had CB as a MUCH higher priority than Safety. The fact that CP signed a safety doesn't necessarily mean that Safety is a higher priority than CB; Peterson may be working a FA CB acquisition strategically (which we don't see and can only speculate about).

FWIW, I had Knight ranked #3 on my list of FA Safetys below Darius and Wilson, so from that aspect, he's a great acquisition.

I only hope that Peterson still has enough $ to land Surtain or Dyson, and that's why I'm scratching my head.

siberian khatru
03-11-2005, 09:22 AM
I'm just gonna wait and see how the entire offseason shakes out -- this FA signing period, the draft and the June 1 cuts. Knight could be a nice piece of a puzzle that's not yet complete. If, however, he's supposed to be the big "fix" to the secondary, I think that blows.

We don't know how much $$ Carl has left and what his remaining plans are. Not that he's given us a lot in the past to be confident about, but I'll not judge Knight until I see what else shakes out.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:23 AM
Heh, watch Carl trade a few safeties for Surtain instead of the 2nd round pick..

Man, that would be excellent :D
I'd be posting retractions left & right if that were to happen

Pants
03-11-2005, 09:26 AM
I don't think it's even an issue whether we are getting a #1 CB. FO has been saying all along it's the top priority. Like I've been saying all night, I think CP is drooling over cheap Law, and if Ty decides to be stupid and ask for a huge bonus, CP falls back on Surtain.

siberian khatru
03-11-2005, 09:34 AM
BTW, to play devil's advocate here, it's possible they signed Knight to play S, even though we have lots of candidates to convert to that spot, because Carl and Co. agree with a majority of the Planet -- that our window of opportunity is open this year only, MAYBE next. And rather than try to groom a new, converting S, he wanted to bring in a vet he could trust to hold things together for a season or two.

In other words, this is the kind of short-term fix many here (including me) have been calling for.

Of course, he still needs to add a quality CB to make it work, but I'm just saying ...

Chan93lx50
03-11-2005, 09:34 AM
My opinion is that our D could use a replacement in every damn position, so bringing in a saftey really does not concern me!

Warrior5
03-11-2005, 09:41 AM
Also doesn't hurt that Peterson can use Knight to help recruit Surtain.

...looking for the positive waves while scratching his head.

Chiefnj
03-11-2005, 10:06 AM
I don't think it's even an issue whether we are getting a #1 CB. FO has been saying all along it's the top priority. Like I've been saying all night, I think CP is drooling over cheap Law, and if Ty decides to be stupid and ask for a huge bonus, CP falls back on Surtain.

I don't think it will be easy to "fall back" on Surtain. He's a top corner and won't be cheap. Plus there are allegedly a few teams interested.

mikey23545
03-11-2005, 10:11 AM
Furthermore, Knight is not good in coverage, he is more of a big hitting SS, so I have no idea why they brought him in...

Yeah, the last thing the defense needs is a big hitter....

Brock
03-11-2005, 10:13 AM
Yeah, the last thing the defense needs is a big hitter....

No kidding. Remember when the defense used to generate turnovers when they tackled?

carlos3652
03-11-2005, 10:13 AM
I love how people are bashing Carl for picking up "another" safety... and saying we should pick up a CB first, well guess what our first option signed with the Ravens (which could go either way) our second option is still a FA in a wheelchair ( I wonder why we havent offered him a contract yet? - o wait he is coming next week...) and our third option at cb right now wants a 2rd pick that 1/2 the people dont want to give up and this trade probably wont happen until the draft if it does happen....

If we wait until the cb option there would be no safties left to pick from... sure we can let Pile/Bartee/Woods/Wesley/Crouch and whoever battle it out, but you add these together and you get 1 above average player and the rest are unproven/sucks/wont be a ballhalk this year (maybe in the future) but not now and we need defense now!

The fact of the matter is that Bell, Knight, Law/Surtain upgrade with a LB/DE/CB as our 1st pick will make this defense into a top 20 D which is what we need...

Your asking Carl to get a CB first, when we have to wait...

