PDA

View Full Version : NFL Network says Saints and Chiefs trying to deal for Charles Woodson.


Chiefs Pantalones
04-06-2005, 06:41 PM
Take it FWIW.

|Zach|
04-06-2005, 06:42 PM
Bleh...

Frazod
04-06-2005, 06:45 PM
Well, he's better than any of the stiffs we're currently suiting up.

But still..... :Lin:

milkman
04-06-2005, 06:45 PM
It ain't worth much.

Chiefs and Raiders don't deal.

Pants
04-06-2005, 06:46 PM
Saints can have that douche.

VonneMarie
04-06-2005, 06:50 PM
I'll take Woodson with an attitude check.

Chiefs Pantalones
04-06-2005, 06:51 PM
I don't think we're actually trying to get him. Just a little negotiating ploy by the Chiefs to get the Dolphins to go down on the compensation they want. It's the Chiefs saying, "We have other options, not just Surtain." Gaz has a better chance at playing CB for the Chiefs than Charles Woodson.

milkman
04-06-2005, 06:51 PM
I'll take Woodson with an attitude check.

I think he wants more than that on his check.

Mr. Laz
04-06-2005, 06:52 PM
yuck ...

maybe the chiefs are just trying to give Miami a little "we do have some other options" message.


i rather not have the fuknut though

milkman
04-06-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't think we're actually trying to get him. Just a little negotiating ploy by the Chiefs to get the Dolphins to go down on the compensation they want. It's the Chiefs saying, "We have other options, not just Surtain." Gaz has a better chance at playing CB for the Chiefs than Charles Woodson.

Yeah, and if these guys (Dolphins) have any brains at all, and the sense to see the nonexistent history of deals between the Chiefs and Raiders, they'll up the price for Surtain.

The only way the Chiefs get Woodson is to pay the NFL mandated price tag for franchise FAs.

philfree
04-06-2005, 06:56 PM
Didn't he have a steal rod put in his leg a few years back? Don't matter though cause I can't stand him. I've never done anything like the low class donks fans but if I drink enough I could be persuaded to throw a couple D Cells if the dumb fug is wearing Chiefs red. I rather start rookies.


PhilFree :arrow:

siberian khatru
04-06-2005, 07:04 PM
Carl to Dolphins: "I'm one tough SOB."

milkman
04-06-2005, 07:06 PM
Carl to Dolphins: "I'm one tough SOB."

Dolphins to Carl: " nlm ROFL "

siberian khatru
04-06-2005, 07:07 PM
Dolphins to Carl: " nlm ROFL "

:LOL:

VonneMarie
04-06-2005, 07:08 PM
Dolphins to Carl: " nlm ROFL "
ROFL

Thig Lyfe
04-06-2005, 07:09 PM
Woodson > Bartee
Law > Bartee
Surtain > Bartee

I'd be happy with any of the three.

Saulbadguy
04-06-2005, 07:11 PM
Carl Peterson and Al Davis wouldn't make a deal over who leaves the tip at Monk's diner.

Pants
04-06-2005, 07:11 PM
Woodson > Bartee
Law > Bartee
Surtain > Bartee

I'd be happy with any of the three.

I don't know if I could take Woodson in Red & Gold. That would be some f*cked up feelings.

dtebbe
04-06-2005, 07:13 PM
I will always remember Snoop Minnis burning Woodson 1 on 1 for his 1st NFL touchdown. SNOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

DT was in the house for that one. Damn I miss yelling snoooop.

DT

Thig Lyfe
04-06-2005, 07:13 PM
I don't know if I could take Woodson in Red & Gold. That would be some f*cked up feelings.

True, but we did have Marcus Allen for a few years, so it wouldn't be the first time.

RNR
04-06-2005, 07:17 PM
I don't know if I could take Woodson in Red & Gold. That would be some f*cked up feelings.
ROFL Woodson is light years ahead of anything you got. He is a good player not great,but again light years ahead of any DB on the Chiefs roster. If KC was to land him this place would blow up with "he is the man" threads. Oh and they will not.

|Zach|
04-06-2005, 07:19 PM
If KC was to land him this place would blow up with "he is the man" threads. Oh and they will not.
None of them would be from this guy...

