PDA

View Full Version : How Will You Rate the Chiefs' Off-Season Free Agent Moves If We Get Surtain?


RINGLEADER
04-01-2005, 06:27 PM
Say Surtain is the final free-agent signing we make before the draft. How would you rate the off-season moves as a whole?

HolmeZz
04-01-2005, 06:31 PM
A-

Woodrow Call
04-01-2005, 06:37 PM
I would give it an A. Going into the offseason the Chiefs had to address at a mininum 3 areas: CB, LB, S if Surtain is acquired they would have addressed all 3 needs very well.

Bell- If healthy he could be the best LB the Chiefs have had for years. I am giddy about having a real LB on defense. Former Rookie of the Year and potential Pro Bowler

Knight- Smart, veteran ball hawking Safety that the Chiefs have lacked for years. He is a little slower than I would like but he seems to be a playmaker.

Surtain- Best CB since Hasty and would bring the defense into a position to be top 15 or higher.

If Surtain does become a Chief the draft will open up also. They could go LB, CB, DE, WR, OL, or even QB.

Adding Surtain and a LB(Sharper, Polley, Simmons, Sharper) would give the Chiefs argubly the best offseason in the NFL.

keg in kc
04-01-2005, 06:41 PM
Ask me in January 2006. What anybody thinks right now is meaningless. I guess it would be a success in that we addressed holes, but what really matters is whether those players produce.

Potentially...

Success: Bell and Rolle play well; what Hartwell and Rolle do is irrelevant.

Failure: Bell struggles and Hartwell thrives, Rolle is a stud and Surtain sucks.

That's ultimately all that matters. Not whether we like the names we sign, but how those names perform.

Rausch
04-01-2005, 06:45 PM
I'd give them a B+...

To get an A we'd still need to sign/draft another CB and OLB.

Saulbadguy
04-01-2005, 06:46 PM
I'd give them a B+...

To get an A we'd still need to sign/draft another CB and OLB.
Agreed.

htismaqe
04-01-2005, 07:15 PM
I look at it as a GPA.

Our need for CB is the greatest, so that's a 4-hour course. Getting Patrick Surtain would give them an A in that class - 16 grade points.

Our need at MLB was next, so I'd consider that a 3-hour course. We got Bell and could have had Hartwell. That's a B - 9 grade points.

Our need at S was still great, but not like the other two - that's a 2-hour course. Sammy Knight was one of the best out there, I give them an A - 8 grade points.

So if they get Surtain, they would get a total of 31 grade points and 9 hours, for a GPA of 3.44.

That's a solid B+.

CosmicPal
04-01-2005, 07:22 PM
I look at it as a GPA.

Our need for CB is the greatest, so that's a 4-hour course. Getting Patrick Surtain would give them an A in that class - 16 grade points.



I like your grading, but I think everyone is forgetting something here and that is we haven't picked up any CBs yet. Not only that, Surtain is only good for 12 weeks should he stay healthy, 'cause the fact of the matter is - we will still need another CB to play while Warfield is serving his penalties for the DUI.

If we score Surtain, it would be great, but we still have a hole at the other end of the field for a few games. That too needs to be filled. So, I would say: sign Surtain only, and the Chiefs get a B-
Sign Surtain AND Law, and the Chiefs get an A+

One CB isn't going to save our season- only, and only if we win those four games with Warfield gone. And even with Warfield back, I'm still not confident with the secondary.

the Talking Can
04-01-2005, 07:23 PM
I'd give them an A...even though a competant GM wouldn't whiff on both of his priority FAs (Hartwell/Rolle) costing us a 2nd round pick as a consequence....in the end we'd have 3 good players

htismaqe
04-01-2005, 07:34 PM
I like your grading, but I think everyone is forgetting something here and that is we haven't picked up any CBs yet. Not only that, Surtain is only good for 12 weeks should he stay healthy, 'cause the fact of the matter is - we will still need another CB to play while Warfield is serving his penalties for the DUI.

If we score Surtain, it would be great, but we still have a hole at the other end of the field for a few games. That too needs to be filled. So, I would say: sign Surtain only, and the Chiefs get a B-
Sign Surtain AND Law, and the Chiefs get an A+

One CB isn't going to save our season- only, and only if we win those four games with Warfield gone. And even with Warfield back, I'm still not confident with the secondary.

