PDA

View Full Version : Wonder if Denver Will Stand Pat This Off Season?


TEX
02-16-2006, 12:29 PM
I mean they did finish 13-3 in the regular season...

Something tells me that they won't - like maybe common sense - that dictates that when you stand pat, you fall behind, especially when everyone else in the division is making additions.

keg in kc
02-16-2006, 12:32 PM
They pretty much blew their load last year, I think. Unless I'm completely off, they'll have to do a lot of "creative" contract work to find room to do much of anything in '06.

Count Zarth
02-16-2006, 12:33 PM
They pretty much blew their load last year, I think. Unless I'm completely off, they'll have to do a lot of "creative" contract work to find room to do much of anything in '06.

Paging Taco John.....

I wonder what's going to happen to Pryce. At the right price, I think he would be an upgrade over Hicks.

Old Dog
02-16-2006, 12:34 PM
San Diego is the only team in the division that isn't way over the cap right now. Denver and Oakland are in even worse shape than we are.
They are the only ones that would be able to make a huge run at the bigger free agents IMO.

TEX
02-16-2006, 12:35 PM
They pretty much blew their load last year, I think. Unless I'm completely off, they'll have to do a lot of "creative" contract work to find room to do much of anything in '06.

Lose a 3rd round draft choice-creative?

keg in kc
02-16-2006, 12:36 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of restructures and releases, but they've cheated before.

htismaqe
02-16-2006, 12:36 PM
No the Broncos won't stand pat.

But the Chiefs will.

TEX
02-16-2006, 12:36 PM
San Diego is the only team in the division that isn't way over the cap right now. Denver and Oakland are in even worse shape than we are.
They are the only ones that would be able to make a huge run at the bigger free agents IMO.

On the surface that would seem to be the case, but the cap goes up this year, and I bet that Denver will find a way.

tk13
02-16-2006, 12:37 PM
Good grief, that was two years ago. Let's complain about it some more.

TEX
02-16-2006, 12:39 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of restructures and releases, but they've cheated before.

Now keg,
Don't you know they didn't gain any real advantage (TWICE) for violating the salary cap? Any Donx fan will tell you that.

TEX
02-16-2006, 12:40 PM
Good grief, that was two years ago. Let's complain about it some more.

Well that's what I'm doing, especially when it still effects the team today.

htismaqe
02-16-2006, 12:42 PM
On the surface that would seem to be the case, but the cap goes up this year, and I bet that Denver will find a way.

That's because Denver's front office cares about winning.

The Chiefs' front office only cares about going on vacation.

htismaqe
02-16-2006, 12:44 PM
Well that's what I'm doing, especially when it still effects the team today.

So you're not counting UNRESTRICTED free agents as free agent signings if they played for that same team in the previous season?

No wonder you won't produce the list I asked for. You're afraid of embarrassing yourself.

TEX
02-16-2006, 12:57 PM
So you're not counting UNRESTRICTED free agents as free agent signings if they played for that same team in the previous season?

No wonder you won't produce the list I asked for. You're afraid of embarrassing yourself.

I wasn't aware you asked for a list cause I moved on to something else that day and didn't visit the thread again.

To answer your question, no I wasn't counting those players, because I said form the beginning that I was talkling about "adding players." To me, a player is new if he didn't play for the same team the season before. I should have explained my position better.

BTW, I'm not embarrassed by anything on a BB...

And I won't be around to respond to this today cause I'm going on a bike ride (but I'll re-visit it again another day if need be) - It's 78 degrees and sunny here in Houston!

htismaqe
02-16-2006, 01:22 PM
I wasn't aware you asked for a list cause I moved on to something else that day and didn't visit the thread again.

To answer your question, no I wasn't counting those players, because I said form the beginning that I was talkling about "adding players." To me, a player is new if he didn't play for the same team the season before. I should have explained my position better.

BTW, I'm not embarrassed by anything on a BB...

And I won't be around to respond to this today cause I'm going on a bike ride - It's 78 degrees and sunny here in Houston!

Let's see, there's this:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135418

That's where I initially issued the initial challenge and you posted on the thread AFTERWARDS. Yet you never saw it, right?

It was re-issued here:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135711

So by all means, let me issue it a third time.

