PDA

View Full Version : Salina Journal:5/2... Does law still fit in Chiefs plans?


Coogs
05-02-2005, 08:14 AM
Don't have a link. Just have a copy of The Salina Journal in front of me.

It says the Chiefs could still be interested in bringing in Law after June 1st. Says his progress is ahead of schedule, and Law had a screw taken out because the Chiefs were worried it would break.

There exists the possibility Law could sign a one year deal, show he is healthy, and go for the long term contract next year.

Other teams interested are the Colts, Steelers, and Jets.

BTW, this article was reprinted from The Boston Globe, and was written by Nick Cafardo. If someone can look this up, you might be able to post the whole article.

Mr. Kotter
05-02-2005, 08:15 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath, but wouldn't THAT be sweeeeeet.

Warfield as the Nickle? :hmmm:

:p

Coogs
05-02-2005, 08:19 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath, but wouldn't THAT be sweeeeeet.

Warfield as the Nickle? :hmmm:

:p

I wouldn't either. I just found it interesting he was still mentioned as a possibility as we enter May.

Scorp
05-02-2005, 08:21 AM
There is no way we will be able to pay Law what he wants. Sure would be sweet to see him be charitable, and help us win a superbowl though! :toast:

Coogs
05-02-2005, 08:29 AM
There is no way we will be able to pay Law what he wants.

Do you know this for a fact? It says he may have to sig a one year deal, and prove himself before he signs a long term deal.

tomahawk kid
05-02-2005, 08:33 AM
No way this happens unless Law agrees to play for the Vet. Min.......which he won't.

Stinger
05-02-2005, 08:34 AM
I still got to believe he is heading to the Steelers, being that is where he grew up. Kinda of finishing his career where he started.

Coogs
05-02-2005, 08:38 AM
No way this happens unless Law agrees to play for the Vet. Min.......which he won't.

Then why is there an article in the Boston Globe that says he might?

jcroft
05-02-2005, 08:40 AM
Seems very unlikely, but still interesting to think about. Thanks for telling us about the story!

Coogs
05-02-2005, 08:42 AM
Seems very unlikely, but still interesting to think about. Thanks for telling us about the story!

:thumb:

tomahawk kid
05-02-2005, 08:47 AM
Then why is there an article in the Boston Globe that says he might?

I can't speak to that. Could just be speculation on the part of the columnist.

:shrug:

Skip Towne
05-02-2005, 08:54 AM
Jason White has a better chance of becoming a Chief.

UTChief
05-02-2005, 08:58 AM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/05/01/laws_plan_heal_then_deal/[/url]

I found a link.

Coogs
05-02-2005, 09:08 AM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/05/01/laws_plan_heal_then_deal/[/url]

I found a link.

Thanks!

Find it interesting that the Chiefs could still be a player in the Law sweepstakes. Even if a very minimal player.

eazyb81
05-02-2005, 09:10 AM
I would love to see it happen, but I just can't believe that the Postons would let Law sign a small 1 year deal. They know he only has a couple years left, I think they want to get him the biggest multiyear deal they can, and I bet a team will be willing to pay him once he is healthy.

Coogs
05-02-2005, 09:33 AM
I would love to see it happen, but I just can't believe that the Postons would let Law sign a small 1 year deal. They know he only has a couple years left, I think they want to get him the biggest multiyear deal they can, and I bet a team will be willing to pay him once he is healthy.

I would agree. BUT, chances are most teams will not have a huge amount of cap space available to work with after June 1, so you never know I guess. I thought the door was probably closed with regards to Law. A small chance at this point is better than no chance, IMO.

NJ Chief Fan
05-02-2005, 10:04 AM
why dont we offer law a one year deal...just in case shit happens

The Bad Guy
05-02-2005, 10:06 AM
why dont we offer law a one year deal...just in case shit happens

A 1 year deal will eat up a lot of cap space because of the inability to prorate the signing bonus.

We would need to offer him at least a 3 year deal and then cut McCleon, Barber, and Morton to be able to sign draft picks.