Pants
03-11-2005, 10:14 AM
Yeah, the last thing the defense needs is a big hitter....

ROFL

And, yeah, Chief, I realize that. I do, however think that is Carl's plan. Try Law and if it doesn't work - go for Surtain. The media and fans will ****ing burn his house down if he doesn't get a #1 CB. We just as well might forget about Hartwell, though.

Gravedigger
03-11-2005, 10:15 AM
Now that we have sammy knight though I can almost guarantee that we'll trade for surtain cause law is asking just a bit too much so unless my wildest dreams comes true Im thinking surtain is gonna be there since knight and surtain know each other that's kind of how rolle went to baltimore cause of mason.

mikey23545
03-11-2005, 10:15 AM
No kidding. Remember when the defense used to generate turnovers when they tackled?

Between Bell and Knight, I can't wait to see some AFC West RBs picking their teeth up from the turf this year...

Woodrow Call
03-11-2005, 10:16 AM
ROFL

And, yeah, Chief, I realize that. I do, however think that is Carl's plan. Try Law and if it doesn't work go for Surtain. The media and fans will ****ing burn his house down if he doesn't get a #1 CB. We just as well might forget about Hartwell, though.

I believe they better start getting torches ready.

PHOG
03-11-2005, 10:22 AM
Between Bell and Knight, I can't wait to see some AFC West RBs picking their teeth up from the turf this year...

That will be a nice thing to witness, won't it? :drool: :$2500:

Coach
03-11-2005, 10:25 AM
Bad attitude? No. I think with this signing, that it will at least make the S position more competitive. If I recall, Vermeil wasn't really happy with Wesleys play when training camp broke, along with Woods. I would think that Woods would be demoted and/or probably be moved to the Nickel Back. I just hope that this means that it will be the end of William "Crispy" Bartee and Dexter "Mighty Mouse II" McCleon.

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 10:26 AM
God damn! I am friggin stoked! REAL DEFENSIVE PLAYERS! WE'RE GONNA LAY SOME WOOD! ANYONE ELSE FRIGGIN STOKED!!! WOOO!

mikey23545
03-11-2005, 10:29 AM
Wooo, indeed....

Hoover
03-11-2005, 10:30 AM
I find it funny that fans think the order in which a team signs a player represents the teams offseason priorities.

I think Carl went into the season wanting 3 new defensive starters. LB, CB and Saftie. If he pulls it out and signs Law or gets Surtain you all need to shut up.

Pants
03-11-2005, 10:33 AM
I find it funny that fans think the order in which a team signs a player represents the teams offseason priorities.

I think Carl went into the season wanting 3 new defensive starters. LB, CB and Saftie. If he pulls it out and signs Law or gets Surtain you all need to shut up.

No shit. Besides (like I ALREADY SAID) a #1 CB has been our #1 priority since the beginning. I'm sure CP saved enough cap room for one. In fact, signing Bell and Sammy probably gave him more time to rework the cap in order to sign a big time CB such as Law OR Surtain.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:37 AM
No shit. Besides (like I ALREADY SAID) a #1 CB has been our #1 priority since the beginning. I'm sure CP saved enough cap room for one. In fact, signing Bell and Sammy probably gave him more time to rework the cap in order to sign a big time CB such as Law OR Surtain.

#1 priority... right. That's why we let Rolle leave w/o a contract. That's why we didn't even speak to Smoot. That's why we didn't even speak to Lucas.

Mmm, hmm... #1 priority. Yep, that's it.

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 10:43 AM
If he pulls it out and signs Law or gets Surtain you all need to shut the **** up and sit the **** down.

Fixed your typo.

PHOG
03-11-2005, 10:45 AM
#1 priority... right. That's why we let Rolle leave w/o a contract. That's why we didn't even speak to Smoot. That's why we didn't even speak to Lucas.

Mmm, hmm... #1 priority. Yep, that's it.

