PDA

View Full Version : Whitlock - Scoffing Law is maddening


Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 07:21 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/15048304.htm

Scoffing Law is maddening


You ever get in a dispute with your child when you have to remind him/her that you havenít always been grown, that you used to be dumb, young and prone to lying?

My mother always says, ďAinít nothing new but the doers.Ē

Iím about to have one of those moments with Carl Peterson and the Chiefs as it relates to free-agent cornerback Ty Law.

I truly donít claim to know everything about sports. U.S. soccer just canned Bruce Arena. I donít know whether it was the right move or not. Doctors recently removed 80 percent of Barbaroís right-hind-hoof wall. I wonít second-guess their decision. According to the New York tabloids, Michael Strahanís soon-to-be ex-wife claims the defensive end tried to secretly videotape her sister. Without a look at the ďevidence,Ē I canít comment about what motivated Strahan.

I try to stick to what I know in this column space, stuff Iíve been told firsthand, stuff I know from experience.

Ty Law can significantly improve the Kansas City Chiefs. He can make them a playoff team, maybe even a Super Bowl contender. Ty Law, for my money, is the best cornerback in football. This is a fact. And itís not a fact based on a lifelong friendship, like the fact (my belief) that Jeff George can still help some NFL team.

My factual opinion about Ty Law is completely unbiased.

Iím growing irate that the Chiefs are insisting on playing a Mickey Mouse game with the best cornerback in football when Stevie Wonder, Helen Keller and Abe Lincoln can see that the Chiefsí defense is in desperate need of a top-flight corner to pair with Patrick Surtain.

The Chiefs have the cap space, the need and the right coach (Herm Edwards), so I donít see why Carl Peterson keeps stating that Ty Lawís acquisition is an ďeconomicĒ decision.

It should be a football decision. Period.

With Eric Warfield drying out the first four weeks and average corner play the rest of the season, the Chiefs finished 10-6 a year ago. Meanwhile ó stuck playing on an injury-riddled New York Jets squad ó Law put together a league-leading, 10-interception Pro Bowl season on a less-than-100-percent-healthy foot.

Would the Chiefs have qualified for the playoffs had Peterson signed Law last season? Seriously, do you think Law, his 10 interceptions, sure tackling, toughness and experience wouldíve been worth one victory?

You see why Iím getting upset?

Peterson is pretending like the Chiefs can afford to play this year without Ty Law. They canít. Oh, you can take solace in the fact that no other NFL team has met Lawís contract demands if you choose to, but I know Peterson/Chiefs have more to lose in this game of chicken than Law.

Law has three Super Bowl rings and four Super Bowl appearances. Heís proved heís a solid piece to a teamís Super Bowl equation. Rather than accept money he believes to be far below his market value, Law can wait and sign with a bad team willing to pay a little more.

Obviously thatís not ideal. But neither is signing with a good team, helping it reach its goal and being completely unhappy with your contract a year later.

The Chiefs need Ty Law more than Ty Law needs the Chiefs.

The Chiefs have suspects ó not prospects ó competing to play opposite Surtain right now. The longer this things drags out, the more I suspect Law will return to New England or sign with some desperate squad such as Arizona.

Law told me at the Pro Bowl that heís looking for $10 million in guaranteed bonuses. Iíd get creative and give it to him. Yes, heís 32 and missed nine games and the playoffs in 2004. Before the 2004 season, he was quite reliable. He held up for 16 games last year, and should only be better this year.

Not signing Ty Law would be a terrible mistake.

milkman
07-16-2006, 07:29 AM
Factual opinion?

StcChief
07-16-2006, 07:56 AM
The Chiefs need Ty Law more than Ty Law needs the Chiefs.

Alot of truth there. Ty Law's reason to play in KC has to be more than 'the money' or it likely won't happen

How about a 4th SB ring, and bringing a SB to KC.
We have our last best shot this year for quite some time.

ImAWalkingCorpse
07-16-2006, 08:01 AM
He loses me everytime he brings up Jeff George....

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 08:12 AM
This should end any chances we had of getting Ty Law. King Carl is not going to let JW have the last word on this. Two Giant Male egos here and Carl is going to have the last word. The only thing bigger than JWs ego is his gut.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 08:13 AM
This should end any chances we had of getting Ty Law. King Carl is not going to let JW have the last word on this. Two Giant Male egos here and Carl is going to have the last word. The only thing bigger than JWs ego is his gut.

There is no way Carl Peterson is going to let a columnist dictate what the team does and does not do. No effing way.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 08:46 AM
There is no way Carl Peterson is going to let a columnist dictate what the team does and does not do. No effing way.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Coogs
07-16-2006, 08:53 AM
This should end any chances we had of getting Ty Law. King Carl is not going to let JW have the last word on this. Two Giant Male egos here and Carl is going to have the last word.


I agree. :banghead:

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 09:31 AM
Exactly the point I was trying to make.

No, you weren't. You were trying to say that whatever Jason Whitlock wants, Jason Whitlock isn't going to get. Carl Peterson doesn't give a rats ass what Whitlock thinks. He's not going to forget about Ty Law just to spite a columnist.

CoMoChief
07-16-2006, 09:37 AM
No, you weren't. You were trying to say that whatever Jason Whitlock wants, Jason Whitlock isn't going to get. Carl Peterson doesn't give a rats ass what Whitlock thinks. He's not going to forget about Ty Law just to spite a columnist.


I think you misunderstood him.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 09:53 AM
I think you misunderstood him.

I don't think I did.

Bowser
07-16-2006, 09:57 AM
No, you weren't. You were trying to say that whatever Jason Whitlock wants, Jason Whitlock isn't going to get. Carl Peterson doesn't give a rats ass what Whitlock thinks. He's not going to forget about Ty Law just to spite a columnist.

On the contrary, I think Peterson has a big enough ego to do just that. Whitlock is very popular throughout the country, is well read, and Peterson knows this. He more than likely feels like he's being "called out", and he doesn't want to look like the guy who was "forced" into signing anyone by anybody.

One question - If this whole Ty Law thing isn't about Peterson being "one tough son-of-a-bitch", then why haven't we signed Ty Law by now?

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 09:58 AM
I really think you're reaching. There is no way Carl is dumb enough to let a columnist dictate his actions. He's going to do what is best for the team, regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants.

And I believe it comes down to Herm, anyway. If Herm wants Ty Law, he WILL get him.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 09:59 AM
One question - If this whole Ty Law thing isn't about Peterson being "one tough son-of-a-bitch", then why haven't we signed Ty Law by now?

Ty Law wasn't signed by the Jets last year until just before training camp.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 10:01 AM
I think you misunderstood him.

Generation gap.

Bowser
07-16-2006, 10:03 AM
I really think you're reaching. There is no way Carl is dumb enough to let a columnist dictate his actions. He's going to do what is best for the team, regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants.

And I believe it comes down to Herm, anyway. If Herm wants Ty Law, he WILL get him.

I hope you're right. You'd think that would be the way it would happen, but....

I think back to earlier this offseason when Keyshawn Johnson called Carl personally to tell him he wanted to come play here. Carl hemmed and hawed, and Keyshawn ended up in Carolina. Having Key would have helped this team, unquestionably. But Carl just seemingly has his own agenda.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 10:06 AM
I hope you're right. You'd think that would be the way it would happen, but....

I think back to earlier this offseason when Keyshawn Johnson called Carl personally to tell him he wanted to come play here. Carl hemmed and hawed, and Keyshawn ended up in Carolina. Having Key would have helped this team, unquestionably. But Carl just seemingly has his own agenda.

I think Carl knows that Keyshawn had no place on this team. And so did Herm. To my knowledge the Chiefs never even made him a contract offer.

Bowser
07-16-2006, 10:06 AM
Ty Law wasn't signed by the Jets last year until just before training camp.

True. And with him being the vet he his, I'm sure he won't sign until then this year with whoever he ends up with.

I get the jist of Whitlock's column, that it's just frustrating having a guy sitting out there who could undoubtedly help this team. Lock him up before someone else sneaks in and steals him away.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 10:08 AM
No, you weren't. You were trying to say that whatever Jason Whitlock wants, Jason Whitlock isn't going to get. Carl Peterson doesn't give a rats ass what Whitlock thinks. He's not going to forget about Ty Law just to spite a columnist.

Ok, I see the difference now. I thought we were saying the same thing, but I guess not. Little slow today I guess. Carl is not going to let Jason take credit for any success this team has. So if Carl has to make do without Ty Law, he will. Has Carl ever gotten even remotely close to doing anything JW suggests? I think if Carl signed Ty Law and the Chiefs won the Super Bowl, JW would write an article saying it was because of his suggestions. Carl is not going to let that happen, it is his team to do with as he pleases.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 10:12 AM
Carl is not going to let Jason take credit for any success this team has. So if Carl has to make do without Ty Law, he will.