Pants
04-06-2005, 07:20 PM
If KC was to land him this place would blow up with "he is the man" threads.

Bullshit.

Besides, Surtain > Woodson x 2

RNR
04-06-2005, 07:20 PM
None of them would be from this guy...
Welcome to a very short list.

Saulbadguy
04-06-2005, 07:21 PM
I wouldn't mind having Charles Woodson. He was relatively quiet this year, and last year..well, his coach was Bill freaking Callaha n...can't blame him.

RNR
04-06-2005, 07:22 PM
Bullshit.

Besides, Surtain > Woodson x 2
Surtain was not the subject, and bullshit on your bullshit.

Woodrow Call
04-06-2005, 07:23 PM
Am I the only one that is pretty sure the Chiefs won't get Surtain or Law(Woodson is not an option)? Or am I just impatient?

I have a bad feeling about this whole thing. At this point guys like Hill, Dyson, Scott just won't do.

Consider me worried as hell.

Chiefs Pantalones
04-06-2005, 07:25 PM
I would take Surtain or Woodson.

But Surtain is more likely to happen.

Deberg_1990
04-06-2005, 07:28 PM
Why would Al Davis deal us Woodson?? That makes zero sense.

Sure-Oz
04-06-2005, 07:30 PM
We will get Surtain, this is just probably a BS ploy to make Miami do the deal for what we want not that 2nd, if it comes down to it we will get Surtain, no way Raiders trade to us.

milkman
04-06-2005, 07:31 PM
Why would Al Davis deal us Woodson?? That makes zero sense.

He won't.

Period. End of story.

The Chiefs and Raiders NEVER, I repeat NEVR deal with each other.

why do I even try?

Deberg_1990
04-06-2005, 07:33 PM
He won't.

Period. End of story.

The Chiefs and Raiders NEVER, I repeat NEVR deal with each other.

why do I even try?

exactly, this is a non-issue. Thats like us dealing Priest Holmes to them. Aint gonna happen folks. I would gladly give them Hicks, Bartee, Woods or McCleon though.

Woodrow Call
04-06-2005, 07:35 PM
Why would Al Davis deal us Woodson?? That makes zero sense.

Al would basically be giving the Chiefs someone to cover Moss with. You are right it makes 0 sense.

Mr. Laz
04-06-2005, 07:37 PM
Welcome to a very short list.
add me to that list too


he's a d!ck

Michael Michigan
04-06-2005, 07:40 PM
Carl to Dolphins: "I'm one tough SOB."

Man I'm glad he's on our side




wait...

Logical
04-06-2005, 07:43 PM
yuck ...

maybe the chiefs are just trying to give Miami a little "we do have some other options" message.


i rather not have the fuknut though

Maybe Miami is that dumb, but anyone who really thinks Al would really let the Chiefs trade for Woodson has been smoking some seriously good shit.

alpha_omega
04-06-2005, 07:44 PM
I don't think we're actually trying to get him. Just a little negotiating ploy by the Chiefs to get the Dolphins to go down on the compensation they want. It's the Chiefs saying, "We have other options, not just Surtain." Gaz has a better chance at playing CB for the Chiefs than Charles Woodson.

Yep!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

milkman
04-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Carl to Dolphins: "I'm one tough SOB."

Man I'm glad he's on our side

Floyd Reesse to Lou Saban: Hold your ground, man. That Carl Peterson is one desparate and stupid SOB."

HolmeZz
04-06-2005, 07:57 PM
We threw our name in the ring for leverage against Miami.

HipHopper4Life
04-06-2005, 08:02 PM
Doesn't make much sense. Randy Moss has said that Woodson plays him better than any other corner in the league. Why would Davis trade someone known to negate his newest toy to his hated rival?