They'll sign either Law or trade for Surtain. They.... they just gotta. :deevee: :deevee:

Chris Meck
03-11-2005, 11:56 AM
Guys, people that play well in one system aren't neccessarily the right guys for another. Smoot is certainly a talented guy, but he's way small for a bump'n'run corner-which is what Gun is after. This is why we didn't make a play for him. Law or Surtain are much better suited to this style of defense.

David.
03-11-2005, 12:00 PM
I think you guys are gonna be surprised at the improvement of some of the guys we have.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:08 PM
We should be happy to have Knight. Our safety has been terrible. Woods solid play has completely gone bye bye since he was hurt in SF. Knoght is a good safety.
has nothing to do with Sammy the player

but it does mean that we've added yet ANOTHER freakin safety.

it also means we were major stupid for giving a new contract to woods last year.

it also means that all the other billion safeties we have on the roster are all suck @ss busts.

its' also another safety when we really need a cornerback.




it's not about knight... it's about what the signing means beyond knight himself that pissing people off.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:10 PM
I think you guys are gonna be surprised at the improvement of some of the guys we have.
been hearing that bullchit every year from people....


i've been told that "next year bartee will improve" ever since he can into the league.

it took eric warfield 8 freakin years in the league to become a passable cornerback.

David.
03-11-2005, 12:16 PM
been hearing that bullchit every year from people....


i've been told that "next year bartee will improve" ever since he can into the league.

it took eric warfield 8 freakin years in the league to become a passable cornerback.

bartee is a lost cause, i'll agree with that. But I think Sapp and Pile are gonna be really good in the future. Maybe not this year, but hopefully after that. I still haven't given up on Mitchell and Sims, but I think I'm definitely in the minority there. I also can't wait to see how much Junior has improved.

David.
03-11-2005, 12:17 PM
oh yeah, and hopefully Gun can "fix" Battle.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 12:19 PM
has nothing to do with Sammy the player

but it does mean that we've added yet ANOTHER freakin safety.

it also means we were major stupid for giving a new contract to woods last year.

it also means that all the other billion safeties we have on the roster are all suck @ss busts.

its' also another safety when we really need a cornerback.




it's not about knight... it's about what the signing means beyond knight himself that pissing people off.

We'll still get a CB.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:21 PM
oh yeah, and hopefully Gun can "fix" Battle.
i hope so too ... i liked Battle coming out of college, thought he was good 3rd round value.



but i think it's the DB coach peter guinta that is gonna have to fix battle and im not sure the man that broke him is the right person to fix him.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:27 PM
We'll still get a CB.
ok Miss Cleo

http://tulsatvmemories.com/imag2003/misscleo.jpg

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 12:30 PM
i hope so too ... i liked Battle coming out of college, thought he was good 3rd round value.

Why? After doing a bit of research on him I did not like the pick at all. He was inconsistent in college and considered "uncoachable"/a head case. Seems to explain his NFL career as well.

Most people did like the pick... thought he brought "good value" / "upside" (hate that term). Petro was one of the few who objected... turns out he was dead-on.

Hoover
03-11-2005, 12:30 PM
Call Me now!!!!

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 12:32 PM
ok Miss Cleo

http://tulsatvmemories.com/imag2003/misscleo.jpg

Call me now for your free psychic readen!

tk13
03-11-2005, 12:33 PM
I'm happy with the signing, it's more competition. Who on earth can complain about improving the talent anywhere on this football team? Our defense was horrible. People forget Jerome Woods playing like a stone statue out there and single-handedly finishing off our playoff hopes last year in the New Orleans game.

I don't know why everybody is so worried about a corner. I know common sense gets lost on this board sometimes, but let's think about this for a second. We go out and sign a safety who's best skill is coming up in the box and knocking the crap out of people... what is the best way to utilize his talents? Have two corners who can man-up on the outside. That's the next step, find that guy.... this Knight signing has given me more confidence than at any other point during the offseason that we're going to upgrade at CB. It all fits perfectly right into what Gunther wants to do.

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:34 PM
Why? After doing a bit of research on him I did not like the pick at all. He was inconsistent in college and considered "uncoachable"/a head case. Seems to explain his NFL career as well.

