PDA

View Full Version : The Bernard Pollard pick explained...


htismaqe
04-30-2006, 11:12 AM
ck_in mentioned that the pick made no sense unless the team felt like Sammy Knight only had a year left...lo and behold:

http://www.nflpa.com/Members/playerProfile.asp?ID=25243

Knight, Sammy
View Stats at Players Inc Site
Player Info
Draft Info

S (#29)
Year: 0

Kansas City Chiefs
Round: 0

Overland Park, KS
Position: 0

Salary History

2005 665000.00
2006 835000.00
2007 2000000.00
2008 1750000.00
2009 1500000.00

SNR
04-30-2006, 11:15 AM
I'd rather keep Knight and ditch Wesley. Knight is a FS, besides. Unless we're going to move him to FS, which would be a stupid idea, this kind of makes sense, but kind of not.

banyon
04-30-2006, 11:16 AM
great another brilliant $$$ move so that we can stay out of "CAP HELL"

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 11:16 AM
He's salary more than doubles next year, which I didn't know prior to today.

I'll bet Knight will be cut after this season.

Ultra Peanut
04-30-2006, 11:17 AM
Wow. It's definitely either cut or restructure.

RedThat
04-30-2006, 11:18 AM
Whoever is in charge of our cap, or negotiates the contracts has some explaining to do.

SNR
04-30-2006, 11:20 AM
Whoever is in charge of our cap, or negotiates the contracts has some explaining to do.This is what all GMs do. Backload the **** out of contracts.

We'll probably restructure

Wile_E_Coyote
04-30-2006, 11:23 AM
this will be Knight's 10th season. I wonder if they look at him like they looked at Maz, possible future coach material

Ultra Peanut
04-30-2006, 11:27 AM
This is what all GMs do. Backload the **** out of contracts.Yep. Agents/players obviously hate it, but it's standard these days.

RedThat
04-30-2006, 11:31 AM
this will be Knight's 10th season. I wonder if they look at him like they looked at Maz, possible future coach material

I think they had to address safety position sooner or later....not only because Knight is getting old, we also have no depth at the position. And it's always good knowing you have a young DB with a lot of upside who is gonna compete in training camp for a starting job.

I think this pick makes sense. Knight didn't REALLY impress me last year. He is ok, but an upgrade at the position definately doesn't hurt.

Wile_E_Coyote
04-30-2006, 11:36 AM
I think they had to address safety position sooner or later....not only because Knight is getting old, we also have no depth at the position. And it's always good knowing you have a young DB with a lot of upside who is gonna compete in training camp for a starting job.

I think this pick makes sense. Knight didn't REALLY impress me last year. He is ok, but an upgrade at the position definately doesn't hurt.

my post was more about cutting or restructure. Does Gunnther want to keep him on at vet. min. & work him in as an assistant. If Knight is willing

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 12:24 PM
I think they had to address safety position sooner or later....not only because Knight is getting old, we also have no depth at the position. And it's always good knowing you have a young DB with a lot of upside who is gonna compete in training camp for a starting job.

I think this pick makes sense. Knight didn't REALLY impress me last year. He is ok, but an upgrade at the position definately doesn't hurt.

Yep.

jidar
04-30-2006, 12:28 PM
Pollard has tremendous upside, I love the pick. He's real nasty defensive player, and god knows we could use one.
Maybe the reason DV never had a good defense in his time is that he avoided players with bad attitudes, and the lions share of good defensive players are bad attitude kind of guys.

DaKCMan AP
04-30-2006, 12:29 PM
I'd rather keep Knight and ditch Wesley. Knight is a FS, besides. Unless we're going to move him to FS, which would be a stupid idea, this kind of makes sense, but kind of not.


Knight is SS

BigChiefFan
04-30-2006, 12:29 PM
I don't consider Knight's contract numbers to be excessive for a starting SS.

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 12:51 PM
I don't consider Knight's contract numbers to be excessive for a starting SS.

$2M base salary IS excessive considering Knight's ability and age.

keg in kc
04-30-2006, 12:56 PM
I don't consider Knight's contract numbers to be excessive for a starting SS.Safety is the lowest-paid (non-kicker position) in the league. 2 million is a lot, especially for a 32-year old (in 2007).

He's slow. He's old. He's a great field general in terms of putting the pieces on the gameboard, but as excited as I was to see him come last year, I didn't see his play as any kind of an upgrade from what we've seen at safety in the past. I don't know that I expect to see Pollard take his place in '06. I just hope the kid gets substantial playing time as part of the rotation that Edwards mentioned. We certainly need the depth, and anyone who keeps Billy Bartee off the field is okay in my book.

banyon
04-30-2006, 01:32 PM
Kiper just said that Pollard was a 4th rounder.