KCinNY
04-06-2005, 08:04 PM
Floyd Reesse to Lou Saban: Hold your ground, man. That Carl Peterson is one desparate and stupid SOB."

ROFL

This is the guy who sent a 2nd round pick to Philly for Victor freakin' Bailey. He may be a tough SOB contract negotiator, but he's inept at working favorable trades for the Chiefs.

Chiefnj
04-06-2005, 08:06 PM
Am I the only one that is pretty sure the Chiefs won't get Surtain or Law(Woodson is not an option)? Or am I just impatient?

I have a bad feeling about this whole thing. At this point guys like Hill, Dyson, Scott just won't do.

Consider me worried as hell.

Carl will give up the 2nd round pick. There will be some story how the Panthers took the guy the Chiefs were targeting in the 2nd round, and they felt it was the best option to trade for Surtain at that point.

Dick Bull
04-06-2005, 08:13 PM
Maybe Miami is that dumb, but anyone who really thinks Al would really let the Chiefs trade for Woodson has been smoking some seriously good shit.

Well..................

Ricky might have left some in his locker.


:)

whoman69
04-06-2005, 08:19 PM
If this is a way to say to Miami that we have other options, I like. If we are serious about getting a guy considered a cancer even on the Raiders, I don't like.

milkman
04-06-2005, 08:19 PM
Yep!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes you could have.

Something like "The Chiefs and Raiders NEVER deal with each other, and the Dolphins would have to be the biggest idiots ever to believe a ploy like this."

milkman
04-06-2005, 08:23 PM
I defy anyone of you to find a trade that took place between the Chiefs and Raiders over the last 40 years.

I don't mean just throw names out there, making me do the research to prove you wrong, as happened a few weeks ago.

I mean, research it and find one trade.

You will not find it.

This report by NFL is just rumor and speculation, and most importantly,bullshit.

RINGLEADER
04-06-2005, 09:19 PM
That'd be the best move the Raiders made in the off-season IMO. Make their team better and a rival's worse.

Oh wait, I forgot, we've got Bartee. Anything would be an upgrade...

Big Chief Homer
04-06-2005, 09:32 PM
Yes you could have.

Something like "The Chiefs and Raiders NEVER deal with each other, and the Dolphins would have to be the biggest idiots ever to believe a ploy like this."


Well they were smart enough to deal a 2nd rounder for Aj Feeley. ROFL

Rausch
04-06-2005, 10:17 PM
ROFL Woodson is light years ahead of anything you got. He is a good player not great,but again light years ahead of any DB on the Chiefs roster. If KC was to land him this place would blow up with "he is the man" threads. Oh and they will not.

Like that's the point.

Peterson working out a deal with Davis will happen the day after Yasser Arafat
is seen dating Pope John Paul 2...

Nightfyre
04-07-2005, 12:10 AM
Like that's the point.

Peterson working out a deal with Davis will happen the day after Yasser Arafat
is seen dating Pope John Paul 2...
Arafat is into some weird stuff. I strangely doubt that necrophelia is on that list. But hey, you never know.

Rausch
04-07-2005, 12:23 AM
Arafat is into some weird stuff. I strangely doubt that necrophelia is on that list. But hey, you never know.

Uh, he's dead too...

HolmeZz
04-07-2005, 12:52 AM
Yeah, but dead-on-dead sex is ground breaking.

Nightfyre
04-07-2005, 02:37 AM
Uh, he's dead too...
you make an intriguing and entirely relevant point.

tk13
04-07-2005, 02:44 AM
Yeah, but dead-on-dead sex is ground breaking.
I don't think so. I'm sure Liza Minelli and David Gest did it at least once.

chiefsfolife
04-07-2005, 03:17 AM
Carl will give up the 2nd round pick. There will be some story how the Panthers took the guy the Chiefs were targeting in the 2nd round, and they felt it was the best option to trade for Surtain at that point.


Na miami will crack and we will get surtain for just a fourth round pick

Saggysack
04-07-2005, 03:41 AM
Yes you could have.

