PDA

View Full Version : Have we talked about this? Greg Wesley.


Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:18 PM
Greg Wesley may be on his way to the Broncos, who've come to terms with the Chiefs on draft pick compensation. But the Chiefs are afraid to deal a player to a heated rival, so they haven't yet settled.

What say you? Do you ever trade a player to a rival? If so, does it affect your draft pick compensation?

And have the Broncos officially converted to Redskinism, fortifying their chances on FA rather than the Draft?

Dr. Van Halen
07-03-2007, 06:23 PM
Do teams still try to sign players off rival teams to learn the calls and terminology? Do the Chiefs change audibles every season? I really don't know. I've heard stories about how they didn't use to, and teams would figure out what coverage they were audibling into, but I would hope that problems been fixed.

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:29 PM
All I know is that the last time we did something that stupid we ended up losing Gannon to the Raiders. The Raiders had underestimated our intensity going into Chiefs-Raiders games, and adjusted accordingly after Gannon alerted them.

Obviously there's no secret that the Chiefs get up for Chiefs-Broncos games, so I'm not worried about that. But Welsey's lined up against the first team offense in OTAs at this point. I think it would make me hesitant to trade him unless somehow Shanahan offered up a 4th or 5th rounder.

Brock
07-03-2007, 06:32 PM
I think Wesley's a dud. I don't have a problem sending him to Denver.

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:35 PM
I think Wesley's a dud. I don't have a problem sending him to Denver.
Conditional 7th, then.

Frankie
07-03-2007, 06:36 PM
All I know is that the last time we did something that stupid we ended up losing Gannon to the Raiders. The Raiders had underestimated our intensity going into Chiefs-Raiders games, and adjusted accordingly after Gannon alerted them.

Obviously there's no secret that the Chiefs get up for Chiefs-Broncos games, so I'm not worried about that. But Welsey's lined up against the first team offense in OTAs at this point. I think it would make me hesitant to trade him unless somehow Shanahan offered up a 4th or 5th rounder.
We didn't "trade" Gannon to the Raiders. We just didn't sign him. This trade will give us some compensation. Depending on the compensation, I might not mind it.

Brock
07-03-2007, 06:36 PM
Conditional 7th, then.

Well, that doesn't really seem worthwhile.

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:37 PM
Alright. New topic.

What's Wesley worth? What do you go for?

I say a 6th. If it's a division rival, a 5th.

Brock
07-03-2007, 06:40 PM
I'd take a 5th and run.

Skip Towne
07-03-2007, 06:41 PM
Alright. New topic.

What's Wesley worth? What do you go for?

I say a 6th. If it's a division rival, a 5th.
Two dozen footballs?

Der Flöprer
07-03-2007, 06:41 PM
I wouldn't trade him to the Broncos for anything less than a 4th. I'd almost give him away to anyone else.

chagrin
07-03-2007, 06:42 PM
I don't care if we lose him, but if he does well in that system, I'll be torqued.

Frankie
07-03-2007, 06:43 PM
I wouldn't trade him to the Broncos for anything less than a 4th. I'd almost give him away to anyone else.
That's my attitude as well.

kstater
07-03-2007, 06:43 PM
Two dozen footballs?


Throw in a pack of gum and go for it.

EyePod
07-03-2007, 06:44 PM
I think I'd be willing for a 4th or a 5th, especially withPaul Oliver in the supplemental draft. Those extra picks will come in handy if we lose a 2nd or 3rd rounder to get him (and I wouldn't mind it either, especially cause we need a young corner).

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:45 PM
I think I'd be willing for a 4th or a 5th, especially withPaul Oliver in the supplemental draft. Those extra picks will come in handy if we lose a 2nd or 3rd rounder to get him (and I wouldn't mind it either, especially cause we need a young corner).
Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh....

Good thought, newbie with a bad handle. Good thought.

Splat420
07-03-2007, 06:48 PM
I don't mind trading him but would not trade him to Denver maybe the Raiders or SD but not Denver.

BigMeatballDave
07-03-2007, 06:49 PM
Well, if Wesley were any good, I would care...

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 06:52 PM
I don't mind trading him but would not trade him to Denver maybe the Raiders or SD but not Denver.
Raiders don't want him. They're chasing the Pro Bowler out of Jacksonville and they've got Michael Huff, already the best safety in the AFCW for my money.