TRR
05-02-2005, 10:06 AM
It would be ideal to sign him to a 1 year deal. However, I can see Pitt or the Colts giving Law a 3 year contract based on incentives.

One thing is for sure, Ty Law won't be getting a big contract this offseason.

Mr. Kotter
05-02-2005, 10:11 AM
...We would need to offer him at least a 3 year deal and then cut McCleon, Barber, and Morton to be able to sign draft picks.

Sounds like a good deal to me; call Carl, damn it! :cuss:

:p

Gravedigger
05-02-2005, 10:36 AM
It would be sweet but if you look at the column all of the quotes are from his agent... now I think agents are full of shit but yeah if it was a one year deal since we still need depth at corner I think it would be possible.

royr17
05-02-2005, 10:54 AM
There is not a chance in the whole world that we get Law now that we have Surtain after the contract we just gave Surtain.

If we was to get Law, then our lineup would be this :

Surtain
Law
Warfield
McCleon or Hodge
Hodge or Sapp

But I would prefer Hodge and Sapp over McCleon.

htismaqe
05-02-2005, 11:12 AM
After adding Surtain, I would prefer we look to add some beef in the middle.

eazyb81
05-02-2005, 11:44 AM
After adding Surtain, I would prefer we look to add some beef in the middle.

We could certainly use some more DT depth, but aren't you worried at all about the assumed 4 game suspension for Warfield? I don't feel comfortable at all with McCleon, Bartee, Battle, etc. being a starter at all, even if it is just 4 games. Surtain will shut down one side of the field, but the opposing team will pick on the other CB all day. Do we just pray that our offense is on fire each of those games?

Wallcrawler
05-02-2005, 11:50 AM
We have our top flight corner now, in Patrick Surtain.

The only way that I would like to see the Chiefs go for Ty Law is if he plays for the Vet minimum for a one year deal. Anything other than that is just a big gamble with the little cap room that we have left.

If the Colts, Steelers, or Jets want to gamble their money and pay Law the megabucks he thinks he is worth, let them.


Besides, Eric Warfield is making over 4 million dollars. Thats a helluva lot of money to spend on a guy who would be asked to play Nickel, and then return to a starting job after a year if it doesnt pan out with Law.


I guess that since we dont really have a definate starter at Middle Linebacker, that would be one place I would like the Chiefs to look at after June 1st, instead of going after Ty Law.

From how it sounds, Kendrell Bell and Derrick Johnson could end up being our Outside linebackers, leaving Kawika Mitchell in the middle, which Im not too excited about.

Im not sure who is on the chopping block around the league at the Middle Linebacker position, but it would be nice to have someone else besides Mitchell to fall back on in the middle if Gunther decides to play Bell on the outside.

Wallcrawler
05-02-2005, 11:52 AM
We could certainly use some more DT depth, but aren't you worried at all about the assumed 4 game suspension for Warfield? I don't feel comfortable at all with McCleon, Bartee, Battle, etc. being a starter at all, even if it is just 4 games. Surtain will shut down one side of the field, but the opposing team will pick on the other CB all day. Do we just pray that our offense is on fire each of those games?


Apparently, there may not be a suspension.

Something I heard about a while back, that you have to be suspended for one game, before you can be suspended for four, or something like that.

Anyway, from what I remember, if Warfield were to be slapped with a 4 game suspension, the NFLPA would be all over it, because Warfield has never been suspended by the league before.

He might get suspended for one game, but it seems unlikely now that he will miss an entire month.

Since our opener is against the Jets, I think we could make it without Warfield for that game.

eazyb81
05-02-2005, 11:56 AM
Apparently, there may not be a suspension.

Something I heard about a while back, that you have to be suspended for one game, before you can be suspended for four, or something like that.

Anyway, from what I remember, if Warfield were to be slapped with a 4 game suspension, the NFLPA would be all over it, because Warfield has never been suspended by the league before.

He might get suspended for one game, but it seems unlikely now that he will miss an entire month.