Produce a list of teams that does more every year in free agency than the Chiefs.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2006, 01:48 PM
I think Denver and KC are in similar cap hell...

Denver will get under the cap and be able to do "some" things. I'm guessing more 'bargain hunting' with the low risk/high reward mentality. I doubt they'll use what little room they do create for 1 player.

Chief Roundup
02-16-2006, 04:17 PM
I believe that Bowlen said it was up to Plummer if they signed T.O. So they are hinting that Plummer would have to rework his contract to free up some money.

HerculesRockefell
02-16-2006, 05:11 PM
Denver's cap situation at this point doesn't tell the whole story since Lepsis' and Warren's deals are scheduled to void, but haven't yet and are currently on their cap. So Denver has two inflated cap numbers that won't be there on March 3. Nalen was a 3rd deal that had been scheduled to void. Denver was never $30M over like people always claimed, it was more like $6M over with 3 starters needing to be re-signed. Not great since they have guys needing new deals, but better than the $30M over that's been thrown around.

htismaqe
02-16-2006, 06:04 PM
Denver's not $30M over and neither is KC.

This whole cap thing is a bunch of bullshit. It's manufactured news.

listopencil
02-16-2006, 09:40 PM
Denver's not $30M over and neither is KC.

This whole cap thing is a bunch of bullshit. It's manufactured news.


Pretty much. I used to get all excited when I would read about the Raiders being over the cap but they always had it under control when the season started. The Broncos have been doing the same thing lately. This stuff always pops up when the off season begins and never amounts to anything.

Rausch
02-16-2006, 09:55 PM
Pretty much. I used to get all excited when I would read about the Raiders being over the cap but they always had it under control when the season started. The Broncos have been doing the same thing lately. This stuff always pops up when the off season begins and never amounts to anything.

And you really want to believe "that team" will fall flat on their face...

Taco John
02-16-2006, 11:16 PM
The behind the scenes accounts that I'm hearing says that Shanahan wants to make a big splash this year... Reportedly, he feels like we're one playmaker on both sides of the ball away from being a championship team. Additionally, with all of the leverage we have with regards to this year's draft, the possibility of trade exists.

Taco John
02-16-2006, 11:18 PM
I'd also like to note that both Shanahan and Sundquist have statements on record with the Denver media to the effect that Denver will be in better shape this year capwise than the team has been in a long time. So for what that's worth...

Logical
02-16-2006, 11:20 PM
Good grief, that was two years ago. Let's complain about it some more.It is every other year, this is the year again to stand pat.

greg63
02-16-2006, 11:38 PM
No the Broncos won't stand pat.

But the Chiefs will.

Personally I can't stand Pat.

ceebz
02-16-2006, 11:40 PM
Does Denver ever stand pat?

Calcountry
02-17-2006, 01:46 AM
Good grief, that was two years ago. Let's complain about it some more.Who's the babe in your avvy?

Calcountry
02-17-2006, 01:48 AM
I believe that Bowlen said it was up to Plummer if they signed T.O. So they are hinting that Plummer would have to rework his contract to free up some money.That is just priceless. Not only will Plumber have to forfeit some green, but he will get bitched at, as a worthless QB, by the dude that is responsible for it.

HerculesRockefell
02-17-2006, 05:40 AM
I believe that Bowlen said it was up to Plummer if they signed T.O. So they are hinting that Plummer would have to rework his contract to free up some money.

Bowlen said it was Shanahan's call

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2006, 08:33 AM
San Diego is the only team in the division that isn't way over the cap right now. Denver and Oakland are in even worse shape than we are.
They are the only ones that would be able to make a huge run at the bigger free agents IMO.

We'll be a player in FA...maybe not as big as last year...but we'll get some guys.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2006, 08:34 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of restructures and releases, but they've cheated before.

We've never cheated

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2006, 08:34 AM
Denver's not $30M over and neither is KC.

This whole cap thing is a bunch of bullshit. It's manufactured news.

Exactly.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2006, 08:37 AM
And all the people making the Jake jokes...you're about to find out what kind of QB he's become.

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 08:39 AM
It is every other year, this is the year again to stand pat.

Just like every other team in the league save Washington, Dallas, and a handful of others.