San Diego's not moving.

Nobody's really biting on Wesley, not even the Bears who signed Archuletta.

If we're going to lose Wesley for compensation, it's probably going to be the Donks.

B_Ambuehl
07-03-2007, 07:29 PM
I think we should keep him. I don't feel at all comfortable with both Page and Pollard back there starting. One or the other maybe, but not both.

FAX
07-03-2007, 07:30 PM
Trading Wesley to the goats is a bad idea. A very, very bad idea.

FAX

morphius
07-03-2007, 07:32 PM
This move doesn't scare me much, I'm sure he'd play okay against us, but at the same time, there is a damn good chance we could burn him for some scores if he gets on the field.

FAX
07-03-2007, 07:34 PM
This move doesn't scare me much, I'm sure he'd play okay against us, but at the same time, there is a damn good chance we could burn him for some scores if he gets on the field.

I don't know, Mr. morphius. If the goats want him, that's reason enough not to trade him over.

FAX

88TG88
07-03-2007, 07:39 PM
Raiders don't want him. They're chasing the Pro Bowler out of Jacksonville and they've got Michael Huff, already the best safety in the AFCW for my money.

San Diego's not moving.

Nobody's really biting on Wesley, not even the Bears who signed Archuletta.

If we're going to lose Wesley for compensation, it's probably going to be the Donks.
http://www.kcchiefs.com/media/players/jarrad_page.jpg

HemiEd
07-03-2007, 07:42 PM
Trading Wesley to the goats is a bad idea. A very, very bad idea.

FAX

It won't happen, we don't do business in the AFC West, end of story.

cdcox
07-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Even if Pollard and Page pan-out perfectly, we have far too little depth at S to consider dumping Wesley this year. The drop off from Wesley to McGraw is huge. With the uncertainty with the youngsters and the possibility of injury I'd just hold on to Wesley this year. He's worth more to us than what anyone will be willing to give us.

ChiefFan31
07-03-2007, 09:10 PM
Do teams still try to sign players off rival teams to learn the calls and terminology? Do the Chiefs change audibles every season? I really don't know. I've heard stories about how they didn't use to, and teams would figure out what coverage they were audibling into, but I would hope that problems been fixed.

Wesley was too dumb to remember any calls while on the field, I doubt he remembers anything after a whole offseason :p

I dunno though, I hate the Donkeys, and he would actually be motivated in the two games against us. Unless, its a offer we can't refuse I would not want to trade him to a division rival.

kcfanXIII
07-03-2007, 09:19 PM
give him to the broncos on the condition he MUST start and play against his former team. i'd get that feeling that i get when the royals face a former royal pitcher. it would gurantee at least 5 blown coverages each time we faced them.

morphius
07-03-2007, 09:43 PM
I don't know, Mr. morphius. If the goats want him, that's reason enough not to trade him over.

FAX
They also really wanted Dale Carter...

BigMeatballDave
07-03-2007, 11:28 PM
I think we should keep him. I don't feel at all comfortable with both Page and Pollard back there starting. One or the other maybe, but not both.I feel extremely confidant with both starting.

arrowheadsoldier
07-03-2007, 11:35 PM
I think we definately need to get rid of Wesley he just takes to many plays off, now every once in a while you see flashes of greatness but he just doesn't want it bad enough, but i still think there is no way we send him to denver that's just crazy, send him to the nfc for a 5th or 6th rounder, but not denver, they already have bailey and lynch we don't want them to get Wesley too.

el borracho
07-04-2007, 12:49 AM
I would have no problem giving them Wesley. Any idea what compensation we are asking?

Smed1065
07-04-2007, 12:54 AM
Alright. New topic.

What's Wesley worth? What do you go for?

I say a 6th. If it's a division rival, a 5th.

Agree with a division rival. Maybe a 6th with ability for a 5th with 50 % playing time. That way we take a 6th from a rival probably what we can get anywhere. if he plays and contributes (ha-ha), we get a 5th from a rival. That makes it two sided, get a pick and take one from the rival.

Dunit35
07-04-2007, 12:59 AM
I'd keep him this season. He's a back up at both safety positions and is depth. Trade him next year.

