PDA

View Full Version : si.com predicts Woodson and Law to KC


nychief
03-18-2006, 08:26 AM
for what it is worth... nothing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/03/01/free.agency.tracker/index.html

StcChief
03-18-2006, 08:28 AM
Right.... I'll believe when I see it.

pikesome
03-18-2006, 08:47 AM
I predict we get neither, write it down.

nychief
03-18-2006, 08:49 AM
I predict we get neither, write it down.

agreed.

Cochise
03-18-2006, 08:51 AM
I predict we sign no name players and only bring in guys who are over the hill, coming off an injury, or who are for 'depth'.

Come on, we've all seen this movie before.

Brock
03-18-2006, 08:53 AM
I would not be surprised to see either player here.

Shox
03-18-2006, 09:04 AM
Please just say no to both of these guys.

I'm tired of bringing in old names and overpaying them.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 09:17 AM
I predict we get neither, write it down.
agreed.
agree ... agree

nychief
03-18-2006, 09:21 AM
of the two, Woodson is the most appealing. Assuming he comes as a bargin.

DMAC
03-18-2006, 09:38 AM
And...wasn't it SI.com who last year said that Priest was traded to the Dolphins for Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas?

beavis
03-18-2006, 09:40 AM
I'd say there was zero chance if we hadn't cut Warfield. But someone has to play corner, right? I mean besides Rich Scanlon.

PastorMikH
03-18-2006, 09:45 AM
Don't see how we even need both. Who do you move to nickle back - Law, Woodson, or Surtain?


Maybe we're going to develope a brand new 3-3-5 D to make up for our terrible pass rush.

nychief
03-18-2006, 09:50 AM
Don't see how we even need both. Who do you move to nickle back - Law, Woodson, or Surtain?


Maybe we're going to develope a brand new 3-3-5 D to make up for our terrible pass rush.

woodson as a safety - but that is bunk.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 09:50 AM
Don't see how we even need both. Who do you move to nickle back - Law, Woodson, or Surtain?


Maybe we're going to develope a brand new 3-3-5 D to make up for our terrible pass rush.

actually i think it's about time for Law to move to free safety anyway.


woodson,knight,law,surtain


so it could easily work .......... that said, we KNOW it's not happening.

PastorMikH
03-18-2006, 09:51 AM
woodson as a safety - but that is bunk.



I'm not really that upset with our Safety situation right now. CBs are what we need.

Any good safetys in the draft that we can convert to CB? :p

Marco Polo
03-18-2006, 09:53 AM
So Miami is going to sign LaVar Arrington and Julian Peterson? Doubt it.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 09:57 AM
I'm not really that upset with our Safety situation right now. CBs are what we need.
yuck ... our safety play is killing us right now.


our safeties can't cover tightends or running backs ... and they are very slow at providing deep help to the cornerbacks.

RedThat
03-18-2006, 10:02 AM
We just need a Defensive line that can create pressure and wreak havoc. All this stuff about our safeties can't cover blah, blah, blah. Even if they did? You guys think it would matter? Get me Ed Reed, Deion in his prime, Surtain, and whoever? Our coverage units would still be terrible. Our defensive line stinks. If we don't fix that, it don't matter who are safeties or cornerbacks are out there.

We need a new line period. Before we can even consider or think about CB's and safeties.

mac58
03-18-2006, 10:03 AM
so far they r 2 for 2 with their predictions. . .hope that streak keeps up. . .i think there is a good chance we r gonna sign law

RedThat
03-18-2006, 10:04 AM
We ain't signing Law or Woodson. Why? Too much $$$ in signing bonuses. Lamar doesn't want to pay that.

Frazod
03-18-2006, 10:06 AM
And...wasn't it SI.com who last year said that Priest was traded to the Dolphins for Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas?

I wish he had been. LJ would have got the rushing title and we'd have made it deep into the playoffs. :banghead:

RedThat
03-18-2006, 10:06 AM
Here is something interesting. I'm not buying into this though:

Chiefs | Team remains interested in Law
Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:40:59 -0800

Jim Wyatt, of the Tennessean, reports the Kansas City Chiefs remain interested in free agent CB Ty Law (Jets). Law wouldn't come cheap. He's believed to be seeking a $10 million signing bonus.

chagrin
03-18-2006, 10:06 AM
Am I mistaken, believing that Ty Law has more consistent play than Charles ever has, even after his injury?

Both of those dudes here is simply unrealistic and surely meant as nothing more than "thought provoking" Journalism, like one of Vlad's genius polls?

Frazod
03-18-2006, 10:09 AM
I'd personally rather have Woodson. Getting the hell out of Oakland always seems to do wonders for anybody's attitude. Plus, he'd come complete with built-in hatred of Denver and San Diego and a gigantic chip on his shoulder against the Raiders.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 10:09 AM
We need a new line period. Before we can even consider or think about CB's and safeties.
i see you've been drinking the kool-aid

the idea that defense starts and stops at the defensive line is just crap


if your secondary can't cover an offense is just gonna wear your defensive line out. quick passes,slants,screens ...... pretty soon the defensive line has to hesitate on every play and they become timid and worthless.

eric warfield couldn't play man because he couldn't stay focused on each play ... he couldn't play zone because he wasn't quick enough. So we got stuck playing this soft/man crap that is just worthless either way.

it jacked the whole defensive scheme up.

beer bacon
03-18-2006, 10:10 AM
No to both those guys. I would rather sign Dyson.