I think you're completely, 100% off base. I don't think Carl gives a crap about what Jason Whitlock thinks. I don't think he's going to sit there and throw away a chance at a Super Bowl just because it might bruise his ego.

"DAMMIT! I COULD WIN THE SUPER BOWL, BUT I WOULD MAKE JASON WHITLOCK LOOK GOOD! WHAT AM I TO DO?"

I think that's a really stupid line of reasoning. I'm not a big Carl fan, but I don't think his ego is SO HUGE that he would do something so stupid.

Chief Chief
07-16-2006, 10:13 AM
TL isn't going to sign with any team until just prior to the start of or during training camp. CP could have an offer out there right now for $10M/year and TL ain't gonna do anything about it, just to see if any other team is going to match or raise it. Hell, he might even pass on it if another team who he wants to be with offers, say, $9M/year. I'm just sick and tired of all this prodding and poking by the media because they continue to get the same damn answers from the Chiefs but yet they still prod and poke. The media knows they can't do a damn thing about it either, yet they still ask the same f***in' questions. The bottom line is that Law will make the final decision and there ain't nothin' anybody can do about it until he does!

the Talking Can
07-16-2006, 10:15 AM
"My factual opinion about Ty Law is completely unbiased."


the most amazing sentence ever....Nick Athan is crying at its beauty....

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 10:16 AM
I think you're completely, 100% off base. I don't think Carl gives a crap about what Jason Whitlock thinks. I don't think he's going to sit there and throw away a chance at a Super Bowl just because it might bruise his ego.

"DAMMIT! I COULD WIN THE SUPER BOWL, BUT I WOULD MAKE JASON WHITLOCK LOOK GOOD! WHAT AM I TO DO?"

I think that's a really stupid line of reasoning. I'm not a big Carl fan, but I don't think his ego is SO HUGE that he would do something so stupid.

Ok, so why did he make it a point to find another top flight CB last year instead of Ty Law? JW was pounding the TY Law drum even harder last year, before and after we got Surtain.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 10:17 AM
Ok, so why did he make it a point to find another top flight CB last year instead of Ty Law? JW was pounding the TY Law drum even harder last year, before and after we got Surtain.

I don't think Dick Vermeil wanted Ty Law here. And I don't really believe that Ty Law even wanted to be here. He wants to be here now that he sees eye to eye with the head coach.

KChiefs1
07-16-2006, 10:20 AM
well that cinches it...Ty Law won't be playing for the Chiefs this year. Thanks Fatlock!

Cochise
07-16-2006, 10:27 AM
Peterson is pretending like the Chiefs can afford to play this year without Ty Law. They canít.

Unless you think the Chiefs were good enough to make the playoffs last year once Larry Johnson started playing and the line worked out its issues, which is probably what Carl is thinking. So in his mind they probably don't need to make any major moves.

Mr. Laz
07-16-2006, 10:30 AM
Carl Peterson doesn't give a rats ass what Whitlock thinks
that complete and utter crap


if carl didn't care about what columnists think he wouldn't go out of his way to play all his BS games with them.


he cares more than he should

Mr. Laz
07-16-2006, 10:30 AM
well that cinches it...Ty Law won't be playing for the Chiefs this year. Thanks Fatlock!
like it's really his fault either way :rolleyes:

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 10:30 AM
I don't think Dick Vermeil wanted Ty Law here. DV did not want LJ either, but Carl did.


And I don't really believe that Ty Law even wanted to be here. He wants to be here now that he sees eye to eye with the head coach.
You think Ty Law wanted to be a Jet? I think all he really cares about is the money. I remember him saying the Chiefs could not afford him and Surtain.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-16-2006, 10:31 AM
Whitlock is basically right, IMO. Without Warfield, it could actually be, dare I say it, worse than last year for the pass defense. He is right, we have suspects vying for the job, not prospects.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 10:34 AM
DV did not want LJ either, but Carl did.

OK, that's true, but Jason Whitlock is not the head coach. I really, truly don't think Carl is going to let Whitlock dictate his actions.

Also, LJ was a draft pick. Ty Law is a free agent. Carl let GUNTHER CUNNINGHAM hand pick his defensive free agents last year. I think he will absolutely let Herm do the same.



You think Ty Law wanted to be a Jet?

The Jets were coming off a playoff season. Ty Law was perceived as the player that would put them over the top.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
07-16-2006, 10:46 AM
I think Whitlock should keep his head out of the Chiefs business and back up his anal orifice where it usually is.

If he is so determined to shame CP into getting Law he needs to pony up the $10M himself. I'm sure the Chiefs would appreciate that and Jason would finally have one of the players of his choice on the team.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 10:52 AM
OK, that's true, but Jason Whitlock is not the head coach. I really, truly don't think Carl is going to let Whitlock dictate his actions. I am a Carl fan, but I think he wants make sure everyone knows he is the boss and makes the decisions. I think he really hates JW, and would go out of his way to do the exact opposite of anything JW writes. If JW really wanted this team to succeed, he should play this. He won't though because he has made his National Rep being a detractor.

Also, LJ was a draft pick. Ty Law is a free agent. True, but Carl showed Dick who was boss, the honeymoon was over.

Carl let GUNTHER CUNNINGHAM hand pick his defensive free agents last year. I think he will absolutely let Herm do the same.
I honestly think Carl still feels a little guilty about the way he fired Gunther last time, I can not explain why continues with him. He has to give Herm what he wants during the honey moon period since he is a new coach. I would agree that might overide his issues with JW on the Ty Law thing, but I doubt it.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 10:53 AM
I am a Carl fan,

How can you be a fan of someone who would act so stupid (in your opinion)?

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:06 AM
How can you be a fan of someone who would act so stupid (in your opinion)?

He is human, he has been successful more than he has not IMO. I have made a pretty good living by having a fairly good understanding of the Male Ego.
One of the moves that he made, that really pissed me off was the Joe Montana aquisition. I know we disagree on that one.
But I am sure of this, he knows much more about football than most of us BB posters.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:08 AM
He is human, he has been successful more than he has not IMO. I have made a pretty good living by having a fairly good understanding of the Male Ego.
One the moves that he made, that really pissed me off was the Joe Montana aquisition. I know we disagree on that one.
But I sure of this, he knows much more about football than most of us BB posters.

ROFL

Sorry, nothing personal, but I can't help but laugh at all this.

The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game SINCE Joe Montana. Easily one of Carl's best moves.

Getting Ty Law would probably do about the same.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:14 AM
ROFL

Sorry, nothing personal, but I can't help but laugh at all this.

The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game SINCE Joe Montana. Easily one of Carl's best moves.

Getting Ty Law would probably do about the same.


Oh, I never said that getting Ty Law would not be a great move, I think it would be. This team is old, and needs to do it now. When he traded away a 1st for Joe Montana (2 years and gone) the team was young. I think the situations are totally different.

cdcox
07-16-2006, 11:15 AM
Do you folks seriously think Carl's ego is small enough that he would allow anthing a columnist said to affect his decision one way or another? Carl doesn't care what the fans think, didn't care what DV thought, doesn't care what agents think, doesn't care what players think. Peterson might care what the Hunt's think, but only because he tells them what to think 99% of the time.

GoChiefs is dead-on-correct this time. Carl's going to do whatever he wants because he wants to.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:19 AM
Do you folks seriously think Carl's ego is small enough that he would allow anthing a columnist said to affect his decision one way or another? Carl doesn't care what the fans think, didn't care what DV thought, doesn't care what agents think, doesn't care what players think. Peterson might care what the Hunt's think, but only because he tells them what to think 99% of the time.

GoChiefs is dead-on-correct this time. Carl's going to do whatever he wants because he wants to.


Ok, so why did we give up a 2nd for Surtain and about the same money we could have signed Ty Law for? Just curious what you think, I know when JW was pounding the TL bandwagon last year I predicted we would not sign him for the very same reason.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:21 AM
When he traded away a 1st for Joe Montana (2 years and gone) the team was young.

What was Carl supposed to do? Stick with Dave Krieg? Draft a quarterback?

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:23 AM
Ok, so why did we give up a 2nd for Surtain and about the same money we could have signed Ty Law for? Just curious what you think, I know when JW was pounding the TL bandwagon last year I predicted we would not sign him for the very same reason.

I already told you. Dick Vermeil + the fact that Ty Law never really wanted to play here last year.

Also, the Chiefs had already spent a TON of money on free agents. They weren't going to blow another 10 million.

cdcox
07-16-2006, 11:28 AM
Ok, so why did we give up a 2nd for Surtain and about the same money we could have signed Ty Law for? Just curious what you think, I know when JW was pounding the TL bandwagon last year I predicted we would not sign him for the very same reason.

Carl thought it was the better option. Sutrain is a couple years younger for one.