Cochise
07-04-2007, 01:26 AM
We shouldn't think of it as trading Denver a player. We should think of it as sabotaging their deep coverage.

blueballs
07-04-2007, 01:58 AM
is there a link or have you
had your hand up your ass agian

Smed1065
07-04-2007, 02:11 AM
is there a link or have you
had your hand up your ass agian

You seem to have an unusual interest in azzez. Plus your spelling sucks azzzzz well.

LOL

blueballs
07-04-2007, 02:15 AM
You seem to have an unusual interest in azzez. Plus your spelling sucks azzzzz well.

LOL


that doesn't help at all

Micjones
07-04-2007, 06:05 AM
I'd definitely trade Wesley.
Get something for the guy.
He doesn't figure into your future plans.

htismaqe
07-04-2007, 07:37 AM
I think we should keep him. I don't feel at all comfortable with both Page and Pollard back there starting. One or the other maybe, but not both.

The thought of Wesley being back there again is FAR more uncomfortable.

Chiefnj2
07-04-2007, 08:01 AM
It seems silly to reach an agreement and then be afraid to go through it.

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 10:08 AM
is there a link or have you
had your hand up your ass agian
Oh, you know me.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chiefs/story/160458-p2.html
A seven-year starting safety, Wesley is as unhappy with his situation as Johnson is with his. He is, for now at least, a backup to Jarrad Page and Bernard Pollard and would like a trade.

The Chiefs have a willing trade partner for Wesley in the Denver Broncos. The teams have agreed on terms of draft-choice compensation, but the Chiefs have yet to sign off on the deal in fear of sending him to a division rival.

In most cases, that’s reason enough not to make a deal. In this case, it’s not. Page and Pollard don’t need Wesley’s looming presence. The Chiefs have capable safety reserves in Jon McGraw and Chad Williams and will probably release Wesley and his $2.7 million base salary, anyway.

In that case, the Broncos would get him for nothing.

bringbackmarty
07-04-2007, 11:21 AM
I don't know, Mr. morphius. If the goats want him, that's reason enough not to trade him over.

FAX
They also wanted neil smith and chester the molester mcglockton. Neither worked out well for them. If it was an offensive player I would be scared, but the rat can't evaluate defensive talent worth a damn. only when it's obvious i.e. champ bailey. I feel what you are sayin though. It's hard to trade ithin the division and not wonder how much of your playbook is going with the dude.

Codered
07-04-2007, 11:25 AM
Shannahan might not be able to evaluate defense of players, but Jim Bates has proven he can... Jim Bates is a scarey DC....

Frankie
07-04-2007, 12:07 PM
I think we should keep him. I don't feel at all comfortable with both Page and Pollard back there starting. One or the other maybe, but not both.
Worried about the infamous "Sophomore Jinx?"

Frankie
07-04-2007, 12:09 PM
I don't know, Mr. morphius. If the goats want him, that's reason enough not to trade him over.

FAX
They want him because he seems to have good days against them. They don't get to see them the rest of the season.

Frankie
07-04-2007, 12:10 PM
It won't happen, we don't do business in the AFC West, end of story.
There seems to have been more of the in-the-Division this year than usual. Especislly on the draft day.

Frankie
07-04-2007, 12:11 PM
Even if Pollard and Page pan-out perfectly, we have far too little depth at S to consider dumping Wesley this year. The drop off from Wesley to McGraw is huge. With the uncertainty with the youngsters and the possibility of injury I'd just hold on to Wesley this year. He's worth more to us than what anyone will be willing to give us.
I actually agree.

Frankie
07-04-2007, 12:13 PM
I'd keep him this season. He's a back up at both safety positions and is depth. Trade him next year.
Yep.

orange
07-04-2007, 02:08 PM
They also wanted neil smith and chester the molester mcglockton. Neither worked out well for them. If it was an offensive player I would be scared, but the rat can't evaluate defensive talent worth a damn. only when it's obvious i.e. champ bailey. I feel what you are sayin though. It's hard to trade ithin the division and not wonder how much of your playbook is going with the dude.

Neil Smith didn't "work out well" for the Broncos?! That's news to me! He was a key component of their two Super Bowls, including a ProBowl in 1997, anchoring the DLine along with Keith Traylor (another former Chief, I believe).