I have no problem with people not wanting to stand pat, because it's an absolute fact that the Chiefs have an "every other year" policy -- it came straight from Carl Peterson's mouth.

What I have a problem with is this attitude that the "every other year" policy belongs to the Chiefs and the Chiefs alone. That's absolutely false.

Brock
02-17-2006, 08:41 AM
And all the people making the Jake jokes...you're about to find out what kind of QB he's become.

One that throws interceptions in big games? I already knew that.

ceebz
02-17-2006, 09:21 AM
And all the people making the Jake jokes...you're about to find out what kind of QB he's become.


http://justinmg.home.comcast.net/forums/gsvery-happy.gif I just choked on my jell-o.

TEX
02-17-2006, 02:24 PM
We've never cheated


Nope - you guys just gave up two 3rd round draft picks because you felt like it.

And I'm not cointing the Maurice Clarett pick there...

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 02:26 PM
Nope - you guys just gave up two 3rd round draft picks because you felt like it.

And I'm not cointing the Maurice Clarett pick there...

Just wait, he's gonna tell you about how Tags issued a statement that what they did didn't circumvent the cap, even though they lost draft picks for it.

They'll also tell you that the jersey incident never happened.

TEX
02-17-2006, 02:27 PM
Just like every other team in the league save Washington, Dallas, and a handful of others.

I have no problem with people not wanting to stand pat, because it's an absolute fact that the Chiefs have an "every other year" policy -- it came straight from Carl Peterson's mouth.

What I have a problem with is this attitude that the "every other year" policy belongs to the Chiefs and the Chiefs alone. That's absolutely false.

Denver being in the "handful of others?"

Now you're confusing me. When I say that the Chiefs didn't sign any free agents - you say that they re-signed their own, so they did - now you call it "standing pat" as well.... :hmmm:

TEX
02-17-2006, 02:37 PM
Just wait, he's gonna tell you about how Tags issued a statement that what they did didn't circumvent the cap, even though they lost draft picks for it.

They'll also tell you that the jersey incident never happened.

HA! Yep. I just like listening to it. Taco proceeded to write me a novel once on the subject of how it was just for "cash flow" puposes and that no "real advantage" was gained. Course he sighted Tags, just like you mentioned.

But my question has always been why was there any loss of draft picks if the rules were not broken? I mean Bowlen is in bed with Tags to begin with so "somethng" had to happen (TWICE!) to warrent losing the picks. Al Davis was correct, and I find that pretty amusing. It's not often that he's so right.

It's simply unbelievable that the 2nd time it happened,within a 5 year span, that the fine was the same as the first time. I honestly belive that Denver weighed the consequences and deemed them acceptable. IMO, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool (or a Bronco fan)

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 02:41 PM
Denver being in the "handful of others?"

Now you're confusing me. When I say that the Chiefs didn't sign any free agents - you say that they re-signed their own, so they did - now you call it "standing pat" as well.... :hmmm:

Denver is no more active every year than we are. Last year they signed several free agents, but about half of them were guys already playing for them.

The year prior they didn't sign anybody, except for trading Portis for Bailey.

They follow the "every other year" plan just like everybody else in the league, except for the ones I mentioned.

And no, I don't believe the Chiefs stood pat. I'm just saying that accusing them of doing so doesn't bother me. I could see why someone could form that opinion, particularly of the 2004 offseason.

TEX
02-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Let's see, there's this:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135418

That's where I initially issued the initial challenge and you posted on the thread AFTERWARDS. Yet you never saw it, right?

It was re-issued here:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135711

So by all means, let me issue it a third time.

Produce a list of teams that does more every year in free agency than the Chiefs.


You could have been on my "ignore list" or something...:)
Anyway, I saw it now and you'll get the list (just give me some time). You do understand that my position has always been that I'm talking about bringing in free agents who were not on the roster the year before.

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 02:49 PM
You could have been on my "ignore list" or something...:)
Anyway, I saw it now and you'll get the list (just give me some time). You do understand that my position has always been that I'm talking about bringing in free agents who were not on the roster the year before.

I imagine I'm on alot of ignore lists. I'm an asshole.

I absolutely understand what your position is.

I issued the challenge because I know the answer - you're going to find in producing that list that the Chiefs are nowhere near the bottom of the league and they're far from unique.