Something like "The Chiefs and Raiders NEVER deal with each other, and the Dolphins would have to be the biggest idiots ever to believe a ploy like this."


Yes they have dealt with each other.

Apr. 17, 1998 - The Raiders announced they would not match Kansas City's five-year offer sheet to free agent DT Chester McGlockton

Which in turn...

Oakland was compensated with two second-round draft choices for losing its designated exclusive franchise player.

One of those picks was from Kansas City, the 59th pick. The other was awarded from the NFL.

Kerberos
04-07-2005, 07:22 AM
Yeah, but dead-on-dead sex is ground breaking.

Only if it is Dead-on-Dead sex with a woman ghost!!!!

A nice big breasted Succubus come to mind as long as she is willing to have sex with another ghost (Male or Female)! :hmmm:


:)


.

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 07:31 AM
Na miami will crack and we will get surtain for just a fourth round pick

You should stop smoking crack.

The Dolphins have the room to keep him, why would they give him up for a 4th rounder when they will get a 3rd compensatory pick next year if he leaves via free agency.

There is zero chance the Chiefs get him for a 4th rounder.

Chiefnj
04-07-2005, 08:23 AM
You should stop smoking crack.

The Dolphins have the room to keep him, why would they give him up for a 4th rounder when they will get a 3rd compensatory pick next year if he leaves via free agency.

There is zero chance the Chiefs get him for a 4th rounder.

Do you think a 4, 5 and next years three would do it?

tomahawk kid
04-07-2005, 09:00 AM
Schefter was completely speculating when he mentioned the Chiefs and Aints.

It was a "best guess" type of comment. He had nothing solid to indicate that either of these teams were specifically looking at Woodson, on that 2 "NFL teams" were interested.

Sure-Oz
04-07-2005, 09:56 AM
4th this year and a 3rd next they may do, if it comes down to it give the 2nd up!

Braincase
04-07-2005, 10:02 AM
Woodson & Warfield? Looks like a wonderful opportunity for more DUI's.

Chiefs Pantalones
04-07-2005, 10:08 AM
Woodson & Warfield? Looks like a wonderful opportunity for more DUI's.

The amount of fines and suspensions paid alone will scare off WRs.

htismaqe
04-07-2005, 10:19 AM
Am I the only one that is pretty sure the Chiefs won't get Surtain or Law(Woodson is not an option)? Or am I just impatient?

I have a bad feeling about this whole thing. At this point guys like Hill, Dyson, Scott just won't do.

Consider me worried as hell.

You're just impatient.

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 10:56 AM
Do you think a 4, 5 and next years three would do it?

It could, but I'd rather just give up the 2.

Carl Peterson has had "some" success drafting in the later rounds and I think it's more likely we would find a good player in the 4th or 5th than in the 2nd.

DeepSouth
04-07-2005, 11:11 AM
It could, but I'd rather just give up the 2.

Carl Peterson has had "some" success drafting in the later rounds and I think it's more likely we would find a good player in the 4th or 5th than in the 2nd.

BG, This has to be one of your most illogical posts.

Why would anyone want to give up more than they have to?

Chiefs Pantalones
04-07-2005, 11:13 AM
BG, This has to be one of your most illogical posts.

Why would anyone want to give up more than they have to?

This is the Chiefs we're talking about here, the term "illogical" bleeds red and gold. I don't think of logic, when I think of the Chiefs, hardly anymore.

ct
04-07-2005, 11:17 AM
You should stop smoking crack.

The Dolphins have the room to keep him, why would they give him up for a 4th rounder when they will get a 3rd compensatory pick next year if he leaves via free agency.

There is zero chance the Chiefs get him for a 4th rounder.

I keep seeing this argument, and not only is it wrong, it's stupid!

If Miami keeps Surtain this year, 2005, loses him via FA next off-season, 2006, they may get compensation for the 2007 draft. They only get comp picks if the whole lose more than you gain in FA situation dictates. And Saban says they need picks this year. OK?