"In the 1998 Divisional Playoffs against the Miami Dolphins, Smith cemented the 38-3 Broncos victory with a 79-yard fumble return for a touchdown, and in Super Bowl XXXII, he recorded a key fumble recovery that set up a Broncos field goal." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Smith_(football_player)

orange
07-04-2007, 02:19 PM
The reason the Chiefs are willing to dump Wesley this year has everything to do with
(1) The second round pick they spent on Pollard, which they're determined to get something out of.
(2) Wesley's $2.7 million price tag, far more than they're willing to pay for someone on the bench.
(3) A lot of unhappy veterans if they start Pollard over Wesley while Wesley continues to be clearly superior.

morphius
07-04-2007, 02:21 PM
...
(3) A lot of unhappy veterans if they start Pollard over Wesley while Wesley continues to be clearly superior.

That is going out on the limb a bit, "clearly superior"?

orange
07-04-2007, 02:26 PM
That is going out on the limb a bit, "clearly superior"?

Wesley started over Pollard in every game in which he (Wesley) was available health-wise.

That's clear superiority in the coaches' eyes - unless Edwards was "coddling" Wesley of course.

milkman
07-04-2007, 02:32 PM
The reason the Chiefs are willing to dump Wesley this year has everything to do with........

...........
(3) A lot of unhappy veterans if they start Pollard over Wesley while Wesley continues to be clearly superior.

LMAO

When did you start watching football?

Yesterday?

orange
07-04-2007, 02:34 PM
LMAO

When did you start watching football?

Yesterday?

It must be Pollard's whopping 10 tackles (most on special teams) and 1 pass defended in 16 games which has you so excited.

morphius
07-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Wesley started over Pollard in every game in which he (Wesley) was available health-wise.

That's clear superiority in the coaches' eyes - unless Edwards was "coddling" Wesley of course.
Pollard admitted that it took him a while to learn the D last year, which could explain why Wesley was still starting. So, clearly may no longer be clear to anyone.

Bowser
07-04-2007, 02:36 PM
The reason the Chiefs are willing to dump Wesley this year has everything to do with
(1) The second round pick they spent on Pollard, which they're determined to get something out of.
(2) Wesley's $2.7 million price tag, far more than they're willing to pay for someone on the bench.
(3) A lot of unhappy veterans if they start Pollard over Wesley while Wesley continues to be clearly superior.

I would be glad to dump our "clearly superior" safety on you guys. However, by annointing him "clearly superior", the Chiefs are now asking for a second rounder.

orange
07-04-2007, 02:38 PM
I would be glad to dump our "clearly superior" safety on you guys. However, by annointing him "clearly superior", the Chiefs are now asking for a second rounder.

Great. Maybe you can package it with second and seventh rounders you got for Trent Green and trade up for another 1st rounder. ROFL

milkman
07-04-2007, 02:40 PM
It must be Pollard's whopping 10 tackles (most on special teams) and 1 pass defended in 16 games which has you so excited.

It has nothing to do with what Pollard did, and everything to do with what Wesley didn't do.

Wesley sucks ass.

He played because the coaches felt Pollard needed time to learn.

That's what coaches do.

I don't know that Pollard is going to be better than Wesley.

But there is no way in hell that he'll ever be able to prove that Wesley is "clearly superior"

That is impossible.

Bowser
07-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Great. Maybe you can package it with second and seventh rounders you got for Trent Green and trade up for another 1st rounder. ROFL

:hmmm:

I could do you the service of showing you some clips of "clearly superior" in action, but I think it would be best suited if you saw him live and in person come September. Enjoy!

Bowser
07-04-2007, 02:42 PM
It has nothing to do with what Pollard did, and everything to do with what Wesley didn't do.

Wesley sucks ass.

He played because the coaches felt Pollard needed time to learn.

That's what coaches do.

I don't know that Pollard is going to be better than Wesley.

But there is no way in hell that he'll ever be able to prove that Wesley is "clearly superior"

That is impossible.


SSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!

morphius
07-04-2007, 02:42 PM
It must be Pollard's whopping 10 tackles (most on special teams) and 1 pass defended in 16 games which has you so excited.
I think watching Wesley tackle the air and being beat deep a lot might have something to do with it.

orange
07-04-2007, 02:42 PM
...

He played because the coaches felt Pollard needed time to learn.

That's what coaches do.

...

Really?! Greg Wesley as a rookie:

16 games, 71 tackles, 16 assists, 1 sack, 2 ints, 5 passes def.