Since our opener is against the Jets, I think we could make it without Warfield for that game.

I've heard that too, but I don't really buy it. I think it is a distinct possibility since they even mentioned it in the article about Warfield. If he doesn't get suspended then this is all a moot point and we will be fine. But since I am pessimistic I am basing all of this on him being suspended 4 games at some point this season. If that happens, we are f#cked.

tomahawk kid
05-02-2005, 12:17 PM
I've heard that too, but I don't really buy it. I think it is a distinct possibility since they even mentioned it in the article about Warfield. If he doesn't get suspended then this is all a moot point and we will be fine. But since I am pessimistic I am basing all of this on him being suspended 4 games at some point this season. If that happens, we are f#cked.

I don't remember reading that in the article.

Where was it mentioned?

KChiefs1
05-02-2005, 12:23 PM
Having Surtain, Warfield & Law at CB along with Knight, Wesley & Woods at S would be a killer secondary! :drool:

htismaqe
05-02-2005, 01:26 PM
We could certainly use some more DT depth, but aren't you worried at all about the assumed 4 game suspension for Warfield? I don't feel comfortable at all with McCleon, Bartee, Battle, etc. being a starter at all, even if it is just 4 games. Surtain will shut down one side of the field, but the opposing team will pick on the other CB all day. Do we just pray that our offense is on fire each of those games?

We put all of our eggs in the Surtain basket, for better or worse.

With Surtain shutting down one side, we can roll safety coverage to double whoever is on the other side. We can survive 4 games.

buddha
05-02-2005, 01:47 PM
I guess that since we dont really have a definate starter at Middle Linebacker, that would be one place I would like the Chiefs to look at after June 1st, instead of going after Ty Law.

From how it sounds, Kendrell Bell and Derrick Johnson could end up being our Outside linebackers, leaving Kawika Mitchell in the middle, which Im not too excited about.


I agree with Wallcrawler. There will be some "name" MLBs released on 6/1 or soon thereafter. There almost always are. Nobody knows if Law is going to be a shadow of his former self now, or ever for that matter. I'd rather get somebody to compete for MLB playing time, and let the best of the OLBs get it done outside.

It doesn't sound like Bell has played inside, so let's keep him at his best, most familiar position and create havoc!

htismaqe
05-02-2005, 02:04 PM
I agree with Wallcrawler. There will be some "name" MLBs released on 6/1 or soon thereafter. There almost always are. Nobody knows if Law is going to be a shadow of his former self now, or ever for that matter. I'd rather get somebody to compete for MLB playing time, and let the best of the OLBs get it done outside.

It doesn't sound like Bell has played inside, so let's keep him at his best, most familiar position and create havoc!

Actually, Bell has played inside his entire career.

The problem is that he was an ILB in a 3-4.

Since we don't run a 3-4, there's no place on our defense for him to be at his "natural" position. Inside or out, he's going to be learning from the beginning.

eazyb81
05-02-2005, 02:26 PM
I agree with Wallcrawler. There will be some "name" MLBs released on 6/1 or soon thereafter. There almost always are. Nobody knows if Law is going to be a shadow of his former self now, or ever for that matter. I'd rather get somebody to compete for MLB playing time, and let the best of the OLBs get it done outside.

It doesn't sound like Bell has played inside, so let's keep him at his best, most familiar position and create havoc!

I think it would be much wiser to look for DT or CB depth then to look for another MLB. Mitchell was playing great at the end of last season and Gunther sounds like he has a lot of faith in him. I think we are set at LB this year, but we could certainly upgrade at DT or CB.

yoswif
05-02-2005, 05:40 PM
Besides injuries, Law's ability to deal with the new rules affecting CB play has been an issue. If Law were looking to sign a one year deal with generous playoff and SB incentives to prove himself, what better place could he find than KC, the worst defense in the league.

dtebbe
05-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Having Surtain, Warfield & Law at CB along with Knight, Wesley & Woods at S would be a killer secondary! :drool:

Woods is gone, forget it.

