PDA

View Full Version : I am disappointed the Cap $ figure was raised.


Logical
03-08-2006, 08:07 PM
Though I am happy the CBA was negotiated.

I had hoped to see the Chiefs forced to make some additional cuts and start the rebuilding process in earnest. Once I heard the following from Herm:

Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer.

The play action pass may be used more.

I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense. We will be mediocre next seasons and probably at least one more since this is the year we cannot spend cash (nothing to do with salary cap, we won't spend our cap limit this year, just like in 2004).

So I wanted the rebuilding to start in earnest, get Shields to retire, let Hicks, Wesley, and Woods go.

So how about you are you going to be disappointed when we don't use that extra cap room the other clubs like Denver and the Raiders will take advantage of, and how about the return to Martyball, how does that sit with you?

tommykat
03-08-2006, 08:11 PM
And how should TK answer this? Not a Faulking clue.....ROFL

Logical
03-08-2006, 08:13 PM
And how should TK answer this? Not a Faulking clue.....ROFLI would have expected nothing more.nlm

brent102fire
03-08-2006, 08:35 PM
CP and Lamar stated they would not be very active in FA this year. Sounds to me like they are content with being a disappointing, mediocre team again... :banghead: :cuss: :mad: :shake:

Ultra Peanut
03-08-2006, 08:35 PM
LJ changes the "Martyball" concept considerably.

Miles
03-08-2006, 08:41 PM
Yeah I was kind of thinking that as well. If we are not going to use the extra cap space to improve we might as well be forced to change things up. It didn't sound like we were going to lose anyone critical to make it under.

Unfortunatly I agree that both Oakland and Denver will make much more aggressive use of the extra space that we will. The lower cap was kind of an equalizer for that.

Though for the outlook on the league itself I defintily think its a good thing.

Valiant
03-08-2006, 08:45 PM
I expected that we would not splurge much in the FA.. My only hope is dungver and Oakland improve enough to force the Chiefs to get someone new in...

Valiant
03-08-2006, 08:45 PM
I expected that we would not splurge much in the FA.. My only hope is dungver and Oakland improve enough to force the Chiefs to get someone new in...

Valiant
03-08-2006, 08:48 PM
damn you chiefsplanet...

CHENZ A!
03-08-2006, 08:53 PM
I am not dissapointed in the return to "Martyball", since I grew up watching it, and would much rather have a dominating D than O any day. As for not spending any money this yr, I doubt that will be entirely accurate, I think we will add a few people via fre agency(I'll be real pissed if we don't, because to me if you don't spend the money, then you're just not trying).

MVChiefFan
03-08-2006, 08:53 PM
I think we all know that Carl postures a lot. I think we will add a couple of good players, which is fine with me. I like MOST of the guys we've got. I would love to add a top notch receiver but if we don't I don't think it will kill us. We need a CB to replace Warfield and somebody on the d-line (if not a couple of guys). If we do this then I will be happy.

stevieray
03-08-2006, 08:54 PM
LJ changes the "Martyball" concept considerably.

Exactly. And let's not rule Priest out either. That still has the capability to be a great one two punch.

morphius
03-08-2006, 08:56 PM
There are very few teams that really go through a true rebuilding process. The only reason that Woods is still on the team is that he would cost money to cut, so having a higher CBA should allow for that cut after June 1st. Also, I seem to remember Edwards talking about how important a pass rushing DE is, so Hicks should be as a good as a backup. Shields retiring doesn't buy your rebuilding effort much either, I think we have a lot of talent at guard, tackle is the issue on this offense.

I will have to see the offense before I make any judgement on if it is Marty ball or not. The number 10 seems a bit extreme as much as we ran the ball late. I think he just picked the number as a way of saying we may run more early in games, because 10 more rushes a game puts at 680 rushes, with the closest to that over the last 5 years was the Steelers with 618 (everyone else in that period is below 580). I'm not going to worry too much, as it isn't really Martyball if you actually try on 3rd down and long, don't sit on a FG lead in the first quarter, and we actually have talent at the RB position.

This is not to say I don't worry about the direction of the team, just I'm not going to panic even before FA and the draft start.

Logical
03-08-2006, 08:57 PM
LJ changes the "Martyball" concept considerably.I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.

Miles
03-08-2006, 08:58 PM
Exactly. And let's not rule Priest out either. That still has the capability to be a great one two punch.

Good point. Im really liking the idea of Preist off the bench. It would be really nice if it allows us to better use his recieving skills.

Ultra Peanut
03-08-2006, 09:01 PM
Exactly. And let's not rule Priest out either. That still has the capability to be a great one two punch.A healthy Priest would be an insanely great backup, especially since he wouldn't have to endure the wear and tear that's beaten him down over the past few seasons.

Miles
03-08-2006, 09:01 PM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.

I really don't think it will come to it if our line is still good but Mcgahee is a very similar back that was contained fairly often last year. Green, Gonzo and Kennison should at least be plenty to keep that from happening.

Valiant
03-08-2006, 09:03 PM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.


Good point, I do not know why they are thinking to tame this offense.. The reason for the faltering last year, was going away from what was working at the time...

morphius
03-08-2006, 09:04 PM
I really don't think it will come to it if our line is still good but Mcgahee is a very similar back that was contained fairly often last year. Green, Gonzo and Kennison should at least be plenty to keep that from happening.
If Parker starts off where he ended the year he could be a decent threat as well.

Miles
03-08-2006, 09:08 PM
If Parker starts off where he ended the year he could be a decent threat as well.

Im not huge on Parker but did like what I was seeing later in the season. Hopefully the third year WR thing will hit him. As long as the line is solid I dont think the offese will drop much.

morphius
03-08-2006, 09:10 PM
Im not huge on Parker but did like what I was seeing later in the season. Hopefully the third year WR thing will hit him. As long as the line is solid I dont think the offese will drop much.
It is hard to be high on the guy when he didn't play much the first year, and then had the dropsies last seasaon, then got injured for a chunk of the season. I think with the play action pass, and the fact that he is super fast, we may be able to hit him on some deep routes for easy scores this year.