Most people did like the pick... thought he brought "good value" / "upside" (hate that term). Petro was one of the few who objected... turns out he was dead-on.


i like the way he played... he seemed to really flow and play at a faster level than others on the field. his physical potiential is huge.

i think that that's the kind of guy you take a chance on in the 3rd round.


he still has potiential, i'm just not sure our coaching staff has the ability to get it out of him. Not to mention that the rule changes really hurt the play of a big physical cornerback like battle.

especially when he is just starting to learn the game.


to me Battle has "Chris McCalister" written all over him

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 12:40 PM
Call me now for your free psychic readen!

ROFL

Mr. Laz
03-11-2005, 12:43 PM
I know common sense gets lost on this board sometimes

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 12:45 PM
Apparently level heads get lost here too. :D

siberian khatru
03-11-2005, 12:53 PM
I'm happy with the signing, it's more competition. Who on earth can complain about improving the talent anywhere on this football team? Our defense was horrible. People forget Jerome Woods playing like a stone statue out there and single-handedly finishing off our playoff hopes last year in the New Orleans game.

I don't know why everybody is so worried about a corner. I know common sense gets lost on this board sometimes, but let's think about this for a second. We go out and sign a safety who's best skill is coming up in the box and knocking the crap out of people... what is the best way to utilize his talents? Have two corners who can man-up on the outside. That's the next step, find that guy.... this Knight signing has given me more confidence than at any other point during the offseason that we're going to upgrade at CB. It all fits perfectly right into what Gunther wants to do.

Wipe Carl's man-juice off your chin, get Gun's dick out of your mouth, homer, Rufus, Titus, etc., etc., etc. ;)

tk13
03-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Hey laz, I've got a better sig for you. You're free to use it. Enjoy.

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 01:26 PM
OMG

Best post ever. ROFL

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 01:26 PM
:LOL:

Rausch
03-11-2005, 01:32 PM
i hope so too ... i liked Battle coming out of college, thought he was good 3rd round value.



but i think it's the DB coach peter guinta that is gonna have to fix battle and im not sure the man that broke him is the right person to fix him.

Wow, I actually agree. He's got great speed and size, he's just not playing with his head. Too many penalties, too much contact with the WR...

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 01:37 PM
to me Battle has "Chris McCalister" written all over him

:bong:

patteeu
03-11-2005, 01:38 PM
has nothing to do with Sammy the player

but it does mean that we've added yet ANOTHER freakin safety.

it also means we were major stupid for giving a new contract to woods last year.

it also means that all the other billion safeties we have on the roster are all suck @ss busts.

its' also another safety when we really need a cornerback.




it's not about knight... it's about what the signing means beyond knight himself that pissing people off.

You are close, but you are still wrong.

It's not about Knight... and it's not about what the signing means beyond Knight himself... it's about people around here not being happy unless they can rationalize a reason to bitch... especially about the Chiefs FO and the guy in charge who is gradually putting together a kick-ass off-season.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 01:46 PM
You are close, but you are still wrong.

It's not about Knight... and it's not about what the signing means beyond Knight himself... it's about people around here not being happy unless they can rationalize a reason to bitch... especially about the Chiefs FO and the guy in charge who is gradually putting together a kick-ass off-season.

Oh yeah, it's kick-ass so far. :rolleyes:

I think the only people who are rationalizing anything are the homers who are defending the signing of another strong safety. Funny that I don't remember anyone on this board saying that one of our top 3 priorities this offseason was replacing Wesley.

tk13
03-11-2005, 01:52 PM
Oh yeah, it's kick-ass so far. :rolleyes:

I think the only people who are rationalizing anything are the homers who are defending the signing of another strong safety. Funny that I don't remember anyone on this board saying that one of our top 3 priorities this offseason was replacing Wesley.
I've said since about week 8 that our safeties are not getting the job done. You can go look it up... well you could if there was a search function. :)

Problem is there are so many other holes to fill I didn't think we'd get around to adding a safety, but we did, I'm not complaining. Gotta get a corner though still.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 02:01 PM
I've said since about week 8 that our safeties are not getting the job done. You can go look it up... well you could if there was a search function. :)

Problem is there are so many other holes to fill I didn't think we'd get around to adding a safety, but we did, I'm not complaining. Gotta get a corner though still.