Saul Good
03-18-2006, 10:12 AM
Sam Madison

nychief
03-18-2006, 10:16 AM
Sam Madison

signed with the Giants a week ago.

StcChief
03-18-2006, 10:17 AM
I'd personally rather have Woodson. Getting the hell out of Oakland always seems to do wonders for anybody's attitude. Plus, he'd come complete with built-in hatred of Denver and San Diego and a gigantic chip on his shoulder against the Raiders.

Chiefs picking up AFCW players sometimes works

They do have the built in competiveness against division rivals....

If they hate where they are: Marcus Allen, EK


Sometimes not (McGluckton (sp))


IF we can get Woodson at a good contract and he wants to be a Chief.
Help rebuild D. play with Surtain, Knight, new LB crew

I'd take him.

Saul Good
03-18-2006, 10:35 AM
signed with the Giants a week ago.
Well no-one consulted me...

CoMoChief
03-18-2006, 10:43 AM
Still cant believe that we let Benard out of KC without a contract, now we are interested in an old CB that wants a tremendous amount of money more than Benard. Is Bartee a UFA?? If we re-sign him that might send me over the edge.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 10:44 AM
Is Bartee a UFA?? If we re-sign him that might send me over the edge.
hope your wearing a parachute

nychief
03-18-2006, 10:47 AM
he is not a an UFA that is bad info from espn.com

RedThat
03-18-2006, 10:52 AM
i see you've been drinking the kool-aid

the idea that defense starts and stops at the defensive line is just crap


if your secondary can't cover an offense is just gonna wear your defensive line out. quick passes,slants,screens ...... pretty soon the defensive line has to hesitate on every play and they become timid and worthless.

eric warfield couldn't play man because he couldn't stay focused on each play ... he couldn't play zone because he wasn't quick enough. So we got stuck playing this soft/man crap that is just worthless either way.

it jacked the whole defensive scheme up.

So are you saying Warfield was the problem all along?

Bwana
03-18-2006, 10:52 AM
Cool, which one plays DT again?

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 10:56 AM
So are you saying Warfield was the problem all along?
i'm saying that bad coverage in the secondary has been a viable problem for our defense all along.

if you can't stop the run, it hurts the rest of the defense

if you can't rush the passer, it hurts the rest of the defense

if you can't cover, it hurts the rest of the defense

if your coaching/scheme is weak, it really hurts the defense

nychief
03-18-2006, 10:57 AM
From KFFL...
Chiefs | Team remains interested in Law
Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:40:59 -0800

Jim Wyatt, of the Tennessean, reports the Kansas City Chiefs remain interested in free agent CB Ty Law (Jets). Law wouldn't come cheap. He's believed to be seeking a $10 million signing bonus.

CoMoChief
03-18-2006, 11:00 AM
i see you've been drinking the kool-aid

the idea that defense starts and stops at the defensive line is just crap


if your secondary can't cover an offense is just gonna wear your defensive line out. quick passes,slants,screens ...... pretty soon the defensive line has to hesitate on every play and they become timid and worthless.

eric warfield couldn't play man because he couldn't stay focused on each play ... he couldn't play zone because he wasn't quick enough. So we got stuck playing this soft/man crap that is just worthless either way.

it jacked the whole defensive scheme up.


In the game of football, EVERYTHING on both sides of the ball starts at the line of scrimmage. If you have a good Dline that gets pressure, your secondary doesnt have to cover for as long and your LBs can cover more ground to make plays. Just like on offense, you cant throw if you dont have protection and you cant run without good run blocking. LJ wouldnt do shit behind Arizona's line. Our defense would also be top 10 if we had a Dline like Carolina. Everything starts up front. All of the good defenses create good pressure from the Dline.

Katipan
03-18-2006, 11:03 AM
I predict we sign no name players and only bring in guys who are over the hill, coming off an injury, or who are for 'depth'.

Come on, we've all seen this movie before.

I wish I could make a joke about that being my dating cycle but I think I'd get in trouble.

Mr. Laz
03-18-2006, 11:04 AM
. Everything starts up front.
yes, but everything doesn't START and END up front

KCChiefsFan88
03-18-2006, 11:06 AM
Obviously SI didn't get the memo about Carl taking a 5 month vacation this offseason

RedThat
03-18-2006, 11:12 AM
yes, but everything doesn't START and END up front

I hear what you're saying. I understand. Everything is complimentary to each other. It works both ways.

Rausch
03-18-2006, 11:14 AM
I don't have problem sitting back the first 2 weeks or so in FA.

You've got about 4 teams that always spend stupid money on contracts for any above average player.

There's no point meeting with a guy during that time unless yer willing to break the bank...

Frazod
03-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Well no-one consulted me...