Morphius
has a small bit of hope.

Coach
03-08-2006, 09:11 PM
Though I am happy the CBA was negotiated.

I had hoped to see the Chiefs forced to make some additional cuts and start the rebuilding process in earnest. Once I heard the following from Herm:

I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense. We will be mediocre next seasons and probably at least one more since this is the year we cannot spend cash (nothing to do with salary cap, we won't spend our cap limit this year, just like in 2004).

So I wanted the rebuilding to start in earnest, get Shields to retire, let Hicks, Wesley, and Woods go.

So how about you are you going to be disappointed when we don't use that extra cap room the other clubs like Denver and the Raiders will take advantage of, and how about the return to Martyball, how does that sit with you?

I can understand your reasoning for the Chiefs to make some additional cuts, and I can name a few players that should get the ax, particitulary some players on defense. However, most reports had the Chiefs potentionally releasing Shields, Welbourne, and Bober. In my opinion, cutting 2 or 3 O-linemen is suicide.

More than likely Welbourne would have filled in Shields spot whenever Shields were to retire. And while reports are saying that Shields will be playing for the 2006 season, which I don't have a problem, I just hope he performs better than 2005. But if Shields somehow gets injured, then Welbourne filling in helps. Then again, anybody that isn't Jordan Black is an improvement anyways.

And as for Bober, well, at least he's some back-up body that the Chiefs need, along with their young unproven O-linemen, who I hope at least 2 will step up and challenge some playing time.

As for the veterans, the Chiefs offense was 1st in the NFL in 2005 on offense yards. I don't think that we'll be seeing that much change. The Jets offense was terrible, and having a QB of Pennington/Bollinger/Testaverde didn't help. Neither of those guys could throw the ball worth a damn, at least in my opinion.

And FYI, the Chiefs ran the ball for 2382 yards last year, which was 4th in the NFL last year. Most of the yardage is credited to Larry Johnson, and having a solid O-line to pave the way. If it means a little bit more Martyball style, then that's fine with me. That's more of like playing to LJ's strengths.

Also, I might want to add that you couldn't really compare Martball style from Marty's years to right now, becuase of several reasons.

1. Nobody during Marty's tenture, had a solid RB in LJ. This is obvious, since Marty was more of committed to the RBBC. While there was Barry Word and Christian Okoye, I'm more of focusing on the 1993-1998 years.

2. Do we really know that Herm is going to revert back to Marty ball style? I mean, our OC isn't either Hackett or Raye (Thank God) but Mike Solari. Too early to tell right now if Herm is going to actually revert to Marty-ball style.

I think, on here out, it's up to Carl. Will he still submit the restructured contracts, which would help the Chiefs out. Who knows? One thing for sure, it will be one interesting off-season. One thing I think that the Chiefs need to do is to get players that can contribute, not necessarly a big name player, but at least somebody that can come in and contribute in some ways. More of the D-line and the S position.

But I agree that Hicks and Woods need to be shown to the door.

Coach
03-08-2006, 09:12 PM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.

And that's fine. That means at least some one-on-one match-up oppiturnites for Tony, Eddie, and Samie. Plus, our QB is not Elvis Grbac/Steve Bono. Thank god for that.

Halfcan
03-08-2006, 09:14 PM
CP and Lamar stated they would not be very active in FA this year. Sounds to me like they are content with being a disappointing, mediocre team again... :banghead: :cuss: :mad: :shake:


That is all we have ever been-except the years we really sucked.

Mecca
03-08-2006, 09:14 PM
Hicks, Woods, Wesley, Browning........I don't think any of them should be on this team anymore.

Miles
03-08-2006, 09:17 PM
Hicks, Woods, Wesley, Browning........I don't think any of them should be on this team anymore.

They are the holdovers I am really hoping the change in coaching staff will cause to be dumped. Guys like Browning are not terrible for depth but when they are making over a million base they should be gone.

el borracho
03-08-2006, 09:41 PM
Ok, I agree that Hicks is a terrible starter and I can at least see the argument against Wesley (I don't entirely agree) but why would you want Shields to retire and who cares that much about the backup safety? The Chiefs main weaknesses are the Dline, WR and CB. If you are convinced that we will not be active in free agency then it does no good to cut guys. You have to cut and replace them with somebody better.

Mr. Laz
03-08-2006, 10:03 PM
i disappointed that the owners seemed to have given in to the players union as much as they have.


not good for the fans or the sport

Miles
03-08-2006, 10:06 PM
i disappointed that the owners seemed to have given in to the players union as much as they have.


not good for the fans or the sport

I havent seen it yet, do you know what was the final revenue percentage to the players was?

Stinger
03-08-2006, 10:10 PM
The reason for the faltering last year, was going away from what was working at the time...

Yep that and throwing that darn WR/TE screen 10 times a game :banghead:

Coach
03-08-2006, 10:48 PM
They are the holdovers I am really hoping the change in coaching staff will cause to be dumped. Guys like Browning are not terrible for depth but when they are making over a million base they should be gone.

I'd say that Hicks is making more than he should be, at least my opinion. Here's his base salary.


2004 535000.00
2005 1000000.00
2006 2100000.00
2007 2900000.00
2008 2500000.00
2009 2500000.00


Quite a big jump from 2005 to 2006, and to 2007.

huskerdooz
03-08-2006, 11:47 PM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.

Can you say "play action pass". I believe that Herm also indicated we would be doing a little more of that as well.

Mecca
03-08-2006, 11:55 PM
i disappointed that the owners seemed to have given in to the players union as much as they have.


not good for the fans or the sport

Um, do you not realize that with this new deal the Chiefs are not having to pitch into the money pool? That the revenue will be more evened out creating less disparity between the high and low revenue teams?