We have a better chance getting something out of a 1st-round corner, IMO. Ty Law still can't walk.

jspchief
04-01-2005, 07:36 PM
If we get Surtain, I have to say A

IMO we had 3 weaknesses and filled all three. Surtain is as good as any of the options at CB IMO. Knight was probably the best FA safety available. We went after the best MLB in Hartwell, but rather than sit back and wiat for him to screw around, we made sure we got the next best thing.

Sure we need other players, but to think we could get more than 3 FAs with the quality that we're getting is just absurd.

Chief Henry
04-01-2005, 07:38 PM
If we get Surtain,I would give Carl an A.....
But, Lets just see what happens in the draft...

Our current defensive moves with out Surtain still
have to have helped our stinky defense.

Tuckdaddy
04-01-2005, 07:40 PM
I vote A if we land him. These are not middle of the pack players this go around.

milkman
04-01-2005, 08:49 PM
I think what we do in the draft has to be counted as part of the offseason grade, and like Keg, feel that we need to see how the players we add to the team perform during the season before we can grade Carl's moves.

Cannibal
04-01-2005, 08:51 PM
If we sign Surtain, I've got to give Carl his props. I am still quite skeptical, even if we sign Surtain, but if we do, I can't say that Carl didn't try that's for damn sure.

Now if the bastard gives up our second rounder, I'll be pissed. But what the hell, he'd draft a fuking project anyway. Sometimes there is always that hope that he'll get lucky though.

Logical
04-01-2005, 08:53 PM
I would go with a solid B+ if Surtain is signed. An OLB would move it into the A category, at least as far as rating the attempt to improve the defense. Sammy Knigbt over and OLB still is puzzling.

mikey23545
04-01-2005, 08:57 PM
I'd give them a B+...

To get an A we'd still need to sign/draft another CB and OLB.

Sorry, but that's ****ing retarded.

They sign three guys in one offseason who have all been in the probowl, and they get a B?....

milkman
04-01-2005, 08:58 PM
Sammy Knigbt over an OLB still is puzzling.

I would have to agree with that.

A fire needed to be lit under Wesley, and Woods needed to be replaced if his offseason program didn't result in his return to pre-injury form, but there were plenty of other options already on the roster.

elvomito
04-01-2005, 09:19 PM
ok, i voted c.
unneeded mistakes overshadow moderate patch to leaky dam.

Chiefnj
04-01-2005, 09:32 PM
I gave him the A in the poll, but I think it would be an A-.

The minus comes in because we could have had Rolle without losing the draft pick. I think Surtain is better than Rolle, but damn I don't like giving up the 2nd round pick even though it is the traditional reach round.

I like Bell over Hartwell. The Chiefs needed someone with star potential, and IMO, that is Bell, not Hartwell. Hartwell will be solid, but the Chiefs need more than that, they need a guy who plays like Bell did his rookie year. A bit of a gamble, but worth it IMO. Plus, Hartwell wasn't worth the money the Falcons gave him.

Can't complain about bringing in anyone to improve the secondary, so even though a SS wasn't the biggest need, it was still a need and they got a good player for a low price.

The Chiefs didn't have a tremendous amount of money at the beginning of free agency. They didn't have the 10 plus million like some other teams, so bringing in three Pro-Bowl caliber players with the money they had is very good.

If I were GM I would have given up the 7th round pick for Sam Cowart. I think he still has some in his tank, would provide good veteran leadership and even if he didn't start would be a solid rotational guy to play in the middle and have Bell at the SAM where he can get after the QB. The Chiefs lack a good veteran LB to help guide the younger guys.

BIG_DADDY
04-01-2005, 09:34 PM
B, I'll take it.

Cannibal
04-01-2005, 09:41 PM
ok, i voted c.
unneeded mistakes overshadow moderate patch to leaky dam.

I agree with you to a point. But if we can get Surtain, Bell and Knight and plug some fuking holes in that dam, then maybe it's possible the mistakes can be forgiven.

At least it will seem like they're trying. Bell and Surtain are pretty big signings. I just hope that Knight is a playa. Saftey is one of those positions that sneaks up on you IMO. If you have a solid safety who can hit, it can turn a D around. But you've got to be consistant, you can't go for huge hits and miss to often, because a whiff will deflate a team as much as lighting a mutha fugga up.

The Chiefs D has "whiffed" in more ways than one for the last 8 years pretty much. Since 97 basically. That was last dominant defense they've had.

Chiefnj
04-01-2005, 09:45 PM
Upon further thought, I'd like to lower the grade, but it isn't Peterson's fault, it is DV's - Guinta should have been fired. That's a huge mistake. Peterson gets an offseason A- (if Surtain is signed), Vermeil gets an F.