Like I said on another thread, only way this move makes sense is if Woods is cut, Wesley is traded for a decent draft pick, Knight plays SS, and Pile or Harts plays FS.

tk13
03-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Like I said on another thread, only way this move makes sense is if Woods is cut, Wesley is traded for a decent draft pick, Knight plays SS, and Pile or Harts plays FS.
I agree logicistically speaking, or financially speaking, it may not make the most sense in world, but I see it from the standpoint that we need to win... this year, and we just added a football player who can tackle, be a leader, and has good instincts. Generally it seems like we lean toward adding great athletes and molding them, here we've picked up a guy who isn't the most physically talented player in the world, but he's a football player. I'm certainly not going to complain. I don't think that makes me a "homer". I think we need more guys like him.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 02:27 PM
I agree logicistically speaking, or financially speaking, it may not make the most sense in world, but I see it from the standpoint that we need to win... this year, and we just added a football player who can tackle, be a leader, and has good instincts. Generally it seems like we lean toward adding great athletes and molding them, here we've picked up a guy who isn't the most physically talented player in the world, but he's a football player. I'm certainly not going to complain. I don't think that makes me a "homer". I think we need more guys like him.

tk, do you realize that when we signed Jason Belser, he was only one year older and had played in only one more season than Sammy Knight has? When he came to KC in 2001, Belser had a streak of consecutive games started going back to the 1994 season, very similar to Knight. And Belser had been a starter for four Colts playoff teams----95, 96, 99, and 2000. Belser was also known as a player who could tackle, be a leader, and had good instincts, not a physical specimen, but a football player. What happened?

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 02:30 PM
tk, do you realize that when we signed Jason Belser, he was only one year older and had played in only one more season than Sammy Knight has?

Don't go there. Belser's stats weren't nearly as good as Knights were/are. It's not even CLOSE. He hadn't picked off a pass for two seasons before coming to KC.

tk13
03-11-2005, 02:31 PM
tk, do you realize that when we signed Jason Belser, he was only one year older and had played in only one more season than Sammy Knight has? When he came to KC in 2001, Belser had a streak of consecutive games started going back to the 1994 season, very similar to Knight. And Belser had been a starter for four Colts playoff teams----95, 96, 99, and 2000. Belser was also known as a player who could tackle, be a leader, and had good instincts, not a physical specimen, but a football player. What happened?
Hey, I didn't say that wasn't possible. You take that risk anytime you sign a free agent. We take that risk if we sign Bell or Hartwell or Law or Surtain or anybody... you're one of the crowd that's always making fun of the people who say free agency isn't without risks, I don't know why you're telling me this. I know this, I'm glad you realize it too. If it doesn't work out though, we didn't spend a ton of money on him, it's a good risk I think.

DaWolf
03-11-2005, 02:34 PM
I look at it as we went into free agency looking to sign 3 starters, one at LB, one at CB and one at S. Sammy allows us to check off the second of the 3 goals, with Bell allowing us to check off the first. So now we have one goal left before the draft hits, which is signing a starting corner. So I just see it as a means of moving towards accomplishing our goals. We're still very alive for signing a starting corner, so unless/until that doesn't happen, I have no reason to be down...

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 02:39 PM
Don't go there. Belser's stats weren't nearly as good as Knights were/are. It's not even CLOSE. He hadn't picked off a pass for two seasons before coming to KC.

Apparently Indy's D-coordinator used Belser differently, because he had 5 sacks in 2000 from the safety position. But it doesn't really matter, because they were both productive starters for decent teams before coming to the Chiefs. I'm just saying that Knight could be headed for a Belser-like drop-off.