I don't see how 59.5 is that horrible........it's 1000 times better than what would have happened if they had not agreed to it.

Rausch
03-08-2006, 11:57 PM
Once I heard the following from Herm:



I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense.


Just a ****ing clue for those not paying attention:

1)Marty is a $#itty playoff coach.

2) A run oriented offense and strong defense does NOT equal Martyball.


If it did, 4 of the Steelers' super bowls were won by Martyball, plus the Jets win, plus the Bears and Ravens, as well as the 90's Cowboys and Lombardi's Packers.

Saying Smashmouth football is the same as Martyball is like saying that Bush Jr. invented the republican party.

In short, there is no lower form of NFL ignorance and stupidity...

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 12:15 AM
Good ol' Jimbo, always sees the glass half full of sunshine juice.

Rausch
03-09-2006, 02:48 AM
Good ol' Jimbo, always sees the glass half full of sunshine juice.

I wonder if he'd be willing to make a bet on the Chiefs winning a playoff game this year...

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 03:02 AM
I wonder if he'd be willing to make a bet on the Chiefs winning a playoff game this year...I sure as hell wouldn't.

Short Leash Hootie
03-09-2006, 03:26 AM
I sure as hell wouldn't.
I hate the negativity most Chiefs fans have.

Dunit35
03-09-2006, 03:54 AM
I hate the negativity most Chiefs fans have.


Not winning a playoff game since 1993 will do that to people.

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 03:59 AM
I hate the negativity most Chiefs fans have.Whatever floats your boat.

DaWolf
03-09-2006, 04:47 AM
Wait a minute, I thought what we did best was run the ball. Now we're disappointed that we're going to be trying to do a bit more of what we do best?

We're also maybe missing the point a bit about what Herm was trying to say with that comment. He's always maintained that he'd love to get a lead on a team and then run it down the stretch to win the ballgame and keep the D fresh. Now I can remember a few games here, including last year, where we had nice leads in the 2nd half and continued to try and throw the ball which led to some 3 and outs or 4 and outs and brought the D back on the field, or led to things like, for example, the Philly game changing INT with the empty backfield pass we had done earlier in the game. Instead of that, how bout establishing the run a bit more and trying to keep our D fresh? You go back to the Buffalo game, wouldn't you have rathered we stuck to the run more in that game than we did?

Frankly if we're running the ball 10 more times a game, that means we're probably winning in the game. And that's all I'm interested in. But our passing potential is not going anywhere, and if teams want to put 8 in the box against us, bring it on...

HMc
03-09-2006, 04:55 AM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.

I agree. You see it all the time in team sports. Guy comes in, has massive year, everyone predicts he's the next so and so etc. Then the following season defenders know to look out for him, double up on him etc. The trick is having the weapons to exploit the weaknesses elsewhere in the defence that such practices create.

Dunit35
03-09-2006, 05:00 AM
I agree. You see it all the time in team sports. Guy comes in, has massive year, everyone predicts he's the next so and so etc. Then the following season defenders know to look out for him, double up on him etc. The trick is having the weapons to exploit the weaknesses elsewhere in the defense that such practices create.


He did damn good in the last month or so of 2004 as well. It just wasn't him doing good last season.

StcChief
03-09-2006, 05:07 AM
Ralph Wilson of Bills, Brown of Bungels....

After being overwhelmed by hearing endless percentages and terminology spewed at a fast pace, Wilson sided with Mike Brown of the Bengals and voted no on the NFL Players Association's proposal to extend the collective bargaining agreement.

"It's a very complex proposal and I really didn't understand it," Wilson said. "I didn't think I was a dropout but maybe I am. I didn't understand it."



If you don't understand it, don't have a numbers guy with you to explain it. Get the F out of the position of running the team.

HMc
03-09-2006, 05:16 AM
He did damn good in the last month or so of 2004 as well. It just wasn't him doing good last season.

Good point.

But i think my point is still valid, it takes time for others to grasp what to do with a guy but more often than not (generally in sports, im speaking. my NFL history isn't enough to make specific claims) they bring him back to earth.

Dunit35
03-09-2006, 05:27 AM
Good point.

But i think my point is still valid, it takes time for others to grasp what to do with a guy but more often than not (generally in sports, im speaking. my NFL history isn't enough to make specific claims) they bring him back to earth.


You do have a point. That does happen a lot. But there is always that special player who is meant to dominate and hopefully LJ is that guy. All the signs point to yes right now.

tiptap
03-09-2006, 05:29 AM
Wait a minute, I thought what we did best was run the ball. Now we're disappointed that we're going to be trying to do a bit more of what we do best?

We're also maybe missing the point a bit about what Herm was trying to say with that comment. He's always maintained that he'd love to get a lead on a team and then run it down the stretch to win the ballgame and keep the D fresh. Now I can remember a few games here, including last year, where we had nice leads in the 2nd half and continued to try and throw the ball which led to some 3 and outs or 4 and outs and brought the D back on the field, or led to things like, for example, the Philly game changing INT with the empty backfield pass we had done earlier in the game. Instead of that, how bout establishing the run a bit more and trying to keep our D fresh? You go back to the Buffalo game, wouldn't you have rathered we stuck to the run more in that game than we did?

Frankly if we're running the ball 10 more times a game, that means we're probably winning in the game. And that's all I'm interested in. But our passing potential is not going anywhere, and if teams want to put 8 in the box against us, bring it on...


The success of the KC team will depend again on how VERSITILE an offensive line we have. The 2003 Chief's line ran successfully in ALL directions. But since then the Chief's have depended upon the left side of the offense to do the heavy lifting in the running game. THAT makes the running game predictable for defenses. What we got last year was a CHANGE of pace from the running back position with LJ taking over the job. That meant a CHANGE in how the offensive operated the running game. That change will be accounted for in defensive schemes against the Chiefs this year.