Gravedigger
04-01-2005, 10:33 PM
When surtain is acquired that's an A for effort now it's just time to wait until everything plays out.

Cochise
04-01-2005, 10:47 PM
I'd give it a B.

We will have acquired one of the best corners in football, one of the better safeties, a LB who while maybe not the top of the LB free agent class certainly has the potential to be one of the best LB's in football as well.

If we have a good draft, I'll give them an A, no problem. I'd like to see us add another corner in the first round, then look to DE or WR.

Nightfyre
04-01-2005, 10:58 PM
Here's how it shakes out for me:
Based on dealings with the players:
Rolle: Extraordinarily injury prone. Lost him because we couldnt pay him 12 mill the first year of his contract. Ok, Im over it. A
Hartwell: We had him right where we wanted him. That was some of the best FA action in a long time, where the GM stuck it to the player. Then the falcons gave him 26 mil. guaranteed money? I don't blame us for not signing him. A
Bell: Great deal we got on him. Full of "stay-healthy" incentives like roster bonuses. A
Knight: What a great pickup. Cheap and effective. A
Surtain: I guess I am ok with Surtain. Im not high on investing heavily in CBs. Thats a difference in philosophy though. It also depends on what kind of deal shakes out. At this point, B-
Unaddressed needs: OLB
We need an OLB to get to that QB. Addressing the situation: D

I gave him a B. With or without Surtain (so long as we get a vet CB if we dont get Surtain.)

Mr. Laz
04-02-2005, 09:58 AM
a "B" ... maybe a "B+" if Bell and surtain stay healthy.

part of this offseason is gonna depend on how the chiefs evaluated the health of the players they signed.

it would be a happy,happy offseason if not for the big fat "F" they got last offseason.

it's gotta be kinda of graded on a curve

pretty impossible to get an "A" this year when they left so many gaping holes from last year.


F last year + B this year = C-- total

paulgkc
04-02-2005, 10:00 AM
Going into the draft, I'd give it an A.

But Carl still has his chance to screw it up by drafting a running back in the first round.

the Talking Can
04-02-2005, 10:04 AM
Here's how it shakes out for me:
Based on dealings with the players:
Rolle: Extraordinarily injury prone. Lost him because we couldnt pay him 12 mill the first year of his contract. Ok, Im over it. A
Hartwell: We had him right where we wanted him. That was some of the best FA action in a long time, where the GM stuck it to the player. Then the falcons gave him 26 mil. guaranteed money? I don't blame us for not signing him.

Rufus, is that you?

Rolle is "extraordinarily injury prone"? and Bell is what??

Bowser
04-02-2005, 10:15 AM
Now, if Carl can just land Jamie Sharper, he gets an A, hands down. As it stands, I give him a B+.

Gaz
04-02-2005, 10:19 AM
Caveat: Any “grade” issued at this time is utterly premature. We have not seen any player actually perform yet, so we can only go off how he performed elsewhere. He will be playing in a different scheme with a different supporting cast, against different opponents, and so forth.

In addition, we have no idea what will happen in the Draft and Post-Cut FA. The cuts will be very interesting. Both the players we cut and the players released.

Yep. Utterly premature.

Still, we can look at the FA moves we made and ponder the potential upside/downside.

Bell:
He has, IMO, a bigger upside than Hartwell [my choice]. The injury concerns have been beat to death. The Chiefs medical staff apparently thinks he is up to snuff and the contract is structured to minimize the long-term cap pain if they are wrong. Good signing.

Knight:
I wanted us to move Battle and Bartee back to Safety. However, you have to love Knight’s resumé. Big hitter who is often around the ball. That would be a refreshing change from last season. Good signing.

Gammon:
We do not have to worry about the long snap. That is one less worry. Good signing.

So far, so good.

xoxo~
Gaz
Pleased at this point.

eazyb81
04-02-2005, 10:26 AM
If we end up trading for Surtain, I will have to give CP props and give the offseason an A grade. Surtain was the best CB available this offseason and I preferred him over any of the CBs in free agency. When healthy, Bell is a Pro Bowl LB and has a higher upside then Hartwell, and seems to be more versatile as well. Knight was probably the 2nd best safety available (behind Sharper), and he is a big playmaker that creates turnovers.

Going into this offseason, I figured we had to get 3 new defensive starters through free agency, and once we get Surtain we will have accomplished this. Also, special consideration needs to be given because of the financial constraints on our cap this year. Many people did not believe we could do much this offseason because of cap limits, but CP found a way to do it.