If you think CP always does the opposite of what JW says, look at the Dan Williams situation. Carl didn't want to pay him and didn't. JW beat up Peterson all year over it. Carl signed Dan Williams to a fat extension the next year, which would appear to be going along with JW. I doubt Carl ever took JW opinion into consideration the entire episode.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:30 AM
I just think any general manager that allows the press to dictate his actions is really stupid...and a poor general manager. Is there any precedent for Carl doing this?

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:30 AM
Draft a quarterback? That is what I was hoping for that year. I think SF took Dana Stubblefield with the pick IIRC.

cdcox
07-16-2006, 11:33 AM
As an interesting note, the Chiefs have never drafted a QB that has had any decent level of success for the team. Dawson, Green, Deberg, Gannon, Grbac, Montana were all trades or FA.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:35 AM
As an interesting note, the Chiefs have never drafted a QB that has had any decent level of success for the team. Dawson, Green, Deberg, Gannon, Grbac, Montana were all trades or FA.

True, a lot of people can not get over Carl drafting Todd Blackledge. :p

cdcox
07-16-2006, 11:36 AM
True, a lot of people can not get over Carl drafting Todd Blackledge. :p

You think he would have learned after the Steve Fuller experiment.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:36 AM
That is what I was hoping for that year. I think SF took Dana Stubblefield with the pick IIRC.

Yeah. The best QB the Chiefs could have drafted that year would have been...Mark Brunell in the 5th round.

Or Trent Green... ROFL

Dammit Carl! We could have had Green in the 7th round instead of giving up a 1st in 2001!

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:39 AM
Yeah. The best QB the Chiefs could have drafted that year would have been...Mark Brunell in the 5th round.

Or Trent Green... ROFL

Dammit Carl! We could have had Green in the 7th round instead of giving up a 1st in 2001!


Isn't hind sight great! Like I said, I was pissed at the time. Joe was not going to play much longer and we gave up a 1st.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:39 AM
I don't know why. The draft certainly wasn't really an option. Was there a younger free agent QB we missed out on?

We could have picked up the great Jeff Hostetler that year.

milkman
07-16-2006, 11:41 AM
ROFL

Sorry, nothing personal, but I can't help but laugh at all this.

The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game SINCE Joe Montana. Easily one of Carl's best moves.

Getting Ty Law would probably do about the same.

Trading for Montana was short sighted, IMO.

Yes, what Montana did for the Cheifs was electrifying, but the hope is, or should be, that a first round pick gives you more than one electrfying year, and two years in total.

I was against that trade.

I felt that adding Steve Beuerlien in free agency, along with Marcus Allen would have been a better move in the long term.

I am not certain, but I believe that the 9ers used the first round pick we traded to them to select Dana Stubblefield, and the second round pick was sent to Dallas, which they used to select Darrin Smith.

Imagine the Chiefs in '95 with Beuerlien at QB and those guys on our defense.

Beuerlien is not in Montana's class, but I sure as hell would rather have had him at QB in those later years over Bono and Grbac.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:41 AM
You think he would have learned after the Steve Fuller experiment.

No kidding, what really hurt on that one was his success with the Bears.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Trading for Montana was short sighted, IMO.

Yes, what Montana did for the Chiefs was electrifying, but the hope is, or should be, that a first round pick gives you more than one electrfying year, and two years in total.

I was against that trade.

I felt that adding Steve Beuerlien in free agency, along with Marcus Allen would have been a better move in the long term.

I am not certain, but I believe that the 9ers used the first round pick we traded to them to select Dana Stubblefield, and the second round pick was sent to Dallas, which they used to select Darrin Smith.

Imagine the Chiefs in '95 with Beuerlien at QB and those guys on our defense.

Beuerlien is not in Montana's class, but I sure as hell would rather have had him at QB in those later years over Bono and Grbac.

Now were getting somewhere. Bernie Kosar was also available via trade, but he was older. Beuerlein was in his 4th year in the league...but I don't think he was all that great. Career 56.9% passer.

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 11:45 AM
Ok, so why did we give up a 2nd for Surtain and about the same money we could have signed Ty Law for? Just curious what you think, I know when JW was pounding the TL bandwagon last year I predicted we would not sign him for the very same reason.

Are you even ****ing serious?

When we signed Surtain, who is almost THREE YEARS younger than Law by the way, Ty Law was in a ****ing motorized WHEEL CHAIR.

We absolutely HAD to have a CB last year before the season - depending on Ty Law would have been stupid beyond stupid.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:45 AM
Ken O' Brien was a free agent that year. Why did he retire early?

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Carl thought it was the better option. Sutrain is a couple years younger for one.

If you think CP always does the opposite of what JW says, look at the Dan Williams situation. Carl didn't want to pay him and didn't. JW beat up Peterson all year over it. Carl signed Dan Williams to a fat extension the next year, which would appear to be going along with JW. I doubt Carl ever took JW opinion into consideration the entire episode.

Get that shit out of here. You're ruining a perfectly good bitch.

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:48 AM
Trading for Montana was short sighted, IMO.Yes, what Montana did for the Chiefs was electrifying, but the hope is, or should be, that a first round pick gives you more than one electrfying year, and two years in total.

I was against that trade.
My point exactly and I think that was Carl's fifth year?


I felt that adding Steve Beuerlien in free agency, along with Marcus Allen would have been a better move in the long term.

I am not certain, but I believe that the 9ers used the first round pick we traded to them to select Dana Stubblefield, and the second round pick was sent to Dallas, which they used to select Darrin Smith.

Imagine the Chiefs in '95 with Beuerlien at QB and those guys on our defense.

Beuerlien is not in Montana's class, but I sure as hell would rather have had him at QB in those later years over Bono and Grbac.
Well said.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:49 AM
I don't suppose anyone knows why we didn't sign Steve Beuerlein?

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:50 AM
Are you even ****ing serious?

When we signed Surtain, who is almost THREE YEARS younger than Law by the way, Ty Law was in a ****ing motorized WHEEL CHAIR.

We absolutely HAD to have a CB last year before the season - depending on Ty Law would have been stupid beyond stupid.

You answered the question, thanks.

milkman
07-16-2006, 11:51 AM
Now were getting somewhere. Bernie Kosar was also available via trade, but he was older. Beuerlein was in his 4th year in the league...but I don't think he was all that great. Career 56.9% passer.

I think that Beuerlein would have been a good fit for Marty's version of the west coast offense.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:51 AM
Beuerlein sucked arse with the Raiders...maybe Marty didn't want him since he had faced him and knew what kind of QB he was...or thought he knew.

You guys make some pretty good points. We should have traded for Kosar in case Beuerlein ended up as a FA bust...Kosar wouldn't have cost a 1st and then we could have drafted Stubblefield.

milkman
07-16-2006, 11:52 AM
I don't suppose anyone knows why we didn't sign Steve Beuerlein?

Because Carl had no interest.

He had his sights set on Montana, and he was going to get him come hell or high water.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:54 AM
Carl traded a 1st round pick for Joe Montana and the rights to my fan status. :)

milkman
07-16-2006, 11:55 AM
Beuerlein sucked arse with the Raiders...maybe Marty didn't want him since he had faced him and knew what kind of QB he was...or thought he knew.

You guys make some pretty good points. We should have traded for Kosar in case Beuerlein ended up as a FA bust...Kosar wouldn't have cost a 1st and then we could have drafted Stubblefield.

Beuerline didn't suck arse with the Raiders, he just didn't have any talent surrounding him.

In spite of that, he showed he was capable of making plays, which is the reason I was hoping that Carl would get over his woody for Montana and make a play for Beuerlien.

milkman
07-16-2006, 11:56 AM
Carl traded a 1st round pick for Joe Montana and the rights to my fan status. :)

Maybe the most negative aspect of that trade

cdcox
07-16-2006, 11:57 AM
Because Carl had no interest.

He had his sights set on Montana, and he was going to get him come hell or high water.

Good point, that gets back to the topic: Carl does what he wants to. Carl obviously had a woody for SF signal callers. We were running a modified West Coast offense in those years, so it does have some logic to it.

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 11:58 AM
I was hoping that Carl would get over his woody for Montana and make a play for Beuerlien.

If only message boards had been around....

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Carl traded a 1st round pick for Joe Montana and the rights to my fan status. :)

That was the reason I mentioned it in the first place.

blueballs
07-16-2006, 12:00 PM
how was stadium attendence
befoe Montana?

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 12:02 PM
how was stadium attendence
befoe Montana?

The Chiefs have 125 consecutive sellouts. Pretty sure the attendance was fine after Marty's first year.

NJ Chief Fan
07-16-2006, 12:11 PM
Carl traded a 1st round pick for Joe Montana and the rights to my fan status. :)
might as well throw in my fan status into the equation

Halfcan
07-16-2006, 12:57 PM
10 mil signing bonus seems too high. Maybe 5 mil over 3 years. That 10 mil would eat a lot of cap room.

jwhit
07-16-2006, 03:07 PM
2 years and four months isn't quite "almost" 3 years older.... it's really 2 years older.... the age difference between law and surtain...

maybe you meant to say that law has "almost" 4 more super bowl rings than surtain???