Oh I know go ahead and lampoon him, but it is still a reach according to everyone but Carl.

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 01:37 PM
Kiper just said that Pollard was a 4th rounder.

Oh I know go ahead and lampoon him, but it is still a reach according to everyone but Carl.

PFW had him as their 4th-rated safety, ahead of Roman Harper who was drafted BEFORE Pollard.

banyon
04-30-2006, 01:53 PM
PFW had him as their 4th-rated safety, ahead of Roman Harper who was drafted BEFORE Pollard.

Sporting News had him at #8 safety. I think Athlon was more like #7 S.

Ultra Peanut
04-30-2006, 01:57 PM
Kiper just said that Pollard was a 4th rounder.

Oh I know go ahead and lampoon him, but it is still a reach according to everyone but Carl.Kiper didn't have Gostkowski in his top five kickers list, which was a big WTF. He is not infallible.

banyon
04-30-2006, 01:58 PM
Kiper didn't have Gostkowski in his top five kickers list, which was a big WTF. He is not infallible.

I can't find any "experts" who had Pollard rated this high. Mel Kiper basically said WTF? on this pick.

*edit* with the exception of the PFW issue htismaqe was reading last night

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 02:00 PM
Sporting News had him at #8 safety. I think Athlon was more like #7 S.

And he was the 6th safety drafted, after Huff, Whitner, Bullocks, Manning, Harper.

Amazing how that works.

BigChiefFan
04-30-2006, 02:00 PM
$2M base salary IS excessive considering Knight's ability and age.Then why even sign him in the first place? It's not like we didn't know what the contract was structured as. It's moves like this that really make me question the front office. A player is either worth the ENTIRE contract or they're not. It's on the FO to know where the team is well into the future and short-sightedness like this, keeps putting us in a deeper and deeper hole. If you KNOW that a player is only going to serve 2 of the 5 years, why even bother?

banyon
04-30-2006, 02:01 PM
And he was the 6th safety drafted, after Huff, Whitner, Bullocks, Manning, Harper.

Amazing how the works.

my bad. I meant # 8 rated SS.

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 02:03 PM
Then why even sign him in the first place? It's not like we didn't know what the contract was structured as. It's moves like this that really make me question the front office. A player is either worth the ENTIRE contract or they're not. It's on the FO to know where the team is well into the future and short-sightedness like this, keeps putting us in a deeper and deeper hole. If you KNOW that a player is only going to serve 2 of the 5 years, why even bother?


You're kidding, right?

Teams do this ALL THE TIME. You sign him for 5 years and backload the base salary so that the first-year cap hit is less, due to spreading the SB out over 5 years.

Seriously, you're not serious are you?

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 02:05 PM
my bad. I meant # 8 rated SS.

Roman Harper was the only one of those listed as a FS by NFL.com.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/position/SS

BigChiefFan
04-30-2006, 02:49 PM
You're kidding, right?

Teams do this ALL THE TIME. You sign him for 5 years and backload the base salary so that the first-year cap hit is less, due to spreading the SB out over 5 years.

Seriously, you're not serious are you?
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is, MOST teams can see the forest through the trees and know if a player is a LONG-TERM solution or not. Obviously they're are variables to that, but smart GMs look for players to live-up to the entire length of the contract. How anyone can think that teams sign players to a long-term contract, just so they can take a CAP-HIT is beyond me. It's not the PREFERRED way of signing players, I can tell you that. Losing money, isn't the goal of the plan. on the last year of their contract, so they don't lose that player in FA.

Prime Example is Jerome Woods. It was obvious he awasn't a priority to re-sign and we go out and sign him to a LONG-TERM deal, so he can ride the pine making starter's money.

htismaqe
04-30-2006, 02:51 PM
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is, MOST teams can see the forest through the trees and know if a player is a LONG-TERM solution or not. Obviously they're are variables to that, but smart GMs look for players to live-up to the entire length of the contract. How anyone can think that teams sign players to a long-term contract, just so they can take a CAP-HIT is beyond me. It's not the PREFERRED way of signing players, I can tell you that. Losing money, isn't the goal of the plan. on the last year of their contract, so they don't lose that player in FA.

Prime Example is Jerome Woods. It was obvious he awasn't a priority to re-sign and we go out and sign him to a LONG-TERM deal, so he can ride the pine making starter's money.

If you honestly believe that, I don't know what to tell you. You just haven't been watching the NFL apparently.

There might be a handful of players in the league who will play out their contracts. Every team signs guys to deals that are longer than they'll actually play there. They do this to LESSEN the cap hit.

bringbackmarty
04-30-2006, 02:54 PM
I don't consider Knight's contract numbers to be excessive for a starting SS.
they are for one who sucks and is slow.