So again the success in win/loss and not just run production (we should be ok there no matter what), will depend upon having a RT that can perform as well as Tait did in 2003 and either Shields or Welbourne being able to pull to the right for stretch plays to that side of the field. If we don't have this range in the running game we will find times when good defenses JUMP our strong tendencies and we fail to sustain drives. In addition it will put extra stress physically on Roaf and Waters (though Waters is young enough to be ok) and potential strain on Weigman against big NT.

Wile_E_Coyote
03-09-2006, 05:52 AM
when your starting QB has missed 27 out of the last 64 starts & no one has stepped up to replace him. Handing the ball off to Curtis Martin may be a good choice. But this just brings up a whole new set of questions...

chiefs john
03-09-2006, 05:56 AM
Why do we need to scrap the entire team and rebuild? The team won 10 games last year. Seems when you win 10 games usually you try to put the last pieces in place and not rebuild from the ground up.

Hog Farmer
03-09-2006, 06:13 AM
Why do we need to scrap the entire team and rebuild? The team won 10 games last year. Seems when you win 10 games usually you try to put the last pieces in place and not rebuild from the ground up.

That's right, I'm guessing we will go 11-5 this year because our O will be better and our D will be much better. You have to take what Vlad says with a grain of salt because he isn't very intelligent. Herm just made a general statement about running the ball 10 more times per game. It doesn't mean that will actually happen. The game will dictate what happens. But let there be no doubt that our strengths are running tha ball and stopping the run.

Bob Dole
03-09-2006, 06:30 AM
That change will be accounted for in defensive schemes against the Chiefs this year.

That's easy to answer, assuming both Holmes and Johnson are healthy: a 2-back set.

Go ahead and defend the pitch to Holmes left and LJ will be in your secondary running over your DBs before you know what hit you. Go ahead and stack the middle and Holmes is going to eat you up wide.

(It's the offseason. A guy is allowed to dream a little.)

Mr. Kotter
03-09-2006, 06:34 AM
I'm convinced we will pick up one, or even two, defenders; and maybe even a WR. I think we got a shot next year, to make the playoffs and, once there, who knows. The extra money will convince them to do what they need to, what they can, to try to salvage something from this offense that has been remarkable, but aged before our eyes.

After next season, I think it will be time to begin the rebuilding process. We still have too much talent to let it stagnate at 8-8, or 9-7, for a final season. Either give them the horses they need now, or cut loose the big money (which they aren't doing.)

Douche Baggins
03-09-2006, 06:36 AM
It is hard to be high on the guy when he didn't play much the first year, and then had the dropsies last seasaon, then got injured for a chunk of the season. I think with the play action pass, and the fact that he is super fast, we may be able to hit him on some deep routes for easy scores this year.

Morphius
has a small bit of hope.

Parker is going to blossom next year. I've already predicted 1,000 yards.

Douche Baggins
03-09-2006, 06:37 AM
Hicks, Woods, Wesley, Browning........I don't think any of them should be on this team anymore.

That's too bad, because they are all Gunther guys and they will ALL be here.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 06:43 AM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.Give me a break. Teams have been trying to stop the Chiefs running game for 4 years now, and have failed miserably. We've faced 8 in the box and ran it down their throat. we've faced #1 run defenses and stuffed it down their throat.

If teams concentrate on LJ, we'll still be able to run. And if we can't, we have a veteran QB that will shred defenses through the air.

Will LJ be held under 100? Sure he will. No player in NFL history reached 100 per game for an entire season. But we've been running against teams that knew we'd run for years, and I don't expect that to suddenly stop just because of a comment made by Herm Edwards in March.

Dartgod
03-09-2006, 06:46 AM
...I'm not going to panic even before FA and the draft start.
Are you new here?

KCTitus
03-09-2006, 07:21 AM
Heh. Vlad...disappointed...in the team...there's something new.

Saulbadguy
03-09-2006, 07:22 AM
Just wondering: Would you bitch about the material the rope is made out of that you hang yourself with?

morphius
03-09-2006, 07:26 AM
Are you new here?
LOL! Maybe I have been here too long!

mcan
03-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Though I am happy the CBA was negotiated.

I had hoped to see the Chiefs forced to make some additional cuts and start the rebuilding process in earnest. Once I heard the following from Herm:



I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense. We will be mediocre next seasons and probably at least one more since this is the year we cannot spend cash (nothing to do with salary cap, we won't spend our cap limit this year, just like in 2004).

So I wanted the rebuilding to start in earnest, get Shields to retire, let Hicks, Wesley, and Woods go.

So how about you are you going to be disappointed when we don't use that extra cap room the other clubs like Denver and the Raiders will take advantage of, and how about the return to Martyball, how does that sit with you?


I got a better idea... How about we utilize the talent that we have while we have it. We have a Pro Bowl quarterback, a Hall of Fame offensive line, a young running back with the possibility of being one of the best in the league, a ProBowler backing him up. The best TE in the league, a reciever who consistently puts up around 1000 yards and still has great speed, a dangerous and shifty kick returner, a young kicker with a powerful leg who is getting better each year, a ProBowl corner, and a defense that is improving each year, and will almost assuredly be better with a couple replacements for the guys we just cut...

Not to mention the fact that by the end of the year the best two teams in the AFC were the Chiefs and Chargers, and neither of them made the playoffs because of how they played earlier in the year. We have every reason to believe that we are a playoff calibre team and that we CAN win a championship... I mean, I believe that last year's team would probably have beaten the Steelers on a neutral field.

ct
03-09-2006, 10:24 AM
Why be dissappointed with a return to solid defense and ball-control offense? The last 6 SB winners had exactly this philosophy! The Pats are a bit different in their ball control is more efficient passing attack than a ground game, but the concept is the same.

This is a good thing!