Mr. Laz
04-02-2005, 10:38 AM
Also, special consideration needs to be given because of the financial constraints on our cap this year

isn't peterson responsible for the caps as well? why does it deserve special consideration.

eazyb81
04-02-2005, 10:42 AM
isn't peterson responsible for the caps as well? why does it deserve special consideration.

He should get special consideration because we only had around $4 mill in cap room at the start of this offseason, and we will have added 3 new defensive starters while staying within cap limits. Many people on here thought he wouldn't do much this offseason and that he only cared about filling the seats (myself included). However, if him and Lamar break the bank to add 3 Pro Bowl defensive studs, I think many people will take back their earlier statements.

Mr. Laz
04-02-2005, 10:50 AM
He should get special consideration because we only had around $4 mill in cap room at the start of this offseason, and we will have added 3 new defensive starters while staying within cap limits. Many people on here thought he wouldn't do much this offseason and that he only cared about filling the seats (myself included). However, if him and Lamar break the bank to add 3 Pro Bowl defensive studs, I think many people will take back their earlier statements.

yes ... but the reason we had (only)4 million in cap room is because of the way the front office did their jobs in the previous seasons.

Gaz
04-02-2005, 10:51 AM
...However, if him and Lamar break the bank to add 3 Pro Bowl defensive studs, I think many people will take back their earlier statements.

I doubt that very much.

xoxo~
Gaz
Been around the Planet long enough.

eazyb81
04-02-2005, 10:53 AM
yes ... but the reason we had (only)4 million in cap room is because of the way the front office did their jobs in the previous seasons.

True, but people would be upset if we had more money then that from not spending it on players in previous seasons.

I'm trying not to use previous seasons as a barometer for CP's grade this offseason. I doubt any of us are happy about last year's offseason, but if we get Surtain he will have made up for it in my mind and will have done an excellent job of gearing us up for a SB run this year.

Mr. Laz
04-02-2005, 10:57 AM
but if we get Surtain he will have made up for it in my mind and will have done an excellent job of gearing us up for a SB run this year.
so getting surtain this year makes up for making no improvements last year.


you've a truly generous heart there EasyB

Nightfyre
04-02-2005, 11:25 AM
Rufus, is that you?

Rolle is "extraordinarily injury prone"? and Bell is what??
No the difference is that Bell took a contract based on incentives. Rolle would not.

eazyb81
04-02-2005, 11:35 AM
so getting surtain this year makes up for making no improvements last year.


you've a truly generous heart there EasyB

Hey, you can't add a bunch of new free agents every year. Also, I can't blame CP much for not going free agent crazy after we finished the season 13-3. The Colts and Steelers have not done anything this offseason, are their GMs idiots as well?

Signing 3 new defensive starters that were upgrades was my realistic hope this offseason. If we add Surtain we will have done that, and I will not continue to hold anger against CP for previous mistakes in years past.

HipHopper4Life
04-02-2005, 03:29 PM
I'd give it a B.

Bell comes with some question marks. His contract structure eases cap concerns, but it's imperative that we get production out of him on a weekly basis. Trotter would have been the better choice here as he brings the fire and leadership skills that we currently lack.


Surtain has some issues as well. He played mostly zone the past two years. Speculation around Miami when I was there had that tied to worries over Surtain's knee holding up. Apparently we're going to use him as a strongside man corner, so that theory will get tested out quick.

Knight is the biggest question mark signing for me because signing him also serves to move Wesley out of position as a man free over the top cover guy. Knight's lack of footspeed and marginal ability to cover one on one were hidden well in Miami's cover two zone scheme. I'd feel alot better if we were planning on using him that way as well. I certainly don't want to see him trying to man up on Gates or anything like that.


The signings that we did make, along with the emphasis on pass coverage rules makes me wonder if Gunther is switching more to a zone oriented scheme rather than the press man coverages he's favored in the past.

Calcountry
04-02-2005, 04:55 PM
I look at it as a GPA.

Our need for CB is the greatest, so that's a 4-hour course. Getting Patrick Surtain would give them an A in that class - 16 grade points.

Our need at MLB was next, so I'd consider that a 3-hour course. We got Bell and could have had Hartwell. That's a B - 9 grade points.

Our need at S was still great, but not like the other two - that's a 2-hour course. Sammy Knight was one of the best out there, I give them an A - 8 grade points.

So if they get Surtain, they would get a total of 31 grade points and 9 hours, for a GPA of 3.44.