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 02:41 PM
Apparently Indy's D-coordinator used Belser differently, because he had 5 sacks in 2000 from the safety position. But it doesn't really matter, because they were both productive starters for decent teams before coming to the Chiefs. I'm just saying that Knight could be headed for a Belser-like drop-off.

5 sacks, and 1 each in each of the 4 previous years. I'd say 5 sacks was an aberration.

There's no comparison.

DaWolf
03-11-2005, 02:42 PM
Apparently Indy's D-coordinator used Belser differently, because he had 5 sacks in 2000 from the safety position. But it doesn't really matter, because they were both productive starters for decent teams before coming to the Chiefs. I'm just saying that Knight could be headed for a Belser-like drop-off.
Belser was specifically signed for backup depth. Knight was signed to come in and compete for a starting job. So I think there is a bit of a difference in that comparison in terms of how the club viewed each player...

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 02:43 PM
:bong:

What has this board come to when Shane is accusing Laz of being on drugs?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

|Zach|
03-11-2005, 02:43 PM
We are idiots if we don't sign FA's and if we do sign FAs they won't do well if they play for us.

Good times to be a CP genious

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 02:43 PM
Oh yeah, it's kick-ass so far. :rolleyes:

I think the only people who are rationalizing anything are the homers who are defending the signing of another strong safety. Funny that I don't remember anyone on this board saying that one of our top 3 priorities this offseason was replacing Wesley.

You don't remember people saying we should get a SS and move Wesley to free safety?

Maybe you should stop bitching for a 2nd and PAY ATTENTION.

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 02:43 PM
What has this board come to when Shane is accusing Laz of being on drugs?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

ROFL

Htismaqe, always his finger on the pulse of CP.

|Zach|
03-11-2005, 02:44 PM
What has this board come to when Shane is accusing Laz of being on drugs?

ROFL ROFL ROFL
Doom and gloomers are imloding!

Douche Baggins
03-11-2005, 02:44 PM
We lose if we don't sign FA's and if we do sign FAs they won't do well if they play for us.

Good times to be a CP genious

Yup. :rolleyes:

Wallcrawler
03-11-2005, 02:44 PM
Well, at least having Kendrell Bell, and Sammy Knight on board, I think that will go quite a ways when approaching the CB that the front office really wants.

He can see that the Chiefs have already made moves to get the defense better, and it wont all be resting on him. I have a feeling that it will be Law that ends up with us, due to his injury and that may let us get him cheaper.

I personally would rather have Surtain, because then we would have HALF of one of the best secondaries in the league for the past two seasons. Surtain and Knight have played together for a couple years, and you could put those two guys on one side of the field and it would be very, very solid.


Maybe having Knight with us might make Surtain's demands go down a little, knowing he would be playing alongside a teammate that he knows and is familiar with.

BoroChief
03-11-2005, 02:54 PM
I agree that Knight might make it easier to get Surtain, but you got to remember the Terrell Owens fiasco of last year. There's no guarantee that the Phins will trade him to us. I just hope this signing doesn't mean that we're banking too much on signing Ty Law one again there's no guarantee that it will happen. In a perfect world, we will trade for Surtain and sign Law then I'll be doing cartwheels naked in the streets.
Not a pretty sight be the way.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 02:55 PM
Hey, I didn't say that wasn't possible. You take that risk anytime you sign a free agent. We take that risk if we sign Bell or Hartwell or Law or Surtain or anybody... you're one of the crowd that's always making fun of the people who say free agency isn't without risks, I don't know why you're telling me this. I know this, I'm glad you realize it too. If it doesn't work out though, we didn't spend a ton of money on him, it's a good risk I think.

I am all about signing UFA's who are 26-27 years old with upside, no injury history, and previous successful starting experience at a position of need. This year, that list included A. Pierce, E. Hartwell, K. Lucas, G. Baxter, Smoot, Dyson, and Dwight Smith. Lucas, Baxter, and Smoot were probably too expensive. But we could've got Pierce for a $6.5 mil signing bonus and D. Smith for $3.5 mil signing bonus. I don't really feel that it would've been that big of a risk to sign those guys.