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 11:29 AM
I keep seeing this argument, and not only is it wrong, it's stupid!

If Miami keeps Surtain this year, 2005, loses him via FA next off-season, 2006, they may get compensation for the 2007 draft. They only get comp picks if the whole lose more than you gain in FA situation dictates. And Saban says they need picks this year. OK?

Have you seen the formula that assigns comp picks? Do you even understand it? By your post, I don't think you do.

And your argument is ****ing stupid because the Eagles received a comp 3 for losing very little and they gained a whole lot last year. The Eagles lost Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor and then gained Jevon Kearse and Terrell Owens. By your logic, they shouldn't have received such a high compensation, but they look at it by positions, not by the amount of players you lost.

Who else did the Chiefs lose besides Tait to support your theory?

Don't call someone stupid when you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 11:32 AM
BG, This has to be one of your most illogical posts.

Why would anyone want to give up more than they have to?

I think the Chiefs will have to give up that 2 to get Surtain. I don't think the Dolphins will waiver on their stance.

The Chiefs could get something back in return from Miami, but I wouldn't count on anything more than a 5th or 6th.

I think the longer the Chiefs wait, the more likely another team is going to get involved.

DeepSouth
04-07-2005, 11:45 AM
I think the Chiefs will have to give up that 2 to get Surtain. I don't think the Dolphins will waiver on their stance.

The Chiefs could get something back in return from Miami, but I wouldn't count on anything more than a 5th or 6th.

I think the longer the Chiefs wait, the more likely another team is going to get involved.
I believe the Chiefs will give the Phins this years 4th & ( 6th or 7th) and a 3rd next year.

I don't think the Chiefs will part with the 2nd. People remember what it cost the Rams to obtain Faulk. And, contrary to what some people think, I believe the Phins DO want to move Surtain. His cap hit is too high and the Phins don't seem interested in giving him the kind of deal it would take to renegotiate.

Don't thing Surtain will be a Phin this year...........

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 11:57 AM
I believe the Chiefs will give the Phins this years 4th & ( 6th or 7th) and a 3rd next year.

I don't think the Chiefs will part with the 2nd. People remember what it cost the Rams to obtain Faulk. And, contrary to what some people think, I believe the Phins DO want to move Surtain. His cap hit is too high and the Phins don't seem interested in giving him the kind of deal it would take to renegotiate.

Don't thing Surtain will be a Phin this year...........

I don't think you can use Faulk as a comparison because for every story like that is an A.J. Feeley for a #2.

I just don't think Nick Saban is dying to get rid of a Pro Bowl corner in his first year. Yeah, he has a high cap hit, but there are a couple players on the Fins that have high numbers that can negotiate.

I just don't see the benefit for the Fins to trade him for a 4 and a 6. That's R-Kal Truluck compensation.

Mr. Laz
04-07-2005, 11:59 AM
I just don't see the benefit for the Fins to trade him for a 4 and a 6. That's R-Kal Truluck compensation.


he also said a 3rd

Sure-Oz
04-07-2005, 11:59 AM
It will probably be a draft day type trade and we WILL give up that #2, we need a top quality CB, i wont be pissed if we have to give up the 2 for it!

DeepSouth
04-07-2005, 12:05 PM
I don't think you can use Faulk as a comparison because for every story like that is an A.J. Feeley for a #2.

I just don't think Nick Saban is dying to get rid of a Pro Bowl corner in his first year. Yeah, he has a high cap hit, but there are a couple players on the Fins that have high numbers that can negotiate.

I just don't see the benefit for the Fins to trade him for a 4 and a 6. That's R-Kal Truluck compensation.
First, let me clarify that if the Chiefs give the Phins a 2nd, I will NOT be disappointed. I just don't think it will take the 2nd to get him. I contend that the Phins want to move him more that Saban leads everyone to believe. I don't think there is anyway he's on the Phins roster this year.

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 12:07 PM
he also said a 3rd

A third next year is the equivalent of a 4th this year.