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 03:11 PM
2 years and four months isn't quite "almost" 3 years older.... it's really 2 years older.... the age difference between law and surtain...

maybe you meant to say that law has "almost" 4 more super bowl rings than surtain???

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3820

4 months is 33% of a full year. I apparently look at age the same way you look at a slab of ribs, I figured you get 33% in and you might as well go for the rest.

And what does Super Bowl rings have to do with anything? Did he win them all by himself?

Instead of trying to change the subject, address the wheel chair. Of course, you can't...

Valiant
07-16-2006, 03:23 PM
Unless we get more consistant pressure on the QB without sell out blitzes, having Law would not matter...

NO pass rush makes even the best CB look average, look at Surtain.. YOu can only cover a WR for so long..

blueballs
07-16-2006, 03:37 PM
so if Law got 10 INTs with the Jets
means he would have gotten 10 with the Chiefs
look out Playboy Mansion
here I come baby!

tomahawk kid
07-16-2006, 03:56 PM
With the first round pick that the 9ers acquired from the Chiefs for Montana, they selected JJ Stokes.

A disappointment at best.......

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 04:04 PM
With the first round pick that the 9ers acquired from the Chiefs for Montana, they selected JJ Stokes.

A disappointment at best.......

Actually it was Dana Stubblefield.

jidar
07-16-2006, 04:27 PM
TWITLOCK TWITLOCK TWITLOCK
SOMEONE SHUT THAT STUPID FA G GOT THE **** UP.

milkman
07-16-2006, 04:55 PM
With the first round pick that the 9ers acquired from the Chiefs for Montana, they selected JJ Stokes.

A disappointment at best.......

That's not even close.

JJ Stokes didn't even enter the NFL until '95

tk13
07-16-2006, 05:08 PM
Tamba Hali is more important to this team than Ty Law will be. CB competition is good, but the thought process is completely backward. You don't build a defense through the cornerback position. Especially if we're going to be playing a lot more cover 2.

And I'm a huge Law fan, I think he'd be our best CB. I wanted to see us go after him last year. He would help, but he's not going to make or break this defense. The idea that the two highest paid guys on our D would be CB's makes me cringe a bit, because the NFL has turned it into one of the most useless positions on the field. Just doesn't seem to make much economic sense.

tomahawk kid
07-16-2006, 05:08 PM
My bad.....

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 05:10 PM
Tamba Hali is more important to this team than Ty Law will be.

Are you saying Ty Law won't get 10 interceptions?

Rausch
07-16-2006, 05:15 PM
Tamba Hali is more important to this team than Ty Law will be.

While I'm pulling for the guy he got manhandled by bigger T's.

Can Hali share his experience with the defensive scheme to younger players?

Can Hali bring super bowl experience?

Can Hali command respect in the lockerroom and for our secondary?

Hali is a ****ing ROOKIE. He's not even a veteran let alone a probowler and league leader in ANY catagory with a super bowl ring.

To compare the two is idiocy...

greg63
07-16-2006, 05:16 PM
Iím growing irate that the Chiefs are insisting on playing a Mickey Mouse game with the best cornerback in football when Stevie Wonder, Helen Keller and Abe Lincoln can see that the Chiefsí defense is in desperate need of a top-flight corner to pair with Patrick Surtain.

For some reason Fatlock reference to Lincoln cracks me up. What is that about? ROFL

CoMoChief
07-16-2006, 05:17 PM
Are you saying Ty Law won't get 10 interceptions?

I would bet that he doesnt get 7. Now just because you dont get INTs all the time doesnt mean youre not any good. Because Law would still be better than anyone we have outside Surtain by leaps and bounds. I still dont think he's really worth the money he would cost us later on down the road. We REALLY should have signed Rocky Benard and I will continue to complain about Carl's failure to get the man signed with us all season long.

Moooo
07-16-2006, 05:20 PM
I would bet that he doesnt get 7. Now just because you dont get INTs all the time doesnt mean youre not any good. Because Law would still be better than anyone we have outside Surtain by leaps and bounds. I still dont think he's really worth the money he would cost us later on down the road. We REALLY should have signed Rocky Benard and I will continue to complain about Carl's failure to get the man signed with us all season long.

He could get O INT's for all I care, I just wanna see QBs struggling to make a choice between him and Surtain.

He actually has the promise to make as many as last year with someone else on the other side of such a great caliber. 6 in one hand, a half dozen in the other.

Then again, I'm concerned about how all the LBs are going to adapt to the Cover 2 scheme. I think DJ will be fine, but the others I don't know about (not that I doubt them, I just don't know).

Moooo

Rausch
07-16-2006, 05:24 PM
Then again, I'm concerned about how all the LBs are going to adapt to the Cover 2 scheme. I think DJ will be fine, but the others I don't know about (not that I doubt them, I just don't know).

Moooo

I'm not worried about Kawika either, I think he's perfectly suited for a cover 2. Our other OLB though (WTF that ends up being) I'm not so confident about...

HemiEd
07-16-2006, 05:26 PM
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3820

4 months is 33% of a full year. I apparently look at age the same way you look at a slab of ribs, I figured you get 33% in and you might as well go for the rest.




I like ribs! You like ribs!

CoMoChief
07-16-2006, 05:29 PM
He could get O INT's for all I care, I just wanna see QBs struggling to make a choice between him and Surtain.

He actually has the promise to make as many as last year with someone else on the other side of such a great caliber. 6 in one hand, a half dozen in the other.

Then again, I'm concerned about how all the LBs are going to adapt to the Cover 2 scheme. I think DJ will be fine, but the others I don't know about (not that I doubt them, I just don't know).

Moooo


Kawika is also decent in coverage, he plays fast IMO. I remember him running basically step for step with Randy Moss vs. OAK. Why he was doing that I still do not know but I think he will do fine. Bell couldnt cover a guy in a wheelchair. DJ will be fine.

We could have Deion Sanders (in his prime) and (put in any CB you desire) and we would still get our asses kicked on defense if we dont have a pass rush. Our DT situation is a joke coming into this season and we had a chance to sign a guy (Benard) who had 8 sacks as a DT who couldve signed for hardly anything considering how he produced on the field.

tk13
07-16-2006, 05:29 PM
While I'm pulling for the guy he got manhandled by bigger T's.

Can Hali share his experience with the defensive scheme to younger players?

Can Hali bring super bowl experience?

Can Hali command respect in the lockerroom and for our secondary?

Hali is a ****ing ROOKIE. He's not even a veteran let alone a probowler and league leader in ANY catagory with a super bowl ring.

To compare the two is idiocy...
I did not say he'd be a better player. I said he's more important to this team than Ty Law would be.

This isn't rocket science. Most people couldn't even name the 4 starting CB's for the last two Super Bowl winners. Heck most people couldn't name the CB's for the losers. Last year the Seahawks had Andre Dyson and Kelly Herndon as two of their three top corners... guys I thought we should go after because they were cheap and effective. But I was called crazy for because they weren't "elite" corners like Surtain. That worked out real well.

Cornerbacks are nothing without a pass rush. The Broncos have had an excellent, excellent secondary, but every year in the playoffs they have a total defensive meltdown because somebody dismantles their blitz and the DB's are rendered useless. That's the way it is anymore because you can't sneeze on the WR's.

Ty Law was the best cornerback in the NFL. The best. And when he went down a couple years ago, his team put a couple relative no-names at corner, and didn't miss a beat. They cruised right along and won the Super Bowl anyway. That's how much of an impact a CB has. All that other stuff is overrated. We already have Surtain and Knight to quarterback and provide leadership for the secondary. If we sign Law, great, you can't argue with more talent. I'm not against signing him at all, although $10 million guaranteed is pretty steep. But it'll only be a success if we get a solid pass rush. Maybe we will get a 10 times better pass rush, if we do Law could be the piece that puts us over the top... we will be a force... but I see that as step 2, not step 1.

Coogs
07-16-2006, 05:29 PM
Tamba Hali is more important to this team than Ty Law will be.

I have watched Hali play 4 games on ESPNU over the past couple of weeks. He is a nice player. But he does not appear to be a difference maker. He does not look like the type of player that opposing OC's are going to have to account for on every single play. For the #20 pick in the draft, I suppose you have to suspect that out of the player you draft (not being a real difference maker/impact player), otherwise he probably would have been drafted in the top 5 or 10. However, his play could possible make opposing OC's have to account for DJ on every play. The LB from Penn State playing behind Hali was a tackling machine.

I do agree that it is important for Hali to be a very solid player on our D-line for the next 10 years or so. I think for our defense to have any chance to move up to a top ten defense, Hali must contribute from day one.