Bowser
07-04-2007, 02:44 PM
I think watching Wesley tackle the air and being beat deep a lot might have something to do with it.


SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Dammit!!

orange
07-04-2007, 02:45 PM
Wesley makes mistakes. All players do. No one is trying to make him out to be a hall-of-famer.

It's just that, whatever Wesley is,
Greg Wesley >> Bernard Pollard

Bowser
07-04-2007, 02:46 PM
Wesley makes mistakes. All players do. No one is trying to make him out to be a hall-of-famer.

It's just that, whatever Wesley is,
Greg Wesley >> Bernard Pollard

I might have found a new sig....

milkman
07-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Really?! Greg Wesley as a rookie:

16 games, 71 tackles, 16 assists, 1 sack, 2 ints, 5 passes def.

He showed promise as a rookie, but has never really lived up to that promise.

But the fact is, in the end, stats mean jack.
It's what I see with my own eyes that tell me about a player.

If stats told the story, the Bill Maslowski was a great LB.

orange
07-04-2007, 02:58 PM
...
It's what I see with my own eyes that tell me about a player.

...

First off, I'm going to quote a different poster. I realize it wasn't you, and you probably don't share the same view, but I think too many fans DO have this view:

They want him because he seems to have good days against them. They don't get to see them the rest of the season.

This is just absurd. These teams invest millions in each player. They look at tapes before they make any moves.

Tapes of every game, from every angle...

Tapes we as fans simply don't have access to...

The idea that you/me/any fan sees something the front office guys missed is ridiculous.


The Broncos apparently think Wesley could shore up their depth at safety and provide insurance if Ferguson doesn't make it back at full speed.

The Chiefs meanwhile want to unload his contract. This is the makings of a deal, not that one party is misinformed.

milkman
07-04-2007, 03:07 PM
First off, I'm going to quote a different poster. I realize it wasn't you, and you probably don't share the same view, but I think too many fans DO have this view:



This is just absurd. These teams invest millions in each player. They look at tapes before they make any moves.

Tapes of every game, from every angle...

Tapes we as fans simply don't have access to...

The idea that you/me/any fan sees something the front office guys missed is ridiculous.


The Broncos apparently think Wesley could shore up their depth at safety and provide insurance if Ferguson doesn't make it back at full speed.

The Chiefs meanwhile want to unload his contract. This is the makings of a deal, not that one party is misinformed.

So what you're getting at is that the Donkeys think Wesley would be a nice addition as veteran depth.

I could live with that if that were the role he played on the Chiefs.

But he plays with his head up his ass too often to rely on him as a starter.

orange
07-04-2007, 03:18 PM
One thing about this whole discussion that annoys me is...

I can't find anything anywhere else about this, not even among the Broncos rumors in the Denver papers. I wonder if it's not just smoke and mirrors...

milkman
07-04-2007, 03:25 PM
One thing about this whole discussion that annoys me is...

I can't find anything anywhere else about this, not even among the Broncos rumors in the Denver papers. I wonder if it's not just smoke and mirrors...

That sounds about right for Teicher, especially since he's a discussing a possible trade between the Chiefs and Donkeys.

As Hemi said.

It won't happen.

HemiEd
07-04-2007, 03:26 PM
There seems to have been more of the in-the-Division this year than usual. Especislly on the draft day.

When was the last time the Chiefs made a trade "in division?"


Exactly.

milkman
07-04-2007, 03:27 PM
When was the last time the Chiefs made a trade "in division?"


Exactly.

Even more.

When was the last time there was any trade within the division?

HemiEd
07-04-2007, 03:33 PM
Even more.

When was the last time there was any trade within the division?

Exactly.

I think what Frankie was referring to, was that NFC East trade. Wasn't it between Philly and Dallas? That was a shocker, very unusual. I don't follow the NFC, but was surprised.

orange
07-04-2007, 03:38 PM
New England and Miami also worked out compensation for Welker, iirc.

HemiEd
07-04-2007, 03:42 PM
New England and Miami also worked out compensation for Welker, iirc.

Yep, I forgot about that, NE has gotten a little arrogant. Rightly so.

blueballs
07-04-2007, 03:42 PM
the spit hood
will cost extra

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 04:30 PM
Wesley's an average S, which automaticall makes him superior to Ferguson.

