PDA

View Full Version : Hicks and Woods are likely gone


jiveturkey
04-29-2006, 07:10 PM
We're better just because these guys are likely gone after June 1st.

keg in kc
04-29-2006, 07:11 PM
Woods was gone anyway.

Hicks I'm not as sure about. A guy can dream, I guess.

dirk digler
04-29-2006, 07:17 PM
Good

JBucc
04-29-2006, 07:18 PM
Hicks can be a good backup

jspchief
04-29-2006, 07:20 PM
I don't think Hicks is gone.

58-4ever
04-29-2006, 07:22 PM
16 picks til Youboty.

JBucc
04-29-2006, 07:23 PM
16 picks til we pass on Youboty.

wazu
04-29-2006, 07:24 PM
16 picks til Youboty.

You mean 16 picks till we pass on Youboty and reach deep into the second day for another "character" guy?

wazu
04-29-2006, 07:27 PM
haha

dr00d
04-29-2006, 07:31 PM
yep, he's gone.

Count Alex's Wins
04-29-2006, 07:35 PM
Gunther is in love with Hicks. My only hope is he is backing up Tamba Hali.

Logical
04-29-2006, 07:38 PM
If that is true I will even appreciate Pollard.

Logical
04-29-2006, 07:39 PM
16 picks til Youboty.He has already been picked, just a couple of picks ago by Buffalo.

tommykat
04-29-2006, 08:14 PM
If that is true I will even appreciate Pollard.

But wait Jim......:hmmm: do you appreciate anyone? :D

Coach
04-29-2006, 08:22 PM
I think Woods is gone, regardless if the Chiefs got the 2nd round pick or not.

Woods haven't lived up to his contract, and I would bet that he'll be released when June 1st comes around the corner.

HC_Chief
04-29-2006, 08:38 PM
If Hali impresses early I wouldn't be surprised to see Hicks add lbs and move inside.

CHIEF4EVER
04-29-2006, 08:45 PM
Hicks and Woods are likely gone

Do they need a volunteer to help move their shite out of the complex? :)

Cormac
04-29-2006, 09:04 PM
If this is the goal of the offseason, and you add in Dexter McCleon and Peter Giunta, we're on a roll!

Coach
04-29-2006, 09:07 PM
If this is the goal of the offseason, and you add in Dexter McCleon and Peter Giunta, we're on a roll!

Uh, McCleon and Giunta are already gone.

Cormac
04-29-2006, 09:19 PM
Uh, McCleon and Giunta are already gone.

Umm, that was the point. Badly written I guess.

Coach
04-29-2006, 09:22 PM
Umm, that was the point. Badly written I guess.

Ah, my bad. Just thought it was worded that add in Dexter and Guinea, as if it sounded like they were on the team.

I don't think that the Chiefs will be releasing both of Hicks or Woods, due to the salary cap implications and dead money issue. So more than likely, it will be one option, Woods? Or Hicks?

milkman
04-29-2006, 09:25 PM
Ah, my bad. Just thought it was worded that add in Dexter and Guinea, as if it sounded like they were on the team.

I don't think that the Chiefs will be releasing both of Hicks or Woods, due to the salary cap implications and dead money issue. So more than likely, it will be one option, Woods? Or Hicks?

Woods.

I don't have any problem with Hicks, remaining with the team, as long as he's relegated to the bench.

milkman
04-29-2006, 09:26 PM
If Hali impresses early I wouldn't be surprised to see Hicks add lbs and move inside.

No thanks.
We already have two converted DEs there, we don't need another.

Count Alex's Wins
04-29-2006, 09:27 PM
Woods.

I don't have any problem with Hicks, remaining with the team, as long as he's relegated to the bench.

There's no way the Chiefs can draft Hali and not start him, right? I mean that would just be ridiculous.

milkman
04-29-2006, 09:30 PM
There's no way the Chiefs can draft Hali and not start him, right? I mean that would just be ridiculous.

I don't have any expectations beyond rediculosity when it comes to the Chiefs braintrust.

Logical
04-29-2006, 09:58 PM
Ah, my bad. Just thought it was worded that add in Dexter and Guinea, as if it sounded like they were on the team.

I don't think that the Chiefs will be releasing both of Hicks or Woods, due to the salary cap implications and dead money issue. So more than likely, it will be one option, Woods? Or Hicks?If over 9 mil of unused cap money this is the year to rid ourselves of both of them.

tommykat
04-29-2006, 10:01 PM
We're better just because these guys are likely gone after June 1st.

Sheesh ya think? ROFL

Coach
04-29-2006, 10:02 PM
If over 9 mil of unused cap money this is the year to rid ourselves of both of them.

That's a good thought, but at the same time, isn't part of this cap money to sign the rookies, after the rookie pool cap is gone (I don't fully understand the rookie pool money). Not to mention that some of the Draft players who may go undrafted, the salary cap will go into that as well.

And there's always the option on trying to at least pick up a veteran after June 1st.

dtebbe
04-29-2006, 10:07 PM
They must be planning on signing a vet corner, considering that need has not been addressed in the draft...

Maybe we will resign McCleon... ok, don't shoot me!

DT

milkman
04-29-2006, 10:08 PM
That's a good thought, but at the same time, isn't part of this cap money to sign the rookies, after the rookie pool cap is gone (I don't fully understand the rookie pool money). Not to mention that some of the Draft players who may go undrafted, the salary cap will go into that as well.

And there's always the option on trying to at least pick up a veteran after June 1st.

Someone else will have a more definitive answer, but I don't think that the rookie pool for the Cheifs this year will be more than about 3.5-4mil.

And I can't say for certain that isn't already taken into account.

Logical
04-29-2006, 10:14 PM
That's a good thought, but at the same time, isn't part of this cap money to sign the rookies, after the rookie pool cap is gone (I don't fully understand the rookie pool money). Not to mention that some of the Draft players who may go undrafted, the salary cap will go into that as well.

And there's always the option on trying to at least pick up a veteran after June 1st.The rookie pool is already covered in our cap amount allocated still leaving the 9+ mil. At most another mil might go to a 20 pick 1st rounders signing bonus.

Unless they go for Ty Law there is no one out there worth signing especially that would take anything close to that amount of cap space.

Coach
04-29-2006, 10:26 PM
The rookie pool is already covered in our cap amount allocated still leaving the 9+ mil. At most another mil might go to a 20 pick 1st rounders signing bonus.

Unless they go for Ty Law there is no one out there worth signing especially that would take anything close to that amount of cap space.

Ah, then thank you for clearing up the rookie pool thing for me. I didn't completely understood it very well.

I wasn't specifically saying that it would be one player that they will be signing, but more of a few vets and a few undrafted players.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how this whole draft plays out to June 1st.

bringbackmarty
04-29-2006, 10:43 PM
hicks - likely gone
Woods - already packing
Law - looking @real estate in leawood.
word of advice to law, get a condo on the plaza, don't live in leawood.THAT WAY YOU CAN WALK HOME FROM BLONDE, OR TOMFOOLEERIES, OR WHEREVER YOU AND WESLEY GO AND GET DRUNK AT.


after you guys win the afc championship.

milkman
04-29-2006, 10:46 PM
I wish somone would hurry up and sign Law, so we don't have to hear about him as a possible Chief anymore.

greg63
04-29-2006, 10:50 PM
I wish somone would hurry up and sign Law, so we don't have to hear about him as a possible Chief anymore.


Agreed; Ty Law will not sign with the Chiefs.