RedThat
03-09-2006, 10:24 AM
I got a better idea... How about we utilize the talent that we have while we have it. We have a Pro Bowl quarterback, a Hall of Fame offensive line, a young running back with the possibility of being one of the best in the league, a ProBowler backing him up. The best TE in the league, a reciever who consistently puts up around 1000 yards and still has great speed, a dangerous and shifty kick returner, a young kicker with a powerful leg who is getting better each year, a ProBowl corner, and a defense that is improving each year, and will almost assuredly be better with a couple replacements for the guys we just cut...

Not to mention the fact that by the end of the year the best two teams in the AFC were the Chiefs and Chargers, and neither of them made the playoffs because of how they played earlier in the year. We have every reason to believe that we are a playoff calibre team and that we CAN win a championship... I mean, I believe that last year's team would probably have beaten the Steelers on a neutral field.

I think we can make the playoffs with this team. But if you're talking about a possible championship, we still have a ways to go. Especially on defense.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 10:30 AM
Why be dissappointed with a return to solid defense and ball-control offense? The last 6 SB winners had exactly this philosophy! The Pats are a bit different in their ball control is more efficient passing attack than a ground game, but the concept is the same.

This is a good thing!Why would we want to be like the Steelers or Pats when we can be like the Colts?

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 10:32 AM
Um, do you not realize that with this new deal the Chiefs are not having to pitch into the money pool? That the revenue will be more evened out creating less disparity between the high and low revenue teams?

I don't see how 59.5 is that horrible........it's 1000 times better than what would have happened if they had not agreed to it.
you need to make up your mind...

a few days ago you Gleefully declared that the owners sucked because the the profit sharing was separate from the players. That the owners were the ones that were holding up the CBA.

and now your including the expanding profit sharing into it.


am i glad that the owners agreed to expand the revenue sharing between the teams?

yes

am i glad the the players union squeezed a bigger portion of the bigger money pie?

nope


the more powerful the players union ... the closer to Baseball we get.



so many people keep screaming for full time referees too..... :shake: that will be another step towards baseball. Because the refs will start trying to throw their collective weight around as well.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 10:35 AM
I havent seen it yet, do you know what was the final revenue percentage to the players was?

the last number i saw was 59.5


basically the owners got .5 off of the declared 60% that the players union said was mandatory.

i can't imagine the .5% was anything more than the owners saving face.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 10:39 AM
the last number i saw was 59.5


basically the owners got .5 off of the declared 60% that the players union said was mandatory.

i can't imagine the .5% was anything more than the owners saving face.The worst part is this sets a precedent for future labor talks. 6 years from now, the union is going to expect to get a similar type of increase, and will see anything less as failure.

In the long run, this is all bad for the fans. It's not about money coming out of owners pockets. Owners are going to keep their margins by passing the cost on to the consumer.

When tickets cost $150 per game, and all the games are pay per view, I hope all you people saying "the players deserve a raise" understand what it has brought about.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 10:41 AM
The worst part is this sets a precedent for future labor talks. 6 years from now, the union is going to expect to get a similar type of increase, and will see anything less as failure.

In the long run, this is all bad for the fans. It's not about money coming out of owners pockets. Owners are going to keep their margins by passing the cost on to the consumer.

When tickets cost $150 per game, and all the games are pay per view, I hope all you people saying "the players deserve a raise" understand what it has brought about.

nice post


rep

RedThat
03-09-2006, 10:46 AM
Though I am happy the CBA was negotiated.

I had hoped to see the Chiefs forced to make some additional cuts and start the rebuilding process in earnest. Once I heard the following from Herm:



I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense. We will be mediocre next seasons and probably at least one more since this is the year we cannot spend cash (nothing to do with salary cap, we won't spend our cap limit this year, just like in 2004).

So I wanted the rebuilding to start in earnest, get Shields to retire, let Hicks, Wesley, and Woods go.

So how about you are you going to be disappointed when we don't use that extra cap room the other clubs like Denver and the Raiders will take advantage of, and how about the return to Martyball, how does that sit with you?

Well...it doesnt sit well with me knowing that Peterson publicly stated that the team will NOT be active in FA this year. It disappoints me because I see with the extension of the CBA, and the salary cap figure rising an additional 7.5 million, this team will elect to sit back, relax, and in the meantime, allow players to slip away through their hands. And as a fan that upsets you because you know this team is a GOOD team, and they're not as far in making the playoffs and possibly contending. What are we? What, 2 or 3 players away from possibly making this team a REAL strong one. We can do that! We can make this team REAL strong, but, we elect not to spend money.

Sometimes you gotta do what it takes to make your team a winner. The aggressive approach isn't the best way to go, but sometimes you have to go that route. In the Chiefs case, they're not aggressive, never really we're. Im convinced it is not the cap, it is strictly bonuses when it comes to signing players. I think Lamar doesn't want to dish out any cash this year.

*I'm ok with this team running the ball 30, 40 times a game. I think running the ball is the strength of this team. If running the ball 30, 40 times a game means we utilize the strength of this team a lot more, then I'm all for it. I like that. Martball? LOL....Im fine with it. At least we have LJ. And not Kimble Anders, Donell Bennett, and Greg Hill. Oh and that play action pass will work well with #88 doning the middle of the field.

MOhillbilly
03-09-2006, 10:58 AM
with the core of young & very talented LB already in place, Surtain,knight,sims & the wildman from the hills coming back alittle help in FA and a bona-fide starter from the draft this D could be very good next year.

As far as the O i think like many other that a starting X reciever whos the real deal will make a big diffrence in the pass and run game regardles if shield comes back. Couple that w/ PH & LJ in the back field i dont believe for a second that production will slack off w/ the amount of talent already in place.


we will probably bitch and moan and pitch a fit about something diffrent,but as a rule mans a fool.
Weve been spoiled w/ this offense,things are gonna change.our draft and FA will either make us or break us as contenders.

ct
03-09-2006, 11:09 AM
the last number i saw was 59.5


basically the owners got .5 off of the declared 60% that the players union said was mandatory.

i can't imagine the .5% was anything more than the owners saving face.