Jesus, Pollard/Page as starting at S would kick Lynch/Wesley's ass.

orange
07-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Wesley's an average S, which automaticall makes him superior to Ferguson.

Jesus, Pollard/Page as starting at S would kick Lynch/Wesley's ass.


John Lynch: Pro Bowls 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 (boldface=Broncos)

Greg Wesley: Started every game in 2006 ahead of both J. Page and B. Pollard.

It's clear you think that being a Chiefs homer makes you know more than the people who keep voting Lynch into the Pro Bowl...

But, maybe you should call up Carl Peterson and tell him his coaches are idiots and you'd do a much better job than them. You just need a little break...

orange
07-04-2007, 04:54 PM
Seriously, with all the Hall-of-Famers the Chiefs have warming their bench, why the hell doesn't KC win the Super Bowl every year?

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 05:04 PM
John Lynch: Pro Bowls 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 (boldface=Broncos)

Greg Wesley: Started every game in 2006 ahead of both J. Page and B. Pollard.
Lynch went to the Pro Bowl for the same reason Shields did. It doesn't take a genius to note that he has slowed down considerably. He's going to play merely average this year, and I'm willing to bet he's simply awful any year after that if he decides to continue playing. When it goes, orange, it goes in a hurry. We're witnessing the decline of Lynch. Take a picture.

That said, say it with me: ROOOOO. KIEEEEEE. Together now: rookie. Page was a rookie. Wesley was a 6 year vet. Yet Wesley played about three or four times the snaps Page did and only ended up with twice the tackles and the exact same number of INTs. Page was playing more and more snaps at the end of the season.

Pollard/Page > Lynch/Wesley

Pollard/Page >>> Lynch/Ferguson

orange
07-04-2007, 05:10 PM
Oh goodie, I get to quote myself because some of you insist on making moronic statements:

Really?! Greg Wesley as a rookie:

16 games, 71 tackles, 16 assists, 1 sack, 2 ints, 5 passes def.


Pollard as rookie = nothing

P.S. Pollard didn't just not beat out Wesley, he also did not beat out Knight, and he did not beat out Jarrad Page, for that matter. He was 4th STRING, and well-earned at that.

Now, in 2007, he is the presumptive starter based on exactly two things - his birthday, and his price tag.

As for Lynch going to the Pro Bowl on rep, look carefully. He went back after a three year absence. He was no longer a "vote-out-of-habit" guy.

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 05:25 PM
Oh goodie, I get to quote myself because some of you insist on making moronic statements:

Pollard as rookie = nothing

P.S. Pollard didn't just not beat out Wesley, he also did not beat out Knight, and he did not beat out Jarrad Page, for that matter. He was 4th STRING, and well-earned at that.

Now, in 2007, he is the presumptive starter based on exactly two things - his birthday, and his price tag.

As for Lynch going to the Pro Bowl on rep, look carefully. He went back after a three year absence. He was no longer a "vote-out-of-habit" guy.
Lynch went to Pro Bowl on talent in 2005. He had a hell of a year. 2006 was alright but 2007 was his Will Shields Pro Bowl. Lynch has lost any significant burst he once had, as much as I respect the guy, and I really, really want him to be on the field when the Chiefs line up against him this year.

But who the hell was Welsey competing against when he came onto the team? Practically nobody. He played on this team in some of its weakest years on the secondary. Guess how good our secondary was during the first five years he held down SS. He's always been pretty much average.

I'm not going to compare Pollard to Wesley because Pollard's a SS and Sammy had a good year for us. Page was the guy competing with Wesley and Page got more than half Wes' stats with a fraction of the playing time.

This is so bizarre -- convincing a Broncos fan that Wesley is nothing special.

orange
07-04-2007, 05:27 PM
....

This is so bizarre -- convincing a Broncos fan that Wesley is nothing special.


No one is saying Wesley is anything special...
I'm just saying he's the best the Chiefs have.

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 05:31 PM
No one is saying Wesley is anything special...
I'm just saying he's the best the Chiefs have.
Ha! Alrighty.

As I've said, he was a 6-year vet FS on one of the most decorated starting secondaries in the NFL last year (the combined career INTs of all four of our starters blew away the rest of the league) and couldn't even manage twice the stats of his rookie backup despite getting waaaaaay more playing time.