That's a solid B+.There is nothing wrong with that. Dare I mention the Offense, no I shant, because D is where we sucked, and that is what we needed to fix.

If they get Surtain, its looking like the other way arround from last year. IOW, "If our O playes half way decent, we should be able to make a run." Rather than, "If the D improves just a little, then our O will carry us to the promise land".

With a Healthy Priest back WITH LJ spotting him; Seasoned veteran QB in Trent; improved WR if we get Bo and Sammy continues to show the promise that he did last year; TG and the O line in tact!!!

I am starting to get excited, but the pain of last year and the disappointment won't let me until the referees gun goes off with us up on the score board. :thumb:

Woodrow Call
04-02-2005, 10:12 PM
Who threw down the F? :rolleyes:

Bowser
04-02-2005, 10:13 PM
Who threw down the F? :rolleyes:


Probablly the same guy who has been pleasantly suprised by his team's offseason.

Der Flöprer
04-02-2005, 11:21 PM
Even if we get Surtain, I feel we really need to draft a CB in the 1st round of the draft. Even if Warfield isn't suspended. We need some depth in that area right now. While I voted an A with the acquisition of Surtain, I feel that if we can make it work cap wise, a strong push for Jamie Sharper would be a good move. I've heard rumors (which aren't worth jack sh*t, and jack left town) that he could be headed for Oakland. We need another LB and another CB even with Surtain. IMO

Woodrow Call
04-02-2005, 11:59 PM
Even if we get Surtain, I feel we really need to draft a CB in the 1st round of the draft. Even if Warfield isn't suspended. We need some depth in that area right now. While I voted an A with the acquisition of Surtain, I feel that if we can make it work cap wise, a strong push for Jamie Sharper would be a good move. I've heard rumors (which aren't worth jack sh*t, and jack left town) that he could be headed for Oakland. We need another LB and another CB even with Surtain. IMO

If he went to Oakland that would suck, I hope he goes to Cincinnati or Seattle. He is a heck of a LB but I just don't see how he fits with Bell and no I am not convinced that Bell can play 3-4 and I have read that Sharper wants to play MLB.

If the Chiefs sign him I won't be upset I just prefer Bell in the middle no more converting just let them play where they should.

elvomito
04-03-2005, 01:23 AM
1.How many of us would feel better if right now we had bell, knight, and smoot?
2.and had the OPTION to pick either surtain and/or law?
3.could we have traded smoot for surtain or used it as other leverage?

--chiefs failed in the rolle situation.
--missed an opportunity to sign a piece of raven dominant defense (hartwell).
++chiefs seemed to know trotter wasn't serious before he got here.
++picked up a good value in knight
??surtain/law future unknown

as it sits right now, its a little below average for what was definately possible.

one more poisitive outcome and its at best 80%, a B.

Wallcrawler
04-03-2005, 04:38 AM
If they land Surtain, Im going with an A rating.

These three guys are top quality players.

Bell- Def rookie of the year, 2 time pro bowler.

Knight- Major Ballhawk and big hitter, one time pro bowler

Surtain- Leads the league the past 5 years in picks at corner with 25, Pro bowler the past 3 seasons.


All of these guys are big play type players. Knight and Surtain formed up half of one of the best secondaries in the league. Knight's a bigtime ballhawk, and Surtain is as well. Kendrell Bell when healthy is a guy that must be accounted for on every play.

Its been a long time since we have had anyone on defense that required so much as a second glance from the opposing offense in a long time.


If they land Surtain, Im a happy camper going into the draft.

Wallcrawler
04-03-2005, 04:42 AM
1.How many of us would feel better if right now we had bell, knight, and smoot?

Id be happy with that, because at least the CB position would have been addressed.

2.and had the OPTION to pick either surtain and/or law?

I think after Smoot, I dont think either of those guys would be affordable.


3.could we have traded smoot for surtain or used it as other leverage?

Doubtful, considering the type of bonus money Smoot would have required before signing. The Chiefs would have been foolish to sign him, only to take a major cap hit to trade for a player who is going to demand huge bank also. If they signed Smoot, they would have kept him and moved into the draft, forgetting about Surtain.

--chiefs failed in the rolle situation.
--missed an opportunity to sign a piece of raven dominant defense (hartwell).
++chiefs seemed to know trotter wasn't serious before he got here.
++picked up a good value in knight
??surtain/law future unknown

as it sits right now, its a little below average for what was definately possible.

one more poisitive outcome and its at best 80%, a B.

You may be right, but look at it this way, this offseason beats the hell out of last year's offseason.