Moooo
07-16-2006, 05:32 PM
I have watched Hali play 4 games on ESPNU over the past couple of weeks. He is a nice player. But he does not appear to be a difference maker. He does not look like the type of player that opposing OC's are going to have to account for on every single play. For the #20 pick in the draft, I suppose you have to suspect that out of the player you draft (not being a real difference maker/impact player), otherwise he probably would have been drafted in the top 5 or 10. However, his play could possible make opposing OC's have to account for DJ on every play. The LB from Penn State playing behind Hali was a tackling machine.

I do agree that it is important for Hali to be a very solid player on our D-line for the next 10 years or so. I think for our defense to have any chance to move up to a top ten defense, Hali must contribute from day one.

He will be a great team player, a solid starter, and that's it. We'll view him no differently than we do (insert random Chief player here). He won't be a playmaker, but he'll do the job and do it well.

Moooo

tk13
07-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Haha, I will repeat this... I am not saying Hali has to be better at his position than Law does at his. His development in improving our pass rush is more important than Ty Law will be. Unless Hicks suddenly finds it again, Carlos Hall stays healthy, or Sims has a breakout year.

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 05:40 PM
I have watched Hali play 4 games on ESPNU over the past couple of weeks. He is a nice player. But he does not appear to be a difference maker. He does not look like the type of player that opposing OC's are going to have to account for on every single play. For the #20 pick in the draft, I suppose you have to suspect that out of the player you draft (not being a real difference maker/impact player), otherwise he probably would have been drafted in the top 5 or 10. However, his play could possible make opposing OC's have to account for DJ on every play. The LB from Penn State playing behind Hali was a tackling machine.

I do agree that it is important for Hali to be a very solid player on our D-line for the next 10 years or so. I think for our defense to have any chance to move up to a top ten defense, Hali must contribute from day one.

Well, 4 games on ESPNU is certainly definitive. He'll never be a playmaker.

ROFL

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 05:41 PM
I did not say he'd be a better player. I said he's more important to this team than Ty Law would be.

This isn't rocket science. Most people couldn't even name the 4 starting CB's for the last two Super Bowl winners. Heck most people couldn't name the CB's for the losers. Last year the Seahawks had Andre Dyson and Kelly Herndon as two of their three top corners... guys I thought we should go after because they were cheap and effective. But I was called crazy for because they weren't "elite" corners like Surtain. That worked out real well.

Cornerbacks are nothing without a pass rush. The Broncos have had an excellent, excellent secondary, but every year in the playoffs they have a total defensive meltdown because somebody dismantles their blitz and the DB's are rendered useless. That's the way it is anymore because you can't sneeze on the WR's.

Ty Law was the best cornerback in the NFL. The best. And when he went down a couple years ago, his team put a couple relative no-names at corner, and didn't miss a beat. They cruised right along and won the Super Bowl anyway. That's how much of an impact a CB has. All that other stuff is overrated. We already have Surtain and Knight to quarterback and provide leadership for the secondary. If we sign Law, great, you can't argue with more talent. I'm not against signing him at all, although $10 million guaranteed is pretty steep. But it'll only be a success if we get a solid pass rush. Maybe we will get a 10 times better pass rush, if we do Law could be the piece that puts us over the top... we will be a force... but I see that as step 2, not step 1.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Moooo
07-16-2006, 05:43 PM
Well, 4 games on ESPNU is certainly definitive. He'll never be a playmaker.

ROFL

Its just not his style. There are playmakers, and there is the supporting cast. I think Hali will make an awesome player who will really tighten up his side of the field, but to say he's gonna be a playmaking Probowler doesn't make sense. Everything he's done in college says he won't be that kind of player.

Then again I'm sure that's what people said about other players who have proven them wrong.

Moooo

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 05:44 PM
I see what tk13 is saying.

If Hali has an average year (ala Hicks) and Law has a great season, we might win a couple more games.

If Hali has a great year (ala Neil Smith) and Law has an average year...we won't even notice that he had an average year. :)

Rausch
07-16-2006, 05:52 PM
I did not say he'd be a better player. I said he's more important to this team than Ty Law would be.

In five years, yeah.

Next year, no.

Cornerbacks are nothing without a pass rush. The Broncos have had an excellent, excellent secondary, but every year in the playoffs they have a total defensive meltdown because somebody dismantles their blitz and the DB's are rendered useless. That's the way it is anymore because you can't sneeze on the WR's.

The rules have NOT changed.

And a good pash rush is nothing with a slob at corner. Again, you look back 2 years ago to the Texans game and the Chargers @ KC. We had a damned good pass rush in both games. One series we had the Chargers on 3rd and 28 and they converted because Brees knew he could lob a deep one towards Dexter and complete it. And he did it 3 straight 3rd downs. When Carr saw pressure he just threw it deep.

Last year San Diego was 6th in the NFL in sacks and STILL had a horrible pass defense. One of the worst in the league. Their pass rush did not help their pass defense. The Giants and Rams finished top 10 in sacks and bottom 10 in passsing yrds allowed. The Steelers were 3rd in sacks and only 16th in yards allowed.

A pass rush isn't some magic pill.

Ty Law was the best cornerback in the NFL. The best. And when he went down a couple years ago, his team put a couple relative no-names at corner, and didn't miss a beat. They cruised right along and won the Super Bowl anyway. That's how much of an impact a CB has.

Aneas Williams helped turn that Rams defense around. Champ Bailey has made a huge difference for the Donks defense.

The problem isn't that CB no longer matters, the problem is that the quality of play and player at CB the last five years has fallen through the floor. All the more reason to snag an elite CB when you can.

Spicy McHaggis
07-16-2006, 05:57 PM
The LB from Penn State playing behind Hali was a tackling machine.


If Posluszny is comes back 100% healthy he'll be a top 5 pick next year.

tk13
07-16-2006, 05:57 PM
I see what tk13 is saying.

If Hali has an average year (ala Hicks) and Law has a great season, we might win a couple more games.

If Hali has a great year (ala Neil Smith) and Law has an average year...we won't even notice that he had an average year. :)
Ideally. Who knows. I mean that's what the Broncos try to do... use their DB's so everybody is covered one-on-one... then have a ton of bodies rotating in (aka the Browns) where you can blitz everybody else. We could do that, it is really fun to watch when it works. When it backfires though... you've seen what happened to the Broncos the last 3 playoffs. With two all-pros like Law and Surtain, maybe that would be enough to get to the playoffs.

Watch that AFC title game again, the Steelers picked up all their blitzes, so Coyer got passive, and Roethlisberger just picked them apart. Or maybe even the 2nd Chiefs/Broncos game. That might have been the best game Al Saunders ever called. The Broncos were all about blitz, blitz, blitz.. they rattled Bledsoe the week before doing it... they even did it to Brady in the playoffs. But Al softened them up, with the help of our O-line, and by the 2nd half he had them on their heels and LJ just ran them over.

tk13
07-16-2006, 06:07 PM
In five years, yeah.

Next year, no.



The rules have NOT changed.

And a good pash rush is nothing with a slob at corner. Again, you look back 2 years ago to the Texans game and the Chargers @ KC. We had a damned good pass rush in both games. One series we had the Chargers on 3rd and 28 and they converted because Brees knew he could lob a deep one towards Dexter and complete it. And he did it 3 straight 3rd downs. When Carr saw pressure he just threw it deep.

Last year San Diego was 6th in the NFL in sacks and STILL had a horrible pass defense. One of the worst in the league. Their pass rush did not help their pass defense. The Giants and Rams finished top 10 in sacks and bottom 10 in passsing yrds allowed. The Steelers were 3rd in sacks and only 16th in yards allowed.

A pass rush isn't some magic pill.



Aneas Williams helped turn that Rams defense around. Champ Bailey has made a huge difference for the Donks defense.

The problem isn't that CB no longer matters, the problem is that the quality of play and player at CB the last five years has fallen through the floor. All the more reason to snag an elite CB when you can.
Okay, I'll give this. You can't have Dexter McCleon playing press coverage and expect to have a good pass rush. But that's been Gun since he's come back. He takes Greg Robinson's zone defense team, that led the NFL in interceptions... and plays them man-on-man 1995 Chiefs-style and watches them get torched up and down the field. Then he goes out and spends a bazillion dollars on the secondary, and we play soft and let Terrell Owens and Antonio Gates run free like a deer through the middle.

With Herm aboard, I don't think we're going to put our DB's in bad positions like we have the last couple years. So the guys we do have will be used to their strengths. I am making that assumption, yes. You can't have complete stiffs playing corner but it's easier to neutralize a good CB than it is to neutralize a DT or Freeney or Reggie White or Shawn Merriman.

Rausch
07-16-2006, 06:11 PM
Ideally. Who knows. I mean that's what the Broncos try to do... use their DB's so everybody is covered one-on-one... then have a ton of bodies rotating in (aka the Browns) where you can blitz everybody else. We could do that, it is really fun to watch when it works. When it backfires though...

Then you end up 3rd last in the NFL in sacks and your pass defense sucks.

That's my point: You can't say it doesn't matter if position X sucks because Y can cover that up. No, It can't.

You can't have a team full of studs but you need a solid team. When you do have a chance to land a stud and you can afford him you SHOULD sign/draft the guy.

Watch that AFC title game again, the Steelers picked up all their blitzes, so Coyer got passive, and Roethlisberger just picked them apart. Or maybe even the 2nd Chiefs/Broncos game. That might have been the best game Al Saunders ever called. The Broncos were all about blitz, blitz, blitz.. they totally annihilated Bledsoe the week before doing it... but Al softened them up, with the help of our O-line, and by the 2nd half he had them on their heels and LJ just ran them over.

Which proves my point that you can take advantage of an aggressive defensive team by going right at them or deep on them. When that happens you have to have cover guys you can rely on.

The Steelers and Eagles get away with average CB's because they have playmaking S's that have range and can help out deep or play physical in run support. If you want to count on Wesley to help out (CB 2) deep I don't think you'll like the results. If anything we should have learned last year that we don't have Safeties that can help out deep.

Knight is a solid SS IF you have a FS with range that can quickly cover ground.

We don't.

Now, this defense isn't going to look the same as it did last year and I don't know if that change will help or hurt our CB play.

I guess my final argument would be that there isn't squat we can do right now to help our pass rush but there IS something we can do to help our CB's. It's not like we're telling Reggie White to piss off so we can sign Law, there's nothing out there right now at DT/DE.

Why NOT improve CB?...

Count Zarth
07-16-2006, 06:18 PM
I'm pretty concerned about Wesley over there when we play Cover 2. If the safety blows an assignment in Cover 2, it's a huge play.

Moooo
07-16-2006, 06:21 PM
I'm pretty concerned about Wesley over there when we play Cover 2. If the safety blows an assignment in Cover 2, it's a huge play.

Pollard... With Herm here, I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if he's starting by the halfway point of the year...

Moooo

Rausch
07-16-2006, 06:22 PM
I'm pretty concerned about Wesley over there when we play Cover 2. If the safety blows an assignment in Cover 2, it's a huge play.

He was not good deep in coverage last year.

Spicy McHaggis
07-16-2006, 06:32 PM
Pollard... With Herm here, I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if he's starting by the halfway point of the year...

Moooo

Hopefully we won't need to win any of those games in the first half of the year then.

Moooo
07-16-2006, 06:33 PM
Hopefully we won't need to win any of those games in the first half of the year then.

Well, on that note, he might even start... WHO KNOWS!!! Its Herm!

Moooo

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 06:46 PM
The Steelers and Eagles get away with average CB's because they have playmaking S's that have range and can help out deep or play physical in run support. If you want to count on Wesley to help out (CB 2) deep I don't think you'll like the results. If anything we should have learned last year that we don't have Safeties that can help out deep.

That's really not true of the Steelers. Although Polamalu made strides this season, if you watch him every down, you'll notice he's still struggling with pass coverage.

Why NOT improve CB?...

Why improve it NOW, when you can wait a week or two and possibly get him cheaper?

You do realize that's what fatty is bitching about right?

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 06:48 PM
Its just not his style. There are playmakers, and there is the supporting cast. I think Hali will make an awesome player who will really tighten up his side of the field, but to say he's gonna be a playmaking Probowler doesn't make sense. Everything he's done in college says he won't be that kind of player.

Then again I'm sure that's what people said about other players who have proven them wrong.

Moooo


Similar things were said about Neil Smith. They added DT the next year and that defense exploded.

We've done the same thing now, only in reverse, after adding DJ last year.

Moooo
07-16-2006, 06:50 PM
Similar things were said about Neil Smith. They added DT the next year and that defense exploded.

We've done the same thing now, only in reverse, after adding DJ last year.

Neil Smith was also the #2 pick...

Moooo

htismaqe
07-16-2006, 08:29 PM
Neil Smith was also the #2 pick...

Moooo

Joe Montana was a 3rd-rounder. Do you have a point?

Halfcan
07-16-2006, 08:32 PM
I think it is very doubtful l,aw will play for what we offer.

Coogs
07-16-2006, 08:52 PM
Well, 4 games on ESPNU is certainly definitive. He'll never be a playmaker.

ROFL

I know 4 games on the U don't mean squat. But I do know that I watched, rewound and re-watched nearly every single play of Hali during those 4 games. And since he played on the line, it is very possible to watch him on every single play. And I really don't ever recall thinking... Holy Crap! This guy is a stud! And I would really like to think in a game against Northwestern, South Florida, Ohio State, or Michigan that he would have made me think that. I really believe the OT's he is going to be matched up against in the NFL are going to be ever bit as good as the ones he face in those games. His best moments came against backup OT's when starters were out with injuries.

In no way shape or form am I saying Hali isn't going to be a very good player. I just have not seen anything to show me he is going to take over games like Merriman was able to do for San Diego last season.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-16-2006, 10:37 PM
I think Ty Law will give not just the defense, but the whole team an attitude about them. He definitely wouldn't hurt this team, that's for sure.

Halfcan
07-16-2006, 10:41 PM
tylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylaw

Spicy McHaggis
07-16-2006, 10:43 PM
Well, on that note, he might even start... WHO KNOWS!!! Its Herm!

Moooo

I know, just messing with ya.

The only other FS that I can think of though that's close to Pollard's size is Sean Taylor. Knight might be more at risk to lose his job than Wesley.

RedThat
07-16-2006, 10:45 PM
I think it is very doubtful l,aw will play for what we offer.

Do you think a team like New England will offer him a lot of money?

I don't. I know this is irrelevant to what you're saying, but, it seems like the Chiefs and Pats are high on his list.

If it had to be between the Chiefs and Pats, I could see the Chiefs offering him more money. He will eventually have to play somewhere. Whether somebody offers him what he demands or not.

I don't think anyone will offer him what he wants. Eventually he is going to have to settle for a medium.

*Maybe I could be wrong? There maybe a surprise team like Seattle? They could come in and throw him the dough. Or Arizona? I'd be shocked if he played there.

*I see this going down to the wire. Usually is the case with Peterson for negotiating contracts.

Halfcan
07-16-2006, 10:50 PM
Do you think a team like New England will offer him a lot of money?

I don't. I know this is irrelevant to what you're saying, but, it seems like the Chiefs and Pats are high on his list.

If it had to be between the Chiefs and Pats, I could see the Chiefs offering him more money. He will eventually have to play somewhere. Whether somebody offers him what he demands or not.

I don't think anyone will offer him what he wants. Eventually he is going to have to settle for a medium.

*Maybe I could be wrong? There maybe a surprise team like Seattle? They could come in and throw him the dough. Or Arizona? I'd be shocked if he played there.

*I see this going down to the wire. Usually is the case with Peterson for negotiating contracts.

Things will heat up when camp starts-and guys get hurt. Some team will cave and give him 7 to 9 mil signing bonus.

RedThat
07-16-2006, 11:00 PM
Things will heat up when camp starts-and guys get hurt. Some team will cave and give him 7 to 9 mil signing bonus.

I think its either us or New England man.

But I can see the Chiefs offering more money.

I just feel that we have guys on our roster that Herm wants to get a feel for. Just to see if they're capable of starting opposite Surtain.

If not, then we will sign Law.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 05:44 AM
I know 4 games on the U don't mean squat. But I do know that I watched, rewound and re-watched nearly every single play of Hali during those 4 games. And since he played on the line, it is very possible to watch him on every single play. And I really don't ever recall thinking... Holy Crap! This guy is a stud! And I would really like to think in a game against Northwestern, South Florida, Ohio State, or Michigan that he would have made me think that. I really believe the OT's he is going to be matched up against in the NFL are going to be ever bit as good as the ones he face in those games. His best moments came against backup OT's when starters were out with injuries.

In no way shape or form am I saying Hali isn't going to be a very good player. I just have not seen anything to show me he is going to take over games like Merriman was able to do for San Diego last season.

We don't need him to take over game like Merriman. We need him to shut down his side of the field, especially against the run, so that our LB's can make plays...

greg63
07-17-2006, 07:16 AM
OOOO, I know Ty Law will sign with the Chiefs because Whitty is upset about it; yeah that's it. :rolleyes:

Rausch
07-17-2006, 07:30 AM
That's really not true of the Steelers. Although Polamalu made strides this season, if you watch him every down, you'll notice he's still struggling with pass coverage.

I'd disagree with that. Sure, there we times in the Bengals/Colts playoff games he was out of position but over the course of the season he played at a probowl level.



Why improve it NOW, when you can wait a week or two and possibly get him cheaper?

You do realize that's what fatty is bitching about right?

Oh, I have no disagreement with you there. Right now there's nothing to indicate some other team is going to plop down Dan Snyder money and sign him up.

And frankly I don't think it's a matter of waiting for Law's price tag to drop. I think Carl n' Co. want to get a few rookies signed first so we have some idea what type of offer we can afford. We still need to work something out with Gonzo and likely LJ if he performs as everyone expects...

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 07:47 AM
I'd disagree with that. Sure, there we times in the Bengals/Colts playoff games he was out of position but over the course of the season he played at a probowl level.

Actually, I think his pass coverage in the playoffs, especially against the Colts, was a big improvement over stretches of the regular season. But like I said, I saw him get progressively better as the season went on.


Oh, I have no disagreement with you there. Right now there's nothing to indicate some other team is going to plop down Dan Snyder money and sign him up.

And frankly I don't think it's a matter of waiting for Law's price tag to drop. I think Carl n' Co. want to get a few rookies signed first so we have some idea what type of offer we can afford. We still need to work something out with Gonzo and likely LJ if he performs as everyone expects...

Unfortunately, not everybody wants to sit back and look at what would be PRUDENT. That doesn't sell newspapers, nor is it catharsis for bitterness.

Rausch
07-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Unfortunately, not everybody wants to sit back and look at what would be PRUDENT. That doesn't sell newspapers, nor is it catharsis for bitterness.

Pretty much.

I think we'd go $8 mil if Hali doesn't have an extended holdout and talks look good with Gonzo. This is likely Law's last contract and chance for the huge payday so I think he's looking for a 3-4 year deal (not that he'd see 4 years, but you'd have to spread it out to show him the money) and Peterson wants more than a 1 year return on his investment.

I like the idea being that he could be moved to FS next year or the year after allowing us to dump Wesley and take our time looking for a young N0 2 CB in free agency/draft...

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 08:59 AM
Pretty much.

I think we'd go $8 mil if Hali doesn't have an extended holdout and talks look good with Gonzo. This is likely Law's last contract and chance for the huge payday so I think he's looking for a 3-4 year deal (not that he'd see 4 years, but you'd have to spread it out to show him the money) and Peterson wants more than a 1 year return on his investment.

I like the idea being that he could be moved to FS next year or the year after allowing us to dump Wesley and take our time looking for a young N0 2 CB in free agency/draft...

Yep.

Some people just can't stand being patient. I honestly think when it comes down to it, Law will be a Chief.

keg in kc
07-17-2006, 09:02 AM
We know what the rookies will count against the cap, I doubt that has much to do with the process.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 09:03 AM
We know what the rookies will count against the cap, I doubt that has much to do with the process.

Actually, Hali's bonus has everything to do with the process. We know what he'll count against the cap, but this likely has very little to do with the cap.

This has to do with busting out Lamar's checkbook.

keg in kc
07-17-2006, 09:07 AM
We're not talking about a high draft pick. If this was like Sims in '02, I could see that, but not with Hali.

Also don't remember a whole lot in terms of resigning or restructuring deals this offseason, paying out bonus moneys that way. I think this probably has everything to do with Law putting signing off until the last possible moment before camp.

Whitlock of course isn't going to recognize that, being "friends" with Law. And maybe Law's agent.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 09:11 AM
We're not talking about a high draft pick. If this was like Sims in '02, I could see that, but not with Hali.

Also don't remember a whole lot in terms of resigning or restructuring deals this offseason, paying out bonus moneys that way. I think this probably has everything to do with Law putting signing off until the last possible moment before camp.

Whitlock of course isn't going to recognize that, being "friends" with Law. And maybe Law's agent.

No, it's not like with Sims. But if Law says "I want $10M, I won't take $9M" then the size of Hali's bonus is VERY important. It's pretty obvious to me that Lamar has a somewhat hard budget for out-of-pocket spending.

And we did just restructure Willie Roaf in the last couple of weeks.

But in the end, I think you're right. Law is just holding out for as long as he can.

keg in kc
07-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Lamar has always been tight with the purse-strings as far as bonus money goes, at least in off years (which this is).

Good god, as much as Law could be a nice upgrade, either 9 or 10 million seems a bit on the rich side. Frikkin guy's the same age as me and entering his 12th season. That's a lot of jack for 2007's starting free safety.

Mr. Laz
07-17-2006, 09:21 AM
tylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylawtylaw
for search function later, huh.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 09:25 AM
Lamar has always been tight with the purse-strings as far as bonus money goes, at least in off years (which this is).

Good god, as much as Law could be a nice upgrade, either 9 or 10 million seems a bit on the rich side. Frikkin guy's the same age as me and entering his 12th season. That's a lot of jack for 2007's starting free safety.

Yep.

Lzen
07-17-2006, 10:28 AM
Are you even ****ing serious?

When we signed Surtain, who is almost THREE YEARS younger than Law by the way, Ty Law was in a ****ing motorized WHEEL CHAIR.

We absolutely HAD to have a CB last year before the season - depending on Ty Law would have been stupid beyond stupid.


I can't believe it took this long for somebody to post this. Good job, Parker. :clap:

Rausch
07-17-2006, 10:33 AM
Good god, as much as Law could be a nice upgrade, either 9 or 10 million seems a bit on the rich side. Frikkin guy's the same age as me and entering his 12th season. That's a lot of jack for 2007's starting free safety.

$200 is a lot for a bottle of water.

If you're starving in the desert, not so much...

keg in kc
07-17-2006, 10:38 AM
$200 is a lot for a bottle of water.

If you're starving in the desert, not so much...Couple of thoughts come to mind...

One is that $200 is a lot to spend on a 32-year old canteen that may not have anything but dust in it once you take the lid off.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 10:41 AM
$200 is a lot for a bottle of water.

If you're starving in the desert, not so much...

Water doesn't help you if your starving, only if you're thirsty. ;)

Rausch
07-17-2006, 11:00 AM
Water doesn't help you if your starving, only if you're thirsty. ;)

It's not a long term answer but it kills the pain in your stomach... :)

jynni
07-17-2006, 11:41 AM
For some weird reason, I was thinking Law had signed with the Saints. I have no idea why I thought that - must've been a dream or something.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 11:48 AM
It's not a long term answer but it kills the pain in your stomach... :)

I just couldn't resist the urge to use your analogy to make my point.

I just really don't think a team that is "starving" (defensive front 7) needs "water" (Ty Law).

Rausch
07-17-2006, 11:58 AM
I just couldn't resist the urge to use your analogy to make my point.

I just really don't think a team that is "starving" (defensive front 7) needs "water" (Ty Law).


I won't argue that at all, but right now there isn't any real way to upgrade the front 4. If there was a player of Ty's level or even an upgrade I'd love to see us grab him but there's not.

Our D line upgrade was Hali and now that we've got a chance to upgrade the DB's as well we should try our best to do so...

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 12:08 PM
I won't argue that at all, but right now there isn't any real way to upgrade the front 4. If there was a player of Ty's level or even an upgrade I'd love to see us grab him but there's not.

Our D line upgrade was Hali and now that we've got a chance to upgrade the DB's as well we should try our best to do so...

This isn't a buy-yourself-a-champeenship business.

Is Ty Law the missing piece to a Super Bowl? Highly unlikely.

Could Ty Law's $10M of guaranteed money hinder us from getting the missing piece in the future? Yep, a real possibility.

Coogs
07-17-2006, 12:38 PM
We don't need him to take over game like Merriman. We need him to shut down his side of the field, especially against the run, so that our LB's can make plays...

I agree. But I also hope there is something there that allows him to be able to take over a game too. Haven't seen it yet, but I still hope it is there somewhere.

Rausch
07-17-2006, 12:43 PM
This isn't a buy-yourself-a-champeenship business.

Is Ty Law the missing piece to a Super Bowl? Highly unlikely.

Could Ty Law's $10M of guaranteed money hinder us from getting the missing piece in the future? Yep, a real possibility.

It only hinders us as much as spending the money we do on other probowlers.

htismaqe
07-17-2006, 01:01 PM
It only hinders us as much as spending the money we do on other probowlers.

Law was a Pro Bowler in name only last year. Many of his 10 INT's were garnered in the same way Greg Wesley garnered his. In addition, Law was highly penalized.

I would much rather spend money on Roaf or Waters than Ty Law.

Rausch
07-18-2006, 05:58 AM
Law was a Pro Bowler in name only last year. Many of his 10 INT's were garnered in the same way Greg Wesley garnered his. In addition, Law was highly penalized.

I would much rather spend money on Roaf or Waters than Ty Law.

Spent on Waters, Gonzo, or LJ would make sense but it doesn't help us at CB or DE/DT.

Our problem isn't offense, it's an underachieving defense. We have enough talent to be top 15 but just top 15 doesn't kiss the Lombardi.

And I think our biggest problem is that we don't have ONE gamechanger on defense. There's no Dale Carter/Neil Smith/DT who can take one play and change the momentum.

You look at any top 10 defense and nearly all of them have at least one.