So 2 4th's and a 6 or 7th for Surtain?

tomahawk kid
04-07-2005, 12:21 PM
A third next year is the equivalent of a 4th this year.

So 2 4th's and a 6 or 7th for Surtain?

FWIW, Pat Kirwan reported on "Inside Access" that the Chiefs and 'Fins had agreed to a 4th this year and a 3rd NEXT year.


He said it would get done sometime next week.

The Bad Guy
04-07-2005, 12:24 PM
FWIW, Pat Kirwan reported on "Inside Access" that the Chiefs and 'Fins had agreed to a 4th this year and a 3rd NEXT year.


He said it would get done sometime next week.

I know I saw it, if they agreed to it then why wait?

Seems like Kirwin was talking out of his ass.

Chiefs Pantalones
04-07-2005, 12:25 PM
He said it would get done sometime next week.

If they already agreed, then it's already a done deal, right? That's weird.

tomahawk kid
04-07-2005, 12:28 PM
I know I saw it, if they agreed to it then why wait?

Seems like Kirwin was talking out of his ass.

That's what I thought.

I can't see a justification to wait on this.

Chiefnj
04-07-2005, 12:52 PM
A third next year is the equivalent of a 4th this year.


I've heard that rationale before and I don't get it. Does that mean a 4th this year is worth a first in 2008? I'd gladly have Carl trade the two remaining 5th round picks for first round picks in 2009.

milkman
04-07-2005, 06:59 PM
Yes they have dealt with each other.



Which in turn...



One of those picks was from Kansas City, the 59th pick. The other was awarded from the NFL.

McGlockton was the Raiders franchise FA.
The Chiefs signed him, and were required to give that pick to the Raiders, but they did not deal with the Raiders.

Woodrow Call
04-07-2005, 07:37 PM
My worst nightmare is this. The Raiders trade Woodson to the Saints then with their new found cap room they swing a trade for Surtain.

I am just waiting for Al to give the Chiefs the shaft.

Pants
04-07-2005, 07:40 PM
My worst nightmare is this. The Raiders trade Woodson to the Saints then with their new found cap room they swing a trade for Surtain.

I am just waiting for Al to give the Chiefs the shaft.

ROFL, this place would melt down and then the molten mass would implode. Some would probably commit suicide while others would go insane and try to kill Carl.

ChiefsCountry
04-07-2005, 07:40 PM
Actually the Raiders and Chiefs have traded before. 1963, Chiefs traded Cotton Davidson to the Raiders for the first pick in the AFL Draft, which turned out to be Buck Buchanan.

tk13
04-07-2005, 07:47 PM
Actually the Raiders and Chiefs have traded before. 1963, Chiefs traded Cotton Davidson to the Raiders for the first pick in the AFL Draft, which turned out to be Buck Buchanan.
Wow, smooth move by Carl. No wonder Al doesn't want to trade with him anymore.

:)

milkman
04-07-2005, 07:49 PM
Actually the Raiders and Chiefs have traded before. 1963, Chiefs traded Cotton Davidson to the Raiders for the first pick in the AFL Draft, which turned out to be Buck Buchanan.

I suppose I should be clear about my time frame.

Al Davis was pissed that Lamar Hunt negotiated the merger with the NFL.
As commisioner of the AFL, Al Davis wanted to continue the battle with the NFL.
He was adamantly opposed to the merger.
Lamar's dream had always been to be a part of the NFL.

Since the merger agreement, Davis has refused to deal with the Chiefs.

Prior to the merger agreement, the Raiders and Chiefs had dealings.

Since then, about 40 years ago, they haven't dealt.

HipHopper4Life
04-07-2005, 08:03 PM
My worst nightmare is this. The Raiders trade Woodson to the Saints then with their new found cap room they swing a trade for Surtain.

I am just waiting for Al to give the Chiefs the shaft.


Man talk about giving us the shaft if they walked away with both Surtain and Darren Howard.


But there's no danger in waiting till draft day to make a deal with the Fish, or so I've been told. :rolleyes: