PDA

View Full Version : NFL Network just reported we're 28 million over the cap


Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 06:28 PM
Going into next season.

I guess we can kiss any significant additions to the defense goodbye.

Who's going to get the axe? Priest? Bell? Barber? Woods?

Pasta Giant Meatball
12-26-2005, 06:30 PM
28 mil holy smokes. i really doubt we are that much over.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 06:31 PM
28 mil holy smokes. i really doubt we are that much over.

We are, according to NFL Network.

Denver and Oakland are way over too, so that's good news at least.

listopencil
12-26-2005, 06:34 PM
Cap stats are meaningless this far ahead.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 06:35 PM
Cap stats are meaningless this far ahead.

Why?

milkman
12-26-2005, 06:39 PM
Why?

Because there are players that will be moved, cut, or who will rework contracts.

Kendrell Bell will be cut, and the bonus he is supposed to get that is counted against next year's cap right now will be removed from the equation, to name one example.

Pasta Giant Meatball
12-26-2005, 06:41 PM
We are, according to NFL Network.

Denver and Oakland are way over too, so that's good news at least.

that's good, but the chargers are in GREAT cap shape from what i've read.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 06:44 PM
Because there are players that will be moved, cut, or who will rework contracts.

Kendrell Bell will be cut, and the bonus he is supposed to get that is counted against next year's cap right now will be removed from the equation, to name one example.

Are you sure on Bell?

That's still a buttload of money to move around.

milkman
12-26-2005, 06:49 PM
Are you sure on Bell?

That's still a buttload of money to move around.

I don't remember the details on Bell's contract, but I know that he signed a contract that was cap friendly for this season, and that made it easy, and saved cap dollars, if he were cut going into next season.

I also know that Carl, and Lynn Stiles have always found ways to manipulate the cap.

SoCalBronco
12-26-2005, 06:57 PM
Its probably inaccurate, as is what they are saying about Denver. If you guys recall, this past offseason King Carl gave Kendrell Bell an apparently large contract, but as PFT reported, it was a two tiered bonus with the larger portion due in spring, 2006. He obviously wont get that, but its still on the cap as of now till he is officially cut and/or restructured. There probably will be a major paycut coming with Holmes as well since the Chiefs have all the leverage now. All these figures are very inaccurate.

Denver for example is talked about as being about 20 million over the cap. But that assumes Courtney Brown will get his 8 million option bonus this spring which he will not. It also counts in the last year of Gerard Warren's deal which automatically voids out at his option which he will exercise so that he can get a new contract from us instead, that is 6 million. Tom Nalen is projected to get 6 million which he wont get. Tom will most likely retire from reports and Myers will be inserted into the lineup at Center or Guard. The amount of money allocated to Lepsis next year is also fake, his deal will void out at his option. In reality, Denver is in good cap shape, especially because for the first time in about 5 years, there is ZERO dead money on the cap. All the money we had to carry because of accelerated bonuses frrom Gardener, Griese etc. is gone. However, we still have to re-sign our guys. We will be in okay cap shape, but we gotta re-sign Warren and Lepsis.

Cochise
12-26-2005, 07:03 PM
Good post SoCal

Every year you hear that we're 10 million over, 10 million under, whatever, and it never seems to turn out that way.

htismaqe
12-26-2005, 07:04 PM
Kendrell Bell got $3.5M up front. He's due $3.5M this offseason and another bonus of $3M next.

Currently he's counting about $5M against next year's cap. That won't be the case come February.

Anybody that's publishing cap numbers RIGHT NOW, for NEXT season, is fishing. Nothing more.

nascher
12-26-2005, 07:06 PM
every year the same s... CP had never problems with our salary cap and nobody knows now which player will be on our team next year or will retire (Shields,Roaf,Holmes)
so its really pure speculation and pretty dumb.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 07:07 PM
Does anyone know what happens with the bonuses of players that retire?

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 07:11 PM
I don't understand all of this "capology" stuff but I hear we are waiting to see if Priest is physically unable to play or just wants to retire. I think that is why Priest keeps seeing doctor after doctor. He's looking for one that will declare him "unable to play". But that makes a huge difference in our cap situation. I doubt Carl wants to pay him big money to caddy for LJ. Couple that with what Bell is supposed to get and it is a lot of money. Besides, isn't the cap supposed to increase next year?

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 07:12 PM
I don't understand all of this "capology" stuff but I hear we are waiting to see if Priest is physically unable to play or just wants to retire. I think that is why Priest keeps seeing doctor after doctor. He's looking for one that will declare him "unable to play". But that makes a huge difference in our cap situation. I doubt Carl wants to pay him big money to caddy for LJ. Couple that with what Bell is supposed to get and it is a lot of money. Besides, isn't the cap supposed to increase next year?

Yeah I thought next year was an uncapped year.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 07:18 PM
Yeah I thought next year was an uncapped year.
I think it is unless a new agreement is reached but I really don't know. Let's ask 5840.......uh, no, let's don't.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 07:18 PM
Bell's contract is designed so that we don't take a hit by cutting before the March roster bonus deadline.

We have a lot of guys that have reached the point in their contract that it's no longer more expensive to cut them. Guys like Woods, Wesley, Bartee, and McCleon. All of those guys will be cheaper to cut than keep in '06.

However, we have a lot of guys that get very expensive in 2006 too. Gonzo's contract is starting to exceed his worth IMO. As long as we're paying him like we are, we won't ever afford a true #1 WR. Eric Hicks contract is big too, and we would get clobbered by cutting him. Guys like Weigmann, Holmes, Green, Hall, and Surtain have significant jumps.

This is the one of the biggest obstacles on keeping a team together for so long. We have so many veteran offensive guys that are getting into the portion of their contracts that are simply too expensive. Contracts are almost always written with the team not planning on paying the latter part of it, and we have all these guys that have reached that part of the contract.

milkman
12-26-2005, 07:20 PM
Does anyone know what happens with the bonuses of players that retire?

I'm certainly no capologist, but I'm fairly certain their remaining bonus number accelerates to count against that season's cap.

milkman
12-26-2005, 07:21 PM
Yeah I thought next year was an uncapped year.

I think that uncapped year is '08 or '09.

I'm leaning to '09.

milkman
12-26-2005, 07:22 PM
I think it is unless a new agreement is reached but I really don't know. Let's ask 5840.......uh, no, let's don't.

I know.
Let's ask Hacker!

|Zach|
12-26-2005, 07:23 PM
Zach is 38 dollars over his cap for next year.

Via GreatSouthernBank.com

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 07:26 PM
Bell's contract is designed so that we don't take a hit by cutting before the March roster bonus deadline.

We have a lot of guys that have reached the point in their contract that it's no longer more expensive to cut them. Guys like Woods, Wesley, Bartee, and McCleon. All of those guys will be cheaper to cut than keep in '06.

However, we have a lot of guys that get very expensive in 2006 too. Gonzo's contract is starting to exceed his worth IMO. As long as we're paying him like we are, we won't ever afford a true #1 WR. Eric Hicks contract is big too, and we would get clobbered by cutting him. Guys like Weigmann, Holmes, Green, Hall, and Surtain have significant jumps.

This is the one of the biggest obstacles on keeping a team together for so long. We have so many veteran offensive guys that are getting into the portion of their contracts that are simply too expensive. Contracts are almost always written with the team not planning on paying the latter part of it, and we have all these guys that have reached that part of the contract.
Yep and as the sage Taco once put it "NFL contracts are written in sand". He's right for once and the players understand it too I think. It soothes their ego to say they signed a 42 million dollar contract when they know full well they will never see that much money. Of the players you named, only Weigmann, Green and Surtain have a prayer of getting that money. And they surely will be asked to restructure. In reality, what another team might be willing to pay them sets the market. But I really don't understand all the ins and outs of it.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 07:35 PM
Yep and as the sage Taco once put it "NFL contracts are written in sand". He's right for once and the players understand it too I think. It soothes their ego to say they signed a 42 million dollar contract when they know full well they will never see that much money. Of the players you named, only Weigmann, Green and Surtain have a prayer of getting that money. And they surely will be asked to restructure. In reality, what another team might be willing to pay them sets the market. But I really don't understand all the ins and outs of it.

What if they don't want to restructure? Guys like Weigmann, Surtain, and Green are likely looking at their last contract. Can we convince them to take a pay cut? Can we convince them that the team is on the cusp of greatness? '06 is likely Surtain's last year with the Chiefs anyway.

Eric Hicks is here for probably two more years, minimum. And he's going to get paid a lot of money during that time.

Dante Hall is going to make over 1m to return kicks. Tony G is going to make more than Kennison and Hall combined, about equal to Holmes. Shawn Barber will almost make as much as Gonzo.

The only bright spot is that we are stealing Willie Roaf.

HMc
12-26-2005, 07:36 PM
I think that uncapped year is '08 or '09.

I'm leaning to '09.

I think the current CBA expires after next season. Pretty sure that 07 is the uncapped year. Of course it's hard to see the agreement not being extended, or at least a new deal struck that includes a cap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602208.html

Stuckinbama
12-26-2005, 07:37 PM
The cap is supposed to be between $92-95 Million next season. You can bet Jerome Woods will be gone as will several others (McCleon, Wesley, Dalton, just to name a few). Shields is a good bet to retire and I'd venture that Tony Richardson will too. Roaf will probably stick it out for another season, but CP and Lynn Stiles won't have any problems getting the team's cap numbers where they need to be.

milkman
12-26-2005, 07:41 PM
Damn, it's a StuckinBama sighting!

HTH are you?

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 07:48 PM
What if they don't want to restructure? Guys like Weigmann, Surtain, and Green are likely looking at their last contract. Can we convince them to take a pay cut? Can we convince them that the team is on the cusp of greatness? '06 is likely Surtain's last year with the Chiefs anyway.

Eric Hicks is here for probably two more years, minimum. And he's going to get paid a lot of money during that time.

Dante Hall is going to make over 1m to return kicks. Tony G is going to make more than Kennison and Hall combined, about equal to Holmes. Shawn Barber will almost make as much as Gonzo.

The only bright spot is that we are stealing Willie Roaf.
Again, I don't know, but I think it hinges on what other teams might be willing to pay those three. We will at least have to match their market value. What would another team pay an average (?) 36 year old QB? Weigmann probably has us by the balls. Surtain, I just don't know.

Valiant
12-26-2005, 07:49 PM
However, we have a lot of guys that get very expensive in 2006 too. Gonzo's contract is starting to exceed his worth IMO. As long as we're paying him like we are, we won't ever afford a true #1 WR. Eric Hicks contract is big too, and we would get clobbered by cutting him. Guys like Weigmann, Holmes, Green, Hall, and Surtain have significant jumps.

This is the one of the biggest obstacles on keeping a team together for so long. We have so many veteran offensive guys that are getting into the portion of their contracts that are simply too expensive. Contracts are almost always written with the team not planning on paying the latter part of it, and we have all these guys that have reached that part of the contract.


If we would actually throw the ball more to Gonzo then what we do it would be worth the price.. But for some reason this year our playaction has dropped about half...

jspchief
12-26-2005, 07:53 PM
Again, I don't know, but I think it hinges on what other teams might be willing to pay those three. We will at least have to match their market value. What would another team pay an average (?) 36 year old QB? Weigmann probably has us by the balls. Surtain, I just don't know.Other teams don't come into the picture. We have them under contract, so they have no bargaining tool in that respect. But by the same token, the team also has no leverage.

These are the options:
1. We pay them what their contract dictates.
2. We ask them to restructure and
a. they refuse
b. they accept
3. We cut them because they won't restructure.

Frazod
12-26-2005, 07:55 PM
It there any way we can trade Holmes for draft picks (assuming he doesn't retire and we can find somebody to take his fragile ass) without getting put in cap hell over it?

milkman
12-26-2005, 07:58 PM
It there any way we can trade Holmes for draft picks (assuming he doesn't retire and we can find somebody to take his fragile ass) without getting put in cap hell over it?

Cap issues aside, would you trade draft picks for an aging RB that hasn't been able to finish the last 2 seasons?

jspchief
12-26-2005, 07:58 PM
If we would actually throw the ball more to Gonzo then what we do it would be worth the price.. But for some reason this year our playaction has dropped about half...Gonzo struggles getting off of bumps and drops the ball too much. He's not getting the ball because he's not the same weapon he once was. He can't snatch the ball out of the air like he used to, and his only weapon against coverage is throwing a tantrum for not getting the PI flag. I think he's lost the speed that allowed him to burn guys in the past. now the only time he has a good game is when we play against a defense that inexplicably chooses to not bump him.

And regardless of how good he plays, we'll still never afford a true #1 while we are paying gonzo what we are paying him. It's the sacrifice for having a TE as one the highest paid players on your offense.

HMc
12-26-2005, 08:03 PM
Basically, from what i've read, it seems NFL contracts are mostly bullshit. Binding on the player but not on the team. It's a surprise they don't come under more scrutiny under contract law. The only bit that is actually enforceable is the signing bonus. I'm no expert on the matter, however.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 08:05 PM
Other teams don't come into the picture. We have them under contract, so they have no bargaining tool in that respect. But by the same token, the team also has no leverage.

These are the options:
1. We pay them what their contract dictates.
2. We ask them to restructure and
a. they refuse
b. they accept
3. We cut them because they won't restructure.
I agree but other teams DO come into the picture. If they refuse to restructure, the onus is on them to find a better deal with another team. If they can't, they accept our offer. :shrug: I think it has everything to do with what they can get from another team.

HMc
12-26-2005, 08:12 PM
I agree but other teams DO come into the picture. If they refuse to restructure, the onus is on them to find a better deal with another team. If they can't, they accept our offer. :shrug: I think it has everything to do with what they can get from another team.


All true. No point in holding out if you can't get a gig somewhere else for the same sorta money. Although those on big signing bonuses have their own leverage against the team, yes?

Do you reckon there's loads of bullshit involved in negotiations? Like "certain teams have made us very attractive offers.." or would the teams be aware of what other teams are interested in and what they'll pay?

milkman
12-26-2005, 08:15 PM
I agree but other teams DO come into the picture. If they refuse to restructure, the onus is on them to find a better deal with another team. If they can't, they accept our offer. :shrug: I think it has everything to do with what they can get from another team.

The only way they can talk to other teams is if the Chiefs grant them permission to do so, or cut them.

Frazod
12-26-2005, 08:18 PM
Cap issues aside, would you trade draft picks for an aging RB that hasn't been able to finish the last 2 seasons?

No, but hopefully somebody will. At this point, Holmes + Johnson = nothing but trouble.

milkman
12-26-2005, 08:20 PM
No, but hopefully somebody will. At this point, Holmes + Johnson = nothing but trouble.

So what you're hoping for is a dumbass GM to step up to the plate.

I guess there is Matt Millan.

Frazod
12-26-2005, 08:23 PM
So what you're hoping for is a dumbass GM to step up to the plate.

I guess there is Matt Millan.

That'll work. He certainly won't beat Pittsburgh for us, but this he could do. :D

Coach
12-26-2005, 08:25 PM
Seriously, the way our defense have been after all these years, those guys should be forced to reconstructure, no matter what. :shake:

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 08:30 PM
Cap issues aside, would you trade draft picks for an aging RB that hasn't been able to finish the last 2 seasons?
Uh, that would be 3 out of the last 4.

milkman
12-26-2005, 08:31 PM
Uh, that would be 3 out of the last 4.

Yeah, that too.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 08:33 PM
The only way they can talk to other teams is if the Chiefs grant them permission to do so, or cut them.
True, but do they have to actually talk to other teams to know if they can get a better offer? The agents pretty much know that don't they? Again, I don't know, I'm still learning.

Over-Head
12-26-2005, 08:34 PM
28 Mill over huh? :hmmm:
Welcome to Oakland Mr. Holmes :evil:

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 08:36 PM
That'll work. He certainly won't beat Pittsburgh for us, but this he could do. :D
There is a guy on this board that offered to suck Millen's dick. Would that help?

KcMizzou
12-26-2005, 08:36 PM
28 Mill over huh? :hmmm:
Welcome to Oakland Mr. Holmes :evil:Nah you guys don't want Priest. He doesn't fit the Raider profile. Give Bam Morris a call.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 08:37 PM
28 Mill over huh? :hmmm:
Welcome to Oakland Mr. Holmes :evil:

Not happy with Lamont Jordan?

Over-Head
12-26-2005, 08:38 PM
Nah you guys don't want Priest. He doesn't fit the Raider profile. Give Bam Morris a call.
He's old, and hurt.
Looks like a lock in to me :hmmm:

Frazod
12-26-2005, 08:38 PM
There is a guy on this board that offered to suck Millen's dick. Would that help?

I'd rather not think about it. :spock:

KcMizzou
12-26-2005, 08:39 PM
He's old, and hurt.
Looks like a lock in to me :hmmm:Yeah, but he's also a classy guy and a model citizen. Doesn't fit the Raider profile...

HMc
12-26-2005, 08:40 PM
True, but do they have to actually talk to other teams to know if they can get a better offer? The agents pretty much know that don't they? Again, I don't know, I'm still learning.

I'd be very surprised if agents didn't have fairly good ideas of what they could get and from whom. It happens in every sport.

milkman
12-26-2005, 08:41 PM
True, but do they have to actually talk to other teams to know if they can get a better offer? The agents pretty much know that don't they? Again, I don't know, I'm still learning.

If any team talks to a player's agent, or discusses a player under contract with another team, it's considered tampering, and the NFL definitely frowns on that.

milkman
12-26-2005, 08:43 PM
I'd be very surprised if agents didn't have fairly good ideas of what they could get and from whom. It happens in every sport.

I would think that an agent thinks he knows what a player is worth, but that isn't necessarily true.

One only has to look to Donnie Edwards as an example.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 08:43 PM
Nah you guys don't want Priest. He doesn't fit the Raider profile. Give Bam Morris a call.
I really appreciate what Priest has done for the Chiefs even though we have never so much as won a playoff game with him. But I don't think he has much value to any other team. He's hurt all the time (typical for a small back) and age is creeping up on him. His ypc this year was 3.9. 3.5 will get you drummed out of the league. Just ask Mike Cloud.

Over-Head
12-26-2005, 08:45 PM
Yeah, but he's also a classy guy and a model citizen. Doesn't fit the Raider profile...
We have the ability to corrupt ANYONE.
Hell look at what we did to that poor lil dude from Poland or where ever the hell Jano hails from ROFL

jspchief
12-26-2005, 08:46 PM
I wish I had $1 for every time Skip has typed "ypc" this year.

HMc
12-26-2005, 08:46 PM
You would hope that invitations to restructure would imply permission to negotiate elsewhere. Obviously not, though.

KcMizzou
12-26-2005, 08:47 PM
I wish I had $1 for every time Skip has typed "ypc" this year.You take ypc... I'll take "n00b".

Over-Head
12-26-2005, 08:48 PM
You take ypc... I'll take "n00b".
ROFL

jspchief
12-26-2005, 08:56 PM
You take ypc... I'll take "n00b".Muwhahhahaahaa...we'll rule the world!

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:00 PM
I wish I had $1 for every time Skip has typed "ypc" this year.
I can think of a couple of examples where ypc doesn't work. Can you name them? N00b? Just trying to level the playing field.

KcMizzou
12-26-2005, 09:02 PM
Muwhahhahaahaa...we'll rule the world!...

jspchief
12-26-2005, 09:05 PM
I can think of a couple of examples where ypc doesn't work. Can you name them? N00b? Just trying to level the playing field.YPC is a telling stat, but just like any stat, it's only a part of the larger picture.

You seem to be overly enamored with that one stat line.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 09:06 PM
...Great...

Am I the stupid looking one, or the mean looking one?

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:12 PM
YPC is a telling stat, but just like any stat, it's only a part of the larger picture.

You seem to be overly enamored with that one stat line.
It is a VERY telling stat. But there is a situation where it gets skewed. Care to tell us where that is, genious?

KcMizzou
12-26-2005, 09:14 PM
Great...

Am I the stupid looking one, or the mean looking one?The mean looking one.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 09:20 PM
It is a VERY telling stat. But there is a situation where it gets skewed. Care to tell us where that is, genious?Pass blocking.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:25 PM
Pass blocking.
Nope. How could pass blocking affect ypc?

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:36 PM
OK, it's obvious you don't know but you still feel free to criticize me for using a very important stat. Typical of you. OK, here it is. The Bus scored three TD's last year while gaining only 5 yards. Less than 2 ypc. This has hurt some of the best RB's in the league over the years. Marcus Allen comes to mind. John Riggins was dangerous from any place on the field with his power and open field speed. But he was used a lot in short yardage situations where he only was asked to get a yard or two. As a result, Riggins career ypc is only 3.9. But anybody that followed the Redskins will tell you what a great RB Riggins was. Please limit your criticism of me to things you know something about, JSP. This isn't the first time I've had to correct your stupid comments.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 09:37 PM
Nope. How could pass blocking affect ypc?It was a smart-ass response to your continuous insinuation that ypc tells you everything you need to know about a RB.

There is no way that YPC gets "skewed". It is what it is. An average. The only reason you think it gets skewed is because you put too much stock into it in the first place, which was what I was saying when I said it's only part of a larger picture.

The fact that every RB plays behind a different o-line, against different defense, in different situations, makes it nothing more than one tiny bit of information that can be used when evaluating a RB. It's one of those things that fans and media talking heads like to use when they declare who is "best" at something, when the reality is there is no concrete way to say who is best at what because there are too many other variables.

A RB can have a high ypc because he happened to break one long run in only a few attempts. A RB can have a high ypc because he plays behind an o-line that routinely gets him into the secondary. A RB can have a high ypc because he faces a lot of shitty defenses in a season. A RB can have a low ypc because the coach only calls "cloud of dust" plays when he is in the game. Or a RB can have a high ypc simply because he is a very good RB.

It's not a magic formula. There are some crappy RBs with good ypc averages, and there are some good RBs with lousy ypc averages. You just cling to it like your mother's tit because it supports your opinion of LJ. It makes you sound like a guy that forms your opinion of players from the Monday morning box scores instead of by actually watching games.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:51 PM
It was a smart-ass response to your continuous insinuation that ypc tells you everything you need to know about a RB.

There is no way that YPC gets "skewed". It is what it is. An average. The only reason you think it gets skewed is because you put too much stock into it in the first place, which was what I was saying when I said it's only part of a larger picture.

The fact that every RB plays behind a different o-line, against different defense, in different situations, makes it nothing more than one tiny bit of information that can be used when evaluating a RB. It's one of those things that fans and media talking heads like to use when they declare who is "best" at something, when the reality is there is no concrete way to say who is best at what because there are too many other variables.

A RB can have a high ypc because he happened to break one long run in only a few attempts. A RB can have a high ypc because he plays behind an o-line that routinely gets him into the secondary. A RB can have a high ypc because he faces a lot of shitty defenses in a season. A RB can have a low ypc because the coach only calls "cloud of dust" plays when he is in the game. Or a RB can have a high ypc simply because he is a very good RB.

It's not a magic formula. There are some crappy RBs with good ypc averages, and there are some good RBs with lousy ypc averages. You just cling to it like your mother's tit because it supports your opinion of LJ. It makes you sound like a guy that forms your opinion of players from the Monday morning box scores instead of by actually watching games.
Your post is nothing more than blah, blah, blah. Ypc is the standard by which ALL RB's are judged. You think you can snow everybody with rhetoric but you are sadly mistaken. Show me ONE single RB with great stats that is crappy. You can't do it. And there are NO good RB's with crappy stats. Back that up, please. I'm waiting.

Rausch
12-26-2005, 09:52 PM
There's plenty of chaff on this team that needs to be removed anyway...

Rausch
12-26-2005, 09:53 PM
Show me ONE single RB with great stats that is crappy. You can't do it.

Mike Vick...

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 09:57 PM
Mike Vick...
Damn you, Caudle, I thought Vick was a QB.

Rausch
12-26-2005, 09:59 PM
Damn you, Caudle, I thought Vick was a QB.

Sadly, so did Atlanta...

jspchief
12-26-2005, 10:05 PM
Your post is nothing more than blah, blah, blah. Ypc is the standard by which ALL RB's are judged. You think you can snow everybody with rhetoric but you are sadly mistaken. Show me ONE single RB with great stats that is crappy. You can't do it. And there are NO good RB's with crappy stats. Back that up, please. I'm waiting.No... ypc is the standard by which all RBs are judged by you. Informed people look at things other than the box score. Things like blocking, pass catching, the ability to get the tough yard or the crucial first down. Is Tatum Bell better than Larry Johnson?

Crappy RB with great stats? Rock Cartwright is averaging 4.5 ypc for his career.

Good RB with crappy ypc? Curtis Martin.

Besides, spare me the lecture about how much you know about this. You didn't know shit about it until gochiefs showed you the websites to look at this crap earlier this year. You couldn't have told me anyone's ypc before this fall.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 10:06 PM
You didn't know shit about it until gochiefs showed you the websites to look at this crap earlier this year.

I've created a monster.

milkman
12-26-2005, 10:08 PM
No... ypc is the standard by which all RBs are judged by you. Informed people look at things other than the box score. Things like blocking, pass catching, the ability to get the tough yard or the crucial first down. Is Tatum Bell better than Larry Johnson?

Crappy RB with great stats? Rock Cartwright is averaging 4.5 ypc for his career.

Good RB with crappy ypc? Curtis Martin.

Besides, spare me the lecture about how much you know about this. You didn't know shit about it until gochiefs showed you the websites to look at this crap earlier this year. You couldn't have told me anyone's ypc before this fall.

How about Eddie George?

Only averaged over 4.0 ypc in 2 seasons during his career, and averged, what?, 3.6 for his career.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:09 PM
No... ypc is the standard by which all RBs are judged by you. Informed people look at things other than the box score. Things like blocking, pass catching, the ability to get the tough yard or the crucial first down. Is Tatum Bell better than Larry Johnson?

Crappy RB with great stats? Rock Cartwright is averaging 4.5 ypc for his career.

Good RB with crappy ypc? Curtis Martin.

Besides, spare me the lecture about how much you know about this. You didn't know shit about it until gochiefs showed you the websites to look at this crap earlier this year. You couldn't have told me anyone's ypc before this fall.
Just more blah, blah, blah. Tatum Bell has less than half the carries of Lj. Aren't you the same guy that was telling me less than two months ago that the only reason LJ had the stats he did was because Priest was paving the way for him? Softening up the defenses for him? Do I need to go bring up that thread?

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Weren't you also the guy telling me how we owed Priest all this loyalty? Have you seen anything of Priest since he went down.......again? Hell, we played in Dallas, close to Priest's hometown of San Antonio and he still didn't show up. Yeah, we owe him a lot of loyalty.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Just more blah, blah, blah. Tatum Bell has less than half the carries of Lj. Aren't you the same guy that was telling me less than two months ago that the only reason LJ had the stats he did was because Priest was paving the way for him? Softening up the defenses for him? Do I need to go bring up that thread?The only reason? No.

I did say LJ was benefitting from not getting his first carry until facing a defense that had already played 2 series. I said his ypc would drop, which it did. He was averaging over 6 ypc at the time, and I said it would drop. I was right. I also said he was a shitty pass blocker, and I was right about that too.

Go ahead and change the subject though, because you just got owned on all your ypc "knowledge".

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:20 PM
The only reason? No.

I did say LJ was benefitting from not getting his first carry until facing a defense that had already played 2 series. I said his ypc would drop, which it did. He was averaging over 6 ypc at the time, and I said it would drop. I was right. I also said he was a shitty pass blocker, and I was right about that too.

Go ahead and change the subject though, because you just got owned on all your ypc "knowledge".
You're wrong. LJ has never had a ypc of 6 ypc. The highest it has ever been is 5.1. I can prove it if you care to press it. In fact, it started at 4.2 when VD wouldn't let him play. Wanna bet?

dirk digler
12-26-2005, 10:20 PM
I will take LJ's 5.0 ypc carry over anyone in the NFL. Just think if he had been the starter at the beginning of the year he would have broken the NFL single season record. He is sitting at 1549 having just started 7 games or so.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:23 PM
I just checked it again at ProFootball Reference.com. He was at 4.2, then 4.8, then 5.1. That is 2003, 2004 and 2005. Argue with them, dipshit.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:25 PM
I will take LJ's 5.0 ypc carry over anyone in the NFL. Just think if he had been the starter at the beginning of the year he would have broken the NFL single season record. He is sitting at 1549 having just started 7 games or so.
Exactly. But the great JSP was arguing against him less than two months ago. And he still can't shut his big mouth.

Rausch
12-26-2005, 10:28 PM
I will take LJ's 5.0 ypc carry over anyone in the NFL. Just think if he had been the starter at the beginning of the year he would have broken the NFL single season record. He is sitting at 1549 having just started 7 games or so.

He'll break it next year.

We play the Tards, Lambs, 69'ers, and Seahawks.

Those 4 games alone will net him 600 yards or better...

jspchief
12-26-2005, 10:29 PM
You're wrong. LJ has never had a ypc of 6 ypc. The highest it has ever been is 5.1. I can prove it if you care to press it. In fact, it started at 4.2 when VD wouldn't let him play. Wanna bet?LJ's ypc average after week 1 was 12.2
LJ's ypc average while in a limited role was 5.3
LJ's ypc average as a starter this year is 4.8

His ypc dropped when he got the full load, just like I said it would.

Skip Towne
12-26-2005, 10:32 PM
He'll break it next year.

We play the Tards, Lambs, 69'ers, and Seahawks.

Those 4 games alone will net him 600 yards or better...
I agree. The guy looks like Riggins and Jim Brown to me. All three big strong dudes with outstanding speed. I have to work tomorrow so I'm out . If anybody wants to argue it tomorrow, I'll be back.

dirk digler
12-26-2005, 10:34 PM
LJ's ypc average after week 1 was 12.2
LJ's ypc average while in a limited role was 5.3
LJ's ypc average as a starter this year is 4.8

His ypc dropped when he got the full load, just like I said it would.

LJ ypc is at 5.0 which is 5th in the league.

IMO the most important stats for RB's is yds and TD's. Nothing else matters. LJ is 3rd in yards and 2nd in TD's.

I can't believe anyone is arguing about LJ, the guy is a stud and one of the premeire players in the NFL. The guy started 7 games and got voted to the Pro Bowl. That should tell you something.

jspchief
12-26-2005, 10:44 PM
LJ ypc is at 5.0 which is 5th in the league.

IMO the most important stats for RB's is yds and TD's. Nothing else matters. LJ is 3rd in yards and 2nd in TD's.

I can't believe anyone is arguing about LJ, the guy is a stud and one of the premeire players in the NFL. The guy started 7 games and got voted to the Pro Bowl. That should tell you something.Look, I'm not busting on LJ. He's clearly a great back.

My original dispute was whether he deserved to unseat Holmes as the starter. At the time I felt that Holmes experience made up for the physical areas where LJ surpassed him. I would still rather have Holmes on the screen, on goal to go, and in pass blocking situations. But now I can admit that LJ is probably better as the feature back, with Holmes as the change of pace. I may have been wrong, but I thought the 2/3, 1/3 system was working well.

My current comments were directed at Skip's ridiculous love affair with the ypc stat line, as if it's the tell all of a RB. When that arguement didn't go his way, he tried to dig up my past comments about LJ. At the time I had said that his ypc stats would drop once he got all the carries. It has nothing to do with his capabilities, and everything to do with lining up against a fresh defense that is anticipating run on the first few series of the game. I was right in that claim.

But it's actually irrelevant. Skip will go on throwing out that ypc stat in every thread that ever talks about a RB. And he'll go on thinking he sounds smart doing it, when the reality is he looks like an old fool that doesn't watch the games, but instead looks at stat lines to form his opinions.

dirk digler
12-26-2005, 10:56 PM
Look, I'm not busting on LJ. He's clearly a great back.

My original dispute was whether he deserved to unseat Holmes as the starter. At the time I felt that Holmes experience made up for the physical areas where LJ surpassed him. I would still rather have Holmes on the screen, on goal to go, and in pass blocking situations. But now I can admit that LJ is probably better as the feature back, with Holmes as the change of pace. I may have been wrong, but I thought the 2/3, 1/3 system was working well.

My current comments were directed at Skip's ridiculous love affair with the ypc stat line, as if it's the tell all of a RB. When that arguement didn't go his way, he tried to dig up my past comments about LJ. At the time I had said that his ypc stats would drop once he got all the carries. It has nothing to do with his capabilities, and everything to do with lining up against a fresh defense that is anticipating run on the first few series of the game. I was right in that claim.

But it's actually irrelevant. Skip will go on throwing out that ypc stat in every thread that ever talks about a RB. And he'll go on thinking he sounds smart doing it, when the reality is he looks like an old fool that doesn't watch the games, but instead looks at stat lines to form his opinions.

Thanks jsp. Sorry Skip but IMO ypc doesn't mean squat. I don't consider Tatum Bell a great RB but he leads the league at 5.6 ypc. He couldn't hold LJ's jock.

I disagree with you about the 2/3 1/3 situation. It should have been LJ all the time except when he was tired. I have been saying that ever since TC when I saw LJ for 3 days running and practicing hard.
The only thing that Priest has on LJ is his pass blocking and I used to think LJ struggled near the goal line but the TD he had against the Chargers looked exactly like a Priest TD run.

Halfcan
12-26-2005, 11:13 PM
People that should not be here next year, cap or not:

TinkerBell-this guy has been pathetic.
Warfield-sucks now, sucks then, sucks forever.
Bartee-hey lets try him at.... WR next.
Simms-has gotten big fat money, but has not shown his worth.
Barber-has not been a good tackler plus the injury.
Woods-so long crybaby-you used to rock.
Welborne-holding, off sides, roids, see ya.
Black-has never been great.
Kennison-drops way too many passes, maybe could be our number two next year.
Wesley-too inconsistent,used to be a big hitter, but now seems lost half the time back there.
Junior- I think he had a tackle last week, but he might have been just jumping on the pile as usual. Major bust for where he was drafted.

That should trim a lot of fat and fat contracts off the books. I would rather see rookies who will play with heart than these lump of shits.

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 11:19 PM
People that should not be here next year, cap or not:

TinkerBell-this guy has been pathetic.
Warfield-sucks now, sucks then, sucks forever.
Bartee-hey lets try him at.... WR next.
Simms-has gotten big fat money, but has not shown his worth.
Barber-has not been a good tackler plus the injury.
Woods-so long crybaby-you used to rock.
Welborne-holding, off sides, roids, see ya.
Black-has never been great.
Kennison-drops way too many passes, maybe could be our number two next year.
Wesley-too inconsistent,used to be a big hitter, but now seems lost half the time back there.
Junior- I think he had a tackle last week, but he might have been just jumping on the pile as usual. Major bust for where he was drafted.

That should trim a lot of fat and fat contracts off the books. I would rather see rookies who will play with heart than these lump of shits.