Count Zarth
07-18-2006, 06:04 AM
And I think our biggest problem is that we don't have ONE gamechanger on defense. There's no Dale Carter/Neil Smith/DT who can take one play and change the momentum.

You look at any top 10 defense and nearly all of them have at least one.

I think Surtain and Allen are bonafide game changers. Knight made game-changing plays last year, too.

bringbackmarty
07-18-2006, 07:10 AM
I feel like this issue is not as black or white as we think it is.

here is what we know to be true.

1. Surtain is a gamer, He kicked ass last year, and was rarely out of position, played tough, played hurt, and because of that, Warfield and Dexter, and our safeties were exposed yet again.

2. We did not have a pass rush last year, or the year before, or really the second half of the 13-3 year.

3. We will probably have an improved rush this year, but it will come from dj, maybe tamba, allen, and
Hall. I do not expect anything great from out dTackles.

4. Ty Law has the experience, the attitude, and the physical skills to take over a game. With him on our team last year, Buffalo, Dallas, and Philly, would have turned out differently.

5. I do not know of a defensive lineman availiable that
could solidify a starting position on our team the way law could our cornerback spot. If we signed him to a multi year deal, wesley would be gone at the end of this year, and that's allright with me. By then, there should be good enough play coming from Hodge, Battle, Maxey, Sapp and whomever we draft. If Wesley were to get hurt, or knight, I wouldn't be surprised to see law plugged in there sooner. He is able to fill two roles at least, even if the second he doesn't for a year or two.

It's the best availiable improvement we can make for this season, there simply is noone else that could start for us and make an immediate impact.

MahiMike
07-18-2006, 07:14 AM
Too little, too late. If they were gonna sign Law it would have made sense 2 years ago. We only have 1 year left for 2/5ths of our #1 OL.

htismaqe
07-18-2006, 07:47 AM
I feel like this issue is not as black or white as we think it is.

here is what we know to be true.

1. Surtain is a gamer, He kicked ass last year, and was rarely out of position, played tough, played hurt, and because of that, Warfield and Dexter, and our safeties were exposed yet again.

2. We did not have a pass rush last year, or the year before, or really the second half of the 13-3 year.

3. We will probably have an improved rush this year, but it will come from dj, maybe tamba, allen, and
Hall. I do not expect anything great from out dTackles.

4. Ty Law has the experience, the attitude, and the physical skills to take over a game. With him on our team last year, Buffalo, Dallas, and Philly, would have turned out differently.

5. I do not know of a defensive lineman availiable that
could solidify a starting position on our team the way law could our cornerback spot. If we signed him to a multi year deal, wesley would be gone at the end of this year, and that's allright with me. By then, there should be good enough play coming from Hodge, Battle, Maxey, Sapp and whomever we draft. If Wesley were to get hurt, or knight, I wouldn't be surprised to see law plugged in there sooner. He is able to fill two roles at least, even if the second he doesn't for a year or two.

It's the best availiable improvement we can make for this season, there simply is noone else that could start for us and make an immediate impact.

1. Surtain struggled at times, just like everybody else did last year. He made several mistakes that I saw. Our scheme sucks.

2. Somewhat true.

3. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be and you act like it's a bad thing.

4. At best, hyperbole. At worst, unadulterated bullshit.

5. There may not be a lineman available now, but Law's contract demands imply a contract that would not only affect now, but also LATER.

Chiefnj
07-18-2006, 07:48 AM
I think it is safe to assume that Law doesn't want to sign ANYWHERE yet.

He doesn't want to go to two-a-day practices in River Falls and sleep on some 10 year old freshman matress in a dorm room the size of a jail cell. He's not dumb.

He'll wait it out, practicing on his own and see if any team loses a starter due to injury and he'll get top dollar at the end of the day because he's one of the leagues better corners.

htismaqe
07-18-2006, 07:48 AM
Spent on Waters, Gonzo, or LJ would make sense but it doesn't help us at CB or DE/DT.

Our problem isn't offense, it's an underachieving defense. We have enough talent to be top 15 but just top 15 doesn't kiss the Lombardi.

And I think our biggest problem is that we don't have ONE gamechanger on defense. There's no Dale Carter/Neil Smith/DT who can take one play and change the momentum.

You look at any top 10 defense and nearly all of them have at least one.

1) Law doesn't help one iota with the biggest reason our defense underachieves. The scheme blows goats and rests at the shuffling feet of Gunther.

2) Law certainly isn't the one gamechanger we need, although he's asking for the type of money that one commands.

KCTitus
07-18-2006, 08:32 AM
I think it is safe to assume that Law doesn't want to sign ANYWHERE yet.

He doesn't want to go to two-a-day practices in River Falls and sleep on some 10 year old freshman matress in a dorm room the size of a jail cell. He's not dumb.

He'll wait it out, practicing on his own and see if any team loses a starter due to injury and he'll get top dollar at the end of the day because he's one of the leagues better corners.

yup.

htismaqe
07-18-2006, 08:35 AM
I think it is safe to assume that Law doesn't want to sign ANYWHERE yet.

He doesn't want to go to two-a-day practices in River Falls and sleep on some 10 year old freshman matress in a dorm room the size of a jail cell. He's not dumb.

He'll wait it out, practicing on his own and see if any team loses a starter due to injury and he'll get top dollar at the end of the day because he's one of the leagues better corners.

We say the same thing EVERY YEAR, when somebody here panics that "X" might retire because they're not practicing.

KCTitus
07-18-2006, 08:36 AM
We say the same thing EVERY YEAR, when somebody here panics that "X" might retire because they're not practicing.

...or when the player tagged with the Franchise tag holds out and isnt in camp

Rausch
07-18-2006, 08:38 AM
1) Law doesn't help one iota with the biggest reason our defense underachieves. The scheme blows goats and rests at the shuffling feet of Gunther.

I can't say much for our scheme last year but it's far too early to make a judgment on this season. I don't know if more cover 2 will help or hurt but having a defense minded HC sure can't hurt.

2) Law certainly isn't the one gamechanger we need, although he's asking for the type of money that one commands.

No he's not, but he's the best player we can add this year.

I'm sure we could let the cap space sit there and hope some dominant player falls in our laps next year but that's wishful thinking, and it doesn't help us this year.

htismaqe
07-18-2006, 08:40 AM
I can't say much for our scheme last year but it's far too early to make a judgment on this season. I don't know if more cover 2 will help or hurt but having a defense minded HC sure can't hurt.

No he's not, but he's the best player we can add this year.

I'm sure we could let the cap space sit there and hope some dominant player falls in our laps next year but that's wishful thinking, and it doesn't help us this year.

There's alot we could be doing with our cap space that doesn't include signing Ty Law.

Rausch
07-18-2006, 08:44 AM
There's alot we could be doing with our cap space that doesn't include signing Ty Law.

And most of it could be done in the offseason/end of season.

We need to take care of the rookies first and at least see how talks look with Gonzo.

I wouldn't want to pen Law until after that anyway. I don't want to just throw money at the guy but if we can bring him down a bit I see no reason not to sign him.

It would give us the luxury of concentrating on DT/DE next year without having to worry about the secondary...

htismaqe
07-18-2006, 08:51 AM
And most of it could be done in the offseason/end of season.

We need to take care of the rookies first and at least see how talks look with Gonzo.

I wouldn't want to pen Law until after that anyway. I don't want to just throw money at the guy but if we can bring him down a bit I see no reason not to sign him.

It would give us the luxury of concentrating on DT/DE next year without having to worry about the secondary...

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with pursuing Law.

Just not at HIS price.

The way I see it is this:

He's not the cure for our cancer. He's a powerful pain-killer and he can certainly ease some of the suffering, but a cure he's not.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
07-19-2006, 07:23 AM
I think Whitlock should keep his head out of the Chiefs business and back up his anal orifice where it usually is.

If he is so determined to shame CP into getting Law he needs to pony up the $10M himself. I'm sure the Chiefs would appreciate that and Jason would finally have one of the players of his choice on the team.
I've been informed that Laz does not agree with my assessment above, although he did not give any reasoning for his disagreement.

Whitlock is a hack and not worthy to be admitted to any Chiefs press conferences let alone getting free to cover the games.

milkman
07-19-2006, 07:35 AM
1) Law doesn't help one iota with the biggest reason our defense underachieves. The scheme blows goats and rests at the shuffling feet of Gunther.

Nothing so wrong with the scheme that having about 8 Pro Bowl quality players wouldn't fix.

htismaqe
07-19-2006, 07:57 AM
I've been informed that Laz does not agree with my assessment above, although he did not give any reasoning for his disagreement.

Whitlock is a hack and not worthy to be admitted to any Chiefs press conferences let alone getting free to cover the games.

ROFL

htismaqe
07-19-2006, 07:58 AM
Nothing so wrong with the scheme that having about 8 Pro Bowl quality players wouldn't fix.

Exactly.