Carl probably thinks he's still available, too. :banghead:

RedThat
03-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Still cant believe that we let Benard out of KC without a contract, now we are interested in an old CB that wants a tremendous amount of money more than Benard. Is Bartee a UFA?? If we re-sign him that might send me over the edge.

I don't mind us being interested in a CB since we're gonna need another one. If we are going to be inactive in FA, then I'd like to see this team improve the Defensive line through the draft.

RedThat
03-18-2006, 11:20 AM
I don't have problem sitting back the first 2 weeks or so in FA.

You've got about 4 teams that always spend stupid money on contracts for any above average player.

There's no point meeting with a guy during that time unless yer willing to break the bank...

True. The only problem is, most of the guys are gone. And we are still sitt'n on our a**es.

CoMoChief
03-18-2006, 11:21 AM
yes, but everything doesn't START and END up front


I know what you mean but Im just saying that you dont need great corners when you have a good Dline. Look at Chicago. Nathan Vasher isnt that great of a corner but he excelled in that system because of the constant pressure Chicago put on opposing teams.

Simplex3
03-18-2006, 11:22 AM
Please just say no to both of these guys.

I'm tired of bringing in old names and overpaying them.
The whole team is old and overpaid except for a few guys. What kind of dent could this possibly make?

Rausch
03-18-2006, 11:31 AM
True. The only problem is, most of the guys are gone. And we are still sitt'n on our a**es.

Never hurt the Steelers or Pats.

Besides, if we do make a mistake it won't be a $4 million a year mistake...

Cochise
03-18-2006, 11:32 AM
I would much rather have Law.

Who has been the better cover corner when healthy throughout their career? Edge to Woodson I guess. But if we're going to spend the money and we drop it on Woodson, we might only get 4 or 6 games out of him and be right back where we started.

Either way, one of the two would be a nice addition, but none of it will matter until the front 7 gets fixed.

We're not 2 CB's away, we're a DE, 2 DTs, an OLB, and a FS away.

Blackened
03-18-2006, 01:57 PM
for what it is worth... nothing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/03/01/free.agency.tracker/index.html


As safetys?? Do it, as long as their contracts are reflective of that position, and not CB..
The Raiders have tried to sign CWood long term for two years, but he and his agent have been adament on being the highest paid CB in the league...... of course his agent was just suspended for two years...

milkman
03-18-2006, 02:21 PM
I would much rather have Law.

Who has been the better cover corner when healthy throughout their career? Edge to Woodson I guess. But if we're going to spend the money and we drop it on Woodson, we might only get 4 or 6 games out of him and be right back where we started.

Either way, one of the two would be a nice addition, but none of it will matter until the front 7 gets fixed.

We're not 2 CB's away, we're a DE, 2 DTs, an OLB, and a FS away.

We're a DE, 2 DTs, an OLB, a FS, and a corner away from a great defense.

But we are only a DE, DT and a FS away from a defense good enough to make us a legitimate SB contender.

As we stand at this moment, we are what we have been for most of Carl's 17 years.

That, of course, is pretenders.

whoman69
03-18-2006, 06:30 PM
OMG, this means round II of the Ty Law threads. If he didn't break the Hugh Douglas record before for most threads, he will kill it now.
I have to believe that Woodson has even less left in the tank than Law. Add to it he was the most disgruntled player on a team of disgruntled players...

Portis&Taylor
03-18-2006, 07:26 PM
No way you would need both not with surtain. If you added one of the two i think it would work.

Tribal Warfare
03-18-2006, 07:32 PM
We're a DE, 2 DTs, an OLB, a FS, and a corner away from a great defense.

But we are only a DE, DT and a FS away from a defense good enough to make us a legitimate SB contender.

As we stand at this moment, we are what we have been for most of Carl's 17 years.

That, of course, is pretenders.


Sounds like

It sounds like KC is targeting Hali/Bunkley in the 1st round :hmmm:

RNR
03-18-2006, 07:33 PM
Between both you could get 16 games, well thats not fair to Law. Woodson is injury prone and made 10 million plus last year. He is like a ex-wife Oakland is willing to let someone else take over the payments.

chop
03-18-2006, 07:36 PM
"Mr. Woodson to y'all."

That comment still annoys me whenever I think of Woodson.

Baby Lee
03-18-2006, 08:32 PM
Getting the hell out of Oakland always seems to do wonders for anybody's attitude.
Chester?

Baby Lee
03-18-2006, 08:35 PM
i'm saying that bad coverage in the secondary has been a viable problem for our defense all along.

if you can't stop the run, it hurts the rest of the defense

if you can't rush the passer, it hurts the rest of the defense

if you can't cover, it hurts the rest of the defense

if your coaching/scheme is weak, it really hurts the defense
Would you rather have Carter and Ross or DT and Neil Smith?

Logical
03-18-2006, 08:41 PM
Would you rather have Carter and Ross or DT and Neil Smith?I would rather have Ross and DT or Ross and Smith than either of your choices.

Blackened
03-18-2006, 08:54 PM
Chester?

Right .. what a waste of talent...Fat F...ing F!