Totally agree with ya there!! The Union won, hands down!

I personally don't care which side won, just glad that a deal was reached. All parties will continue to make huge $, and the real winner is the game itself, and all the fans.

ct
03-09-2006, 11:10 AM
The worst part is this sets a precedent for future labor talks. 6 years from now, the union is going to expect to get a similar type of increase, and will see anything less as failure.

In the long run, this is all bad for the fans. It's not about money coming out of owners pockets. Owners are going to keep their margins by passing the cost on to the consumer.

When tickets cost $150 per game, and all the games are pay per view, I hope all you people saying "the players deserve a raise" understand what it has brought about.

:BS:

BTW, the sky is falling.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:16 AM
:BS:

BTW, the sky is falling.Whatever. Excuse me for not liking it when greedy players drive up the cost of one of my favorite past times.

Is the sky falling? No. Is the cost of being an NFL fan going up every year? Hell yes it is. And it's going to go up even more if the players keep demanding more money.

I know enough about unions to know that what transpired this year will be a benchmark for the next labor talks. They are going to expect to gain more ground next time around.

Every time the players get another percentage point of the total revenues, the owners are going to increase revenues to keep their bottom line. They do that by passing the cost on to the consumer. It's what all businesses do.

go bowe
03-09-2006, 11:19 AM
Though I am happy the CBA was negotiated.

I had hoped to see the Chiefs forced to make some additional cuts and start the rebuilding process in earnest. Once I heard the following from Herm:



I knew for sure we were returning to Martyball and keeping some of our veterans no longer made sense. We will be mediocre next seasons and probably at least one more since this is the year we cannot spend cash (nothing to do with salary cap, we won't spend our cap limit this year, just like in 2004).

So I wanted the rebuilding to start in earnest, get Shields to retire, let Hicks, Wesley, and Woods go.

So how about you are you going to be disappointed when we don't use that extra cap room the other clubs like Denver and the Raiders will take advantage of, and how about the return to Martyball, how does that sit with you?if marty had had our o line and lj for a rb, martyball might have been damned effective and even fun to watch...

greg63
03-09-2006, 11:24 AM
Whatever. Excuse me for not liking it when greedy players drive up the cost of one of my favorite past times.

Is the sky falling? No. Is the cost of being an NFL fan going up every year? Hell yes it is. And it's going to go up even more if the players keep demanding more money.

I know enough about unions to know that what transpired this year will be a benchmark for the next labor talks. They are going to expect to gain more ground next time around.

Every time the players get another percentage point of the total revenues, the owners are going to increase revenues to keep their bottom line. They do that by passing the cost on to the consumer. It's what all businesses do.

This is true; the owners are not going to take the hit on this, and it will be the so-called "smaller markets" that will be affected the most.

go bowe
03-09-2006, 11:25 AM
I really don't think it will change it as much as some believe. We will see much more 8 men in the box and defenses predicated on stopping LJ. I won't be suprised if he is held under 100 quite a few times with the new offense.you could be right, but one would hope that trent doesn't suddenly forget how to throw the ball and could take advantage of that, opening up the game for lj...

some teams pass to set up the run, some run to set up the pass, and with lj, we can do it either way, or both at the same time... :p :p :p

ct
03-09-2006, 11:27 AM
Whatever. Excuse me for not liking it when greedy players drive up the cost of one of my favorite past times.

Is the sky falling? No. Is the cost of being an NFL fan going up every year? Hell yes it is. And it's going to go up even more if the players keep demanding more money.

I know enough about unions to know that what transpired this year will be a benchmark for the next labor talks. They are going to expect to gain more ground next time around.

Every time the players get another percentage point of the total revenues, the owners are going to increase revenues to keep their bottom line. They do that by passing the cost on to the consumer. It's what all businesses do.

I was under the impression that % wise, the players get less than the previous CBA. What they have done is include more revenue streams into the equation. So now they get more of the revenue than they did from the prior 6-year(or whatever length it was) CBA, as many large market owners have opened new revenue streams.

The Union and players are greedy. The owners are greedy. The fans will pay more and more every year. This surprises you how?

Kclee
03-09-2006, 11:31 AM
The worst part is this sets a precedent for future labor talks. 6 years from now, the union is going to expect to get a similar type of increase, and will see anything less as failure.

In the long run, this is all bad for the fans. It's not about money coming out of owners pockets. Owners are going to keep their margins by passing the cost on to the consumer.

When tickets cost $150 per game, and all the games are pay per view, I hope all you people saying "the players deserve a raise" understand what it has brought about.

Nice. :clap:

Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1990: $19.79
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1998: $41.82
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 2004: $67.33

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:40 AM
I was under the impression that % wise, the players get less than the previous CBA. What they have done is include more revenue streams into the equation. So now they get more of the revenue than they did from the prior 6-year(or whatever length it was) CBA, as many large market owners have opened new revenue streams.

The Union and players are greedy. The owners are greedy. The fans will pay more and more every year. This surprises you how?Who said I was suprised?

All I said is that this set a bad precedent. The system that the players were previously under already allowed for increased wages relative to league success. That wasn't enough for them. They wanted more. And they got more than the owners wanted to give. A win for players is a loss for fans.

Regardless of how much money the owners have, like all business owners, they are going to maintain a profit margin. When overhead goes up (labor expense in this instance), they have to offset that increase by increasing revenue. In this instance, NFL owners are going to pass this player pay raise off to the fan.

If you are happy with that, fine. I'm not. Just like the other pro sports that are failures in the eyes of many fans, NFL is on the path of bending until something breaks. "The fan will still pay for it" is a dangerous way to run things. Because that implies that they should be content bilking the fan out of more and more money until "the fan won't pay for it anymore". It is literally squeezing the golden goose until you kill it. Stupid way to run a business, and unltimately the fans lose out.

I'm not sure how this is a good thing.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:41 AM
Nice. :clap:

Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1990: $19.79
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1998: $41.82
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 2004: $67.33Whoops, looks like someone just found a couple pieces of that falling sky.

go bowe
03-09-2006, 11:43 AM
well, i should have read the thread first, because eleventy million people already made all the points i can think of...

good job, guys... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

ct
03-09-2006, 11:50 AM
So, with no CBA extension, NFL becomes MLB and the fans lose. And with a new CBA extension, the players are too greedy and the fans lose. My only point here is to ask you the question, where's the win in your eyes? It's my opinion that with many of you, there is NEVER a win in your eyes.

greg63
03-09-2006, 11:57 AM
So, with no CBA extension, NFL becomes MLB and the fans lose. And with a new CBA extension, the players are too greedy and the fans lose. My only point here is to ask you the question, where's the win in your eyes? It's my opinion that with many of you, there is NEVER a win in your eyes.


Free all you can eat/drink concessions. :D

Seriously though, anytime unreasonable costs are past down to the fans is never a win situation. IMO

Brock
03-09-2006, 12:00 PM
Nice. :clap:

Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1990: $19.79
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 1998: $41.82
Avg. ticket to Chiefs game 2004: $67.33

Looks like with or without a reasonable CBA, you should expect pretty hefty ticket hikes in the future.

ct
03-09-2006, 12:01 PM
Looks like with or without a reasonable CBA, you should expect pretty hefty ticket hikes in the future.

yep

Kclee
03-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Looks like with or without a reasonable CBA, you should expect pretty hefty ticket hikes in the future.

Not really my problem now. Ticket prices are not reasonable anymore IMO. But I don't mind if you pay for Warfields $3500 dog collar.

Brock
03-09-2006, 12:10 PM
Not really my problem now. Ticket prices are not reasonable anymore IMO. But I don't mind if you pay for Warfields $3500 dog collar.

I don't really care what anybody spends their money on.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 12:25 PM
So, with no CBA extension, NFL becomes MLB and the fans lose. And with a new CBA extension, the players are too greedy and the fans lose. My only point here is to ask you the question, where's the win in your eyes? It's my opinion that with many of you, there is NEVER a win in your eyes.

except for it's not black and white ... the loss can come in varying degrees.

the more money the players get ... the higher the price of the whole system.


owners greedy, players greedy ...........


but the fans can only really hope to reduce the players greedy to help keep their own prices down some.

Logical
03-09-2006, 12:49 PM
I wonder if he'd be willing to make a bet on the Chiefs winning a playoff game this year...Hell I will bet you my signature for 3 months we won't even make the playoffs this year.

Logical
03-09-2006, 12:59 PM
Wait a minute, I thought what we did best was run the ball. Now we're disappointed that we're going to be trying to do a bit more of what we do best?

We're also maybe missing the point a bit about what Herm was trying to say with that comment. He's always maintained that he'd love to get a lead on a team and then run it down the stretch to win the ballgame and keep the D fresh. Now I can remember a few games here, including last year, where we had nice leads in the 2nd half and continued to try and throw the ball which led to some 3 and outs or 4 and outs and brought the D back on the field, or led to things like, for example, the Philly game changing INT with the empty backfield pass we had done earlier in the game. Instead of that, how bout establishing the run a bit more and trying to keep our D fresh? You go back to the Buffalo game, wouldn't you have rathered we stuck to the run more in that game than we did?

Frankly if we're running the ball 10 more times a game, that means we're probably winning in the game. And that's all I'm interested in. But our passing potential is not going anywhere, and if teams want to put 8 in the box against us, bring it on...Last season the Chiefs rushed the ball 520 times, add 160 (10 a game) that will be 680 or ~43 rushing attempts per game. That would lead to the ball being thrown at most 360 times which will be an incredibly unbalanced offense. That assumes somehow that you manage to have an offense that is on the field for as many plays as we did with Saunders offense which is highly unlikely with such and unbalanced offense. You think there were a lot of three and outs last year, if we go to this imbalanced offense 3 and outs will increase greatly.

Logical
03-09-2006, 01:02 PM
The success of the KC team will depend again on how VERSITILE an offensive line we have. The 2003 Chief's line ran successfully in ALL directions. But since then the Chief's have depended upon the left side of the offense to do the heavy lifting in the running game. THAT makes the running game predictable for defenses. What we got last year was a CHANGE of pace from the running back position with LJ taking over the job. That meant a CHANGE in how the offensive operated the running game. That change will be accounted for in defensive schemes against the Chiefs this year.

So again the success in win/loss and not just run production (we should be ok there no matter what), will depend upon having a RT that can perform as well as Tait did in 2003 and either Shields or Welbourne being able to pull to the right for stretch plays to that side of the field. If we don't have this range in the running game we will find times when good defenses JUMP our strong tendencies and we fail to sustain drives. In addition it will put extra stress physically on Roaf and Waters (though Waters is young enough to be ok) and potential strain on Weigman against big NT.

Well stated

Logical
03-09-2006, 01:08 PM
Why be dissappointed with a return to solid defense and ball-control offense? The last 6 SB winners had exactly this philosophy! The Pats are a bit different in their ball control is more efficient passing attack than a ground game, but the concept is the same.

This is a good thing!I said I am disappointed we are not going to be making more cuts to start rebuilding the team, which is what is IMO required to build a solid defense and maintain the offensive line for a ball control offense. Not sure how you got that twisted.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 01:10 PM
So, with no CBA extension, NFL becomes MLB and the fans lose. And with a new CBA extension, the players are too greedy and the fans lose. My only point here is to ask you the question, where's the win in your eyes? It's my opinion that with many of you, there is NEVER a win in your eyes.The reason it's a loss in my eyes is because the union got almost all it was asking for. By all accounts, the only sacrifice they made was that .5%.

I was hoping that both sides would give. If the both sides agree to a 2% increase instead of 4%, and that's the benchmark for future negotiations, then it would take twice as long to have the same impact on the owners/fans.