But you know that if Bell ends up getting hurt again and/or Knight has a drop off and the Chiefs go 8-8, Rufus will whine about how the Chiefs listened to their fans and signed big name free agents but it didn't work out because free agency doesn't work. That's just a bunch of crap.

|Zach|
03-11-2005, 02:58 PM
I am all about signing UFA's who are 26-27 years old with upside, no injury history, and previous successful starting experience at a position of need. This year, that list included A. Pierce, E. Hartwell, K. Lucas, G. Baxter, Smoot, Dyson, and Dwight Smith. Lucas, Baxter, and Smoot were probably too expensive. But we could've got Pierce for a $6.5 mil signing bonus and D. Smith for $3.5 mil signing bonus. I don't really feel that it would've been that big of a risk to sign those guys.

But you know that if Bell ends up getting hurt again and/or Knight has a drop off and the Chiefs go 8-8, Rufus will whine about how the Chiefs listened to their fans and signed big name free agents but it didn't work out because free agency doesn't work. That's just a bunch of crap.
We do have a history of horrid luck with older type FAs that have had a few injuries in their past...

Like Holmes...
Like Roaf...
Like Green...

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 02:58 PM
What has this board come to when Shane is accusing Laz of being on drugs?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Sorry, I didn't know who said it. All I saw was Julian Battle and Chris McAlister in the same sentence.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 03:07 PM
You don't remember people saying we should get a SS and move Wesley to free safety?

You are kidding, right? No, I don't remember anyone saying that we should target a SS and move Wesley to FS. Actually, there were some people who wanted Thomas Davis in the 1st round, but that made no sense to me either. What made/makes anyone think that Wesley could easily switch to FS? Hell, he has trouble at SS if Woods isn't back there holding his hand.

tk13
03-11-2005, 03:17 PM
I am all about signing UFA's who are 26-27 years old with upside, no injury history, and previous successful starting experience at a position of need. This year, that list included A. Pierce, E. Hartwell, K. Lucas, G. Baxter, Smoot, Dyson, and Dwight Smith. Lucas, Baxter, and Smoot were probably too expensive. But we could've got Pierce for a $6.5 mil signing bonus and D. Smith for $3.5 mil signing bonus. I don't really feel that it would've been that big of a risk to sign those guys.

But you know that if Bell ends up getting hurt again and/or Knight has a drop off and the Chiefs go 8-8, Rufus will whine about how the Chiefs listened to their fans and signed big name free agents but it didn't work out because free agency doesn't work. That's just a bunch of crap.
I know, you seem to want the "perfect" on paper free agents. I think that's being too picky. People get hurt, it's football, everybody is at risk of getting injured. If we were afraid of injury history we wouldn't have half of our offense. The Patriots big moves the last two years were Corey Dillon and Rodney Harrison... over 30 players who had never been winners and were hungry for a championship. I kind of like that strategy.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 03:20 PM
We do have a history of horrid luck with older type FAs that have had a few injuries in their past...

Like Holmes...
Like Roaf...
Like Green...

Not sure why I'm even bothering, but here goes.

Priest was 27, cost nothing, played a position of need, and was injury-free the year before. There was no risk.

Yes, Roaf and Green were coming off knee injuries and they cost draft picks, so there was risk. But (and this is a big but), they both played positions where speed is not as critical, AND players at both of those positions often play until their mid-30's, as opposed to LB's and DB's.

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 03:22 PM
It's proof of life: nomatter what you do, someone will always find a reason to not like it. And they might even be right, in the end. Only time will tell.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 03:47 PM
You are kidding, right? No, I don't remember anyone saying that we should target a SS and move Wesley to FS. Actually, there were some people who wanted Thomas Davis in the 1st round, but that made no sense to me either. What made/makes anyone think that Wesley could easily switch to FS? Hell, he has trouble at SS if Woods isn't back there holding his hand.

No, I'm not kidding.

I've been bitching about Woods for about 3 seasons.