Written like a true n00b.

Warfield, Welbourn, Kennison and Wesley are going nowhere. They're all good players, and Welbourn has played great this year.

Siavii won't be cut due to money issues.

I think Black will be retained as well. He's cheap and plays guard pretty well.

Halfcan
12-26-2005, 11:37 PM
God I am sick of all the Warfield lovers-WHAT THE F#CK HAS HE DONE???? He is a three time loser, gets burned contantly, and can't tackle worth a shit.

How many drives have been stalled by a Welborne hold this year-I would guess at least 10. Plus we look weak running to the right, not to mention the times he has wiffed trying to cover the blitz. There are better options in the draft.

Junior is a bust-no matter what the cap cost-he sucks. He has shown zero improvement in fundamentals, heart, and discipline.

You must of missed all the passes EK has dropped this year. He is not a #1-but will probably end up as our top reciever since the Chiefs can't seem to bring in any talent at that position.

What your not going to root for Woods too?

Count Zarth
12-26-2005, 11:56 PM
Woods is a piece of shit.

You are completely wrong on the others.

Aside from the Buffalo game, Warfield has played pretty well.

Who are you going to replace him with? McCleon? Sapp? Give me a break.

Welbourn has been great since midseason. He's a beast in the running game and his pass protection is 10x better than last year.

If you actually looked at the stats, you would know we're running to the right with more success than ever since Tait left.

And the fact that you want to dump our best receiver truly shows how much of a moron you really are. :shake:

Rausch
12-27-2005, 12:09 AM
I think Black will be retained as well. He's cheap and plays guard pretty well.


Of course he will.

I haven't wanted a player gone this bad since Bartee or Hicks or McCleon, and.....well.......

Count Zarth
12-27-2005, 12:11 AM
Of course he will.

I haven't wanted a player gone this bad since Bartee or Hicks or McCleon, and.....well.......

Black is not suited for tackle. Remember when he pwned Ray Lewis? He was playing guard.

Rausch
12-27-2005, 12:13 AM
Black is not suited for tackle. Remember when he pwned Ray Lewis?

No.

I remember Watters and TRich...

htismaqe
12-27-2005, 06:23 AM
No.

I remember Watters and TRich...

Black pancaked Ray-Ray twice while playing LG in place of Waters, who got hurt...

milkman
12-27-2005, 06:41 PM
People that should not be here next year, cap or not:

TinkerBell-this guy has been pathetic.
Warfield-sucks now, sucks then, sucks forever.
Bartee-hey lets try him at.... WR next.
Simms-has gotten big fat money, but has not shown his worth.
Barber-has not been a good tackler plus the injury.
Woods-so long crybaby-you used to rock.
Welborne-holding, off sides, roids, see ya.
Black-has never been great.
Kennison-drops way too many passes, maybe could be our number two next year.
Wesley-too inconsistent,used to be a big hitter, but now seems lost half the time back there.
Junior- I think he had a tackle last week, but he might have been just jumping on the pile as usual. Major bust for where he was drafted.

That should trim a lot of fat and fat contracts off the books. I would rather see rookies who will play with heart than these lump of shits.

GoChiefs is right.

You are a freakin' moron.
Have you even seen Bartee at safety?
You can't make a judgement on his performance there based on his play at corner in previous years.

And I don't usually jump on a person's spelling, but damn, do you ever read any other posts.

I swear to God you must have been corrected on the spelling of Sims at least 50 times, yet you still can't spell his name correctly.

The name is Sims with with one M.

beavis
12-27-2005, 07:20 PM
It there any way we can trade Holmes for draft picks (assuming he doesn't retire and we can find somebody to take his fragile ass) without getting put in cap hell over it?
No one in their right mind would give up anything for a 30+ RB that's injury prone.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet money that the day after the season ends, LJ is going to be screaming for a new contract.

Halfcan
12-27-2005, 07:46 PM
Goat Cheese do you start threads just so you will have someone to argue with? Sorry I forgot you are the king of all things Chiefs. You know every stat, and your opinion is so reliable, Peterson himself waits for your post. Keep defending below average, over-paid losers. Maybe we can keep them all, and miss the playoffs again next year. BTW these are the same losers I wanted gone before the season-and as a group have cost the Chiefs, points and games. But you would rather cut PH-who plays with more heart than the bunch of them.

Thanks sidwinder for that update on Simms.

Count Zarth
12-27-2005, 10:17 PM
Goat Cheese do you start threads just so you will have someone to argue with?

What? Go **** yourself, n00b. This is a legit thread based on news.

REST STOP HOOLIGAN
12-27-2005, 10:24 PM
I think there are several teams that would be interested in Holmes. Im not sure what type of cap hit it would give.

Arizona- I know needs an O-line. They could could use the all-around threat, then again Emmit never really panned out for them.

Indianapolis- Edge is FA I believe? He could definitely be a factor there, of course in exchange we want Wayne.

Blatimore- Word is they are looking to revamp their whole offensive scheem(can you really say offense and Baltimore in the same sentence)
Oxymoron!


Green Bay- If Green is not healthy. Is he a FA also?