DT

philfree
05-02-2005, 08:11 PM
A few things. First I do believe Carl is gonna try and acquire another players after June 1st. Be it a realeased player or a player on the market like Law or a June 1st casualty.

Second if it's Law and we get him Warfield isn't just the $.05 he's the FS when we are in our base defense. He has the size, range and ball skills to be a good FS. He's wouldn't be a thumper but more of a cover guy though IMO he does do alright against the run. We'd have the best 2ndary in the league.

Third if Cory Simon get's reelased by the Eagles I might choose him over Law. He's a young player in his prime and we've upgraded every part of the D this offseason except the interior of our line. Adding a palyer like Simon would be an upgrade and allow us to move Browning to the DE rotation with Hicks. With the players we already have in our back seven if we start getting a real good push with our front 4 and pressure on the QB we should have a fending frenzy on INTs.


PhilFree:arrow:

T-post Tom
05-02-2005, 10:37 PM
Never trust agent-speak. Moreover, the Poston brothers are notorious for lies and false representation. Even the NFLPA despises them. 'Google' Carl Poston and see what you get. I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt.

mcan
05-03-2005, 02:41 AM
If we can get Law at a decent price, then I'm very cool with that. However, I don't see it happening.


LCB- Warfield
RCB- Surtain
SS- Knight
FS- Woods
nickle- camp battle (Maybe even Wesley)


I tend to think that Wesley will be the one playing special teams this year and fighting his way back into the mix. I can't imagine him being a truly effective center fielder. But, I could be proven wrong.



As for Bell. Please, for the love of God, keep him in the middle. He's our best linebacker by far right now, and I believe that it's imperative to play your best linebacker in the middle. The middle linebacker is the key to a winning defense.

TEX
05-03-2005, 08:26 AM
I think it would be much wiser to look for DT or CB depth then to look for another MLB. Mitchell was playing great at the end of last season and Gunther sounds like he has a lot of faith in him. I think we are set at LB this year, but we could certainly upgrade at DT or CB.


Mitchell was playing great? :hmmm: At best he was playng average when he was playing his best. If he's our starting MLB, the CHIEFS are going to be weak up the middle. The ONLY thing Mitchell has shown that he's good at is blowing up screens. Other than that, he'll KILL you with his play. If a MLB is available, then the CHIEFS should grab him ASAP.

As for Law, he'll go to whatever team pays him the most and with his injury who could blame him? One thing for sure is it won't be the CHIEFS and I'm fine with that.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 08:38 AM
Mitchell was playing great? :hmmm: At best he was playng average when he was playing his best. If he's our starting MLB, the CHIEFS are going to be weak up the middle. The ONLY thing Mitchell has shown that he's good at is blowing up screens. Other than that, he'll KILL you with his play. If a MLB is available, then the CHIEFS should grab him ASAP.

As for Law, he'll go to whatever team pays him the most and with his injury who could blame him? One thing for sure is it won't be the CHIEFS and I'm fine with that.

I believe he had 29 tackles and 2 sacks his last 3 games. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that watched him that he was playing much better towards the end of the season. His first two years in the league he has played two different defensive schemes, I think it is a little understandable that he might not be playing up to his potential so far. He has the size and the speed to be a great LB in this league, anybody we pick up after June 1st would be a waste. Obviously Gun feels the same way about Mitchell because he said he will be the starting MLB.

Chiefnj
05-03-2005, 08:58 AM
I believe he had 29 tackles and 2 sacks his last 3 games. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that watched him that he was playing much better towards the end of the season. His first two years in the league he has played two different defensive schemes, I think it is a little understandable that he might not be playing up to his potential so far. He has the size and the speed to be a great LB in this league, anybody we pick up after June 1st would be a waste. Obviously Gun feels the same way about Mitchell because he said he will be the starting MLB.

Was he playing very well when San Diego's junior varsity team whipped the Chiefs in the final game of the year?

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 09:12 AM
Was he playing very well when San Diego's junior varsity team whipped the Chiefs in the final game of the year?

The team overall didn't play well, but Mitchell had a good game.