I never suggested that there should be no CBA. I'm just disappointed that the union appears to have gotten everything they asked for.

Logical
03-09-2006, 01:13 PM
Well...it doesnt sit well with me knowing that Peterson publicly stated that the team will NOT be active in FA this year. It disappoints me because I see with the extension of the CBA, and the salary cap figure rising an additional 7.5 million, this team will elect to sit back, relax, and in the meantime, allow players to slip away through their hands. And as a fan that upsets you because you know this team is a GOOD team, and they're not as far in making the playoffs and possibly contending. What are we? What, 2 or 3 players away from possibly making this team a REAL strong one. We can do that! We can make this team REAL strong, but, we elect not to spend money.

Sometimes you gotta do what it takes to make your team a winner. The aggressive approach isn't the best way to go, but sometimes you have to go that route. In the Chiefs case, they're not aggressive, never really we're. Im convinced it is not the cap, it is strictly bonuses when it comes to signing players. I think Lamar doesn't want to dish out any cash this year.

*I'm ok with this team running the ball 30, 40 times a game. I think running the ball is the strength of this team. If running the ball 30, 40 times a game means we utilize the strength of this team a lot more, then I'm all for it. I like that. Martball? LOL....Im fine with it. At least we have LJ. And not Kimble Anders, Donell Bennett, and Greg Hill. Oh and that play action pass will work well with #88 doning the middle of the field.

I pretty much agree with everything you said except for 40 times a game. I think a team gets beyond 35 a game (560) and they become too unbalanced. Nice post.

ct
03-09-2006, 01:13 PM
I said I am disappointed we are not going to be making more cuts to start rebuilding the team, which is what is IMO required to build a solid defense and maintain the offensive line for a ball control offense. Not sure how you got that twisted.

True, I reread your post. I read the concerns about returning to Martyball and latched onto that thought.

Logical
03-09-2006, 01:18 PM
if marty had had our o line and lj for a rb, martyball might have been damned effective and even fun to watch...Rep

You do have a point. Everyone is misunderstanding me as being mad about the return to Martyball. That is not it, we don't have the defense for it is my point, so we need to start the rebuilding process.

Logical
03-09-2006, 01:26 PM
So, with no CBA extension, NFL becomes MLB and the fans lose. And with a new CBA extension, the players are too greedy and the fans lose. My only point here is to ask you the question, where's the win in your eyes? It's my opinion that with many of you, there is NEVER a win in your eyes.
Actually speaking only for myself, I am fine with the new CBA. I was hoping we would see two changes that we did not.

Revenue sharing on luxury boxes
Salary cap implications being traded to team that receives player in a trade.

Those in my opinion would have led to a more equitable situation for all teams to be equally competitive.

Mecca
03-09-2006, 01:28 PM
The worst part is this sets a precedent for future labor talks. 6 years from now, the union is going to expect to get a similar type of increase, and will see anything less as failure.

In the long run, this is all bad for the fans. It's not about money coming out of owners pockets. Owners are going to keep their margins by passing the cost on to the consumer.

When tickets cost $150 per game, and all the games are pay per view, I hope all you people saying "the players deserve a raise" understand what it has brought about.

That post is a bit much when you take the time to realize the NFL revenue is driven in the TV contracts............

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 01:28 PM
As we've seen in Kansas City and had reiterated in San Diego, Martyball's failure isn't due to the talent, it's due to his tendency to reign in his quarterback for fear of turnovers and his conservative approach, you know, the one that leads to stalled redzone drives and field goal attempts when his team should be trying to put its boot on the opponent's throat by putting the ball in the endzone.

None of the teams that won the superbowl recently played martyball. Passing was always a part of the approach, and they often asked the quarterback (or other guys in the case of pissburgh) to make plays in the passing game that had a big impact on their success. They have balls, in other words.

I don't mind a little more ball control, so long as we don't forsake the dangerous balance and unpredictability of the offense. Because, all stats aside, Saunders' offense was never perfect, and it can certainly be improved upon in several areas.

In the end, I hope that Edwards is good to his word, and simply stays out of the offense entirely. I think he retained the offensive coaches he did for a reason, and I don't think it was to rollback the clock ten years on that side of the ball.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 01:32 PM
That post is a bit much when you take the time to realize the NFL revenue is driven in the TV contracts............I'm a little slow. What do you mean?

Brock
03-09-2006, 01:32 PM
Rebuilding is a thing of the past.

Mecca
03-09-2006, 01:37 PM
I'm a little slow. What do you mean?

It means the game will never be on PPV when you take the time to look at how much money the NFL is making from TV contracts. It's upwards of a billion dollars.

Brock
03-09-2006, 01:40 PM
It means the game will never be on PPV when you take the time to look at how much money the NFL is making from TV contracts. It's upwards of a billion dollars.

Never is a long time.

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 01:42 PM
Rebuilding is a thing of the past.Yeah, it pretty much is.

Which is part of the reason so many teams do the active year/inactive year in free agency, keeping the cap balanced enough that you don't have to do the kind of salary dumping we did in '01 and that Tennessee has suffered through lately.

Free agency isn't our problem, in any case. The draft is.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 01:43 PM
It means the game will never be on PPV when you take the time to look at how much money the NFL is making from TV contracts. It's upwards of a billion dollars.And you don't think that the NFL or another entity might choose pay per view at some point?

They'll be able to increase revenues by doing it.

The NFL is already putting a game on that is only available on their network this coming Thanksgiving. How long before they take full control of the broadcasts? Heck, Sunday Ticket has already allowed them to dip their toes in the water and see how many customers are willing to pay to watch their game on TV. They'll be able to collect all the advertising revenues that allow networks to currently pay so much for broadcast rights, then tack on another $10 per game.

I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon, but as long as the everyone keeps demanding more money, the league is always going to be searching for new methods to generate that money.