I still can't understand why so many people on this board view Mitchell as the scapegoat of our awful defense last year.

htismaqe
05-03-2005, 09:45 AM
The team overall didn't play well, but Mitchell had a good game.

I still can't understand why so many people on this board view Mitchell as the scapegoat of our awful defense last year.

Mitchell is not THE scapegoat.

He is, however, a symptom of the problem that has plagued us for years -- lack of talent.

I wish to God we'd just play Bell at MLB and be done with it.

Mr. Kotter
05-03-2005, 09:50 AM
Our starting LBs will be:

Bell, Mitchell, and Johnson
(perhaps Fujita the first couple of games in Johnson's place)

That's what I'm gettin' reading between the lines of what DV and Gun are saying....(paraphrasing here) DV: "Johnson will compete with Fujita," and Gun: "Mitchell is a MLB who played well at the end of last season."

Bell may be moved to MLB, but I suspect Mitchell will get the first crack.

htismaqe
05-03-2005, 11:58 AM
Our starting LBs will be:

Bell, Mitchell, and Johnson
(perhaps Fujita the first couple of games in Johnson's place)

That's what I'm gettin' reading between the lines of what DV and Gun are saying....(paraphrasing here) DV: "Johnson will compete with Fujita," and Gun: "Mitchell is a MLB who played well at the end of last season."

Bell may be moved to MLB, but I suspect Mitchell will get the first crack.

And that just sucks...

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:03 PM
And that just sucks...

Why does that suck? That seems to be the ideal scenario in my opinion. On the outside, Bell can get in the backfield and create havoc for opposing QBs, while DJ can blanket the opposing team's tight end. Mitchell should keep improving entering his 2nd season in Gun's scheme, and he will have Sammy Knight helping him in stuffing the run.

Mr. Kotter
05-03-2005, 12:25 PM
Why does that suck? That seems to be the ideal scenario in my opinion. On the outside, Bell can get in the backfield and create havoc for opposing QBs, while DJ can blanket the opposing team's tight end. Mitchell should keep improving entering his 2nd season in Gun's scheme, and he will have Sammy Knight helping him in stuffing the run.

My take is Gun is "trying" to recreate the past:

Bell = Anthony Davis
Hicks/hall = Neil Smith
DJ/Fujita = DT

With that scenario, that makes Mitchell = Tracy Simeon, I guess....which is doable.

The problem is, at this point we don't have Davis-Smith-DT covered.

philfree
05-03-2005, 12:27 PM
The team overall didn't play well, but Mitchell had a good game.

I still can't understand why so many people on this board view Mitchell as the scapegoat of our awful defense last year.

Mitchell struggled some in his career and didn't play to a pro bowl level in his first 16 games as a starter. He missed some tackles and he ran into blockers. Now with all of 16 starts under his belt, 7 in GRobs scheme and 9 in Guns scheme it has been determined that he sucks, and he will always suck because he's one of Carls many draft day busts. He doesn't deserve another chance because he sucks.

What confuses me is how Mitchell sucks because he runs into blockers and Johnson isn't "all that" because he runs around those blockers. With both those guys on our D I can't help but think our D will suck again this year. We're doomed!

PhilFree:arrow:

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:33 PM
My take is Gun is "trying" to recreate the past:

Bell = Anthony Davis
Hicks/hall = Neil Smith
DJ/Fujita = DT

With that scenario, that makes Mitchell = Tracy Simeon, I guess....which is doable.

The problem is, at this point we don't have Davis-Smith-DT covered.

I would compare Bell more to DT then Anthony Davis. If Bell stays healthy all year, I wouldn't be surprised if Gun blitzes him a lot and he ends up with double digit sacks.

Mr. Kotter
05-03-2005, 12:36 PM
I would compare Bell more to DT then Anthony Davis. If Bell stays healthy all year, I wouldn't be surprised if Gun blitzes him a lot and he ends up with double digit sacks.

Gun made the direct comparison of Bell to Davis in one of his Star articles of late....I agree with you though.