Wesley is average. Pollard got no playing time because Knight had a good year. And Page simply got more done when he was on the field than Wes did -- which is why Page got more playing time as the season wore on.

What I'm saying is that we'll trade him to you for a 6th.

orange
07-04-2007, 05:35 PM
Now you're poor-mouthing another of your own players, Jarrad Page. Page was in all year, in your nickel and dime packages, plus spelling both starters. He hardly had "waaaaaay" less playing time.

Meanwhile, back in the present...
Knight was cut. As I understand it, Page became the starter, not Pollard.
Case closed?

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Now you're poor-mouthing another of your own players, Jarrad Page. Page was in all year, in your nickel and dime packages. He hardly had "waaaaaay" less playing time.

Meanwhile, back in the present...
Knight was cut. Page became the starter, not Pollard.
Case closed.
I don't know what the last part of that post means.

But I'll have you know I'm not poor mouthing Page -- the guy had a brilliant rookie campaign for a 7th rounder and I expect a Pro Bowl or two out of this kid by the end of his career. Best pick we've had in years. I hate to break it to you, but Lenny Walls was our NCB and dime duties altered between Sapp, Page and Pollard -- doesn't matter anyway because we did dime packages maybe a handful of times all year. Cover 2 doesn't really demand lots of dime.

orange
07-04-2007, 05:44 PM
I don't know what the last part of that post means.

...

It means... you said Pollard was Knight's heir-apparent.
Yet it was Page who replaced Knight, ahead of Pollard.

If your pecking-order was right, it means they like Page out-of-position better than Pollard.

Or, are you saying that there's no difference in the two safety positions because of the cover-2 yada yada yada ?

In which case, we're back to the fact that Pollard couldn't beat out Wesley for more than microscopic playing time.

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 06:03 PM
It means... you said Pollard was Knight's heir-apparent.
Yet it was Page who replaced Knight, ahead of Pollard.

If your pecking-order was right, it means they like Page out-of-position better than Pollard.

Or, are you saying that there's no difference in the two safety positions because of the cover-2 yada yada yada ?

In which case, we're back to the fact that Pollard couldn't beat out Wesley for more than microscopic playing time.
I guess I just don't know where you're getting that information.

Knight was with us the entire season. Started 16 games and the playoff game. Had a good season, 80+ tackles, couple sacks and a pick. We released him because of cap issues just a month or two ago -- nobody's replaced him yet.

Wesley only played 14, and when he missed action, Page (our prospective FS) started.

No, there really isn't that much difference between FS and SS in the cover 2, but we don't run an unbending, ironclad version of it, and the two positions do differ in some ways in our D.

Wesley for your 6th. Take it or leave it.

go bowe
07-04-2007, 06:15 PM
yo, orange...

get back to us ater this season and let us know what you think of pollard and page then...

pollard may be somewhat slow in learning the defence, but once he does, i expect him to be the next lynch back there in our lousy cover 2 schemes...

maby it'll take another season or two, but mark my word, pollard will make it to the pro bowl, together with page, at some point in the future...

of course, our beloved chiefs will probably win a super bowl at some point in the future too...

orange
07-04-2007, 06:36 PM
...

Wesley for your 6th. Take it or leave it.

I don't know if the Broncos even have a 6th. You know, they're always active in the trade market, they're not one of these teams who'll sit back and wait for a blue-chip QBOTF prospect to fall into their laps by dumb luck, for example...

That said, I would give up a conditional 6th - 6th if he makes the final roster, 7th otherwise, even higher if he starts etc.

That "7th otherwise," that's NOW. The longer it drags out, the lower that goes.

Direckshun
07-04-2007, 08:06 PM
I don't know if the Broncos even have a 6th. You know, they're always active in the trade market, they're not one of these teams who'll sit back and wait for a blue-chip QBOTF prospect to fall into their laps by dumb luck, for example...

That said, I would give up a conditional 6th - 6th if he makes the final roster, 7th otherwise, even higher if he starts etc.

That "7th otherwise," that's NOW. The longer it drags out, the lower that goes.
****ing deal.

'Cause he'll make your squad. He'll probably start. And he'll rack up his usuals -- 4-5 INTs, 60-70 tackles, maybe a fumble recovery or two. All the things that make him so attractive to you now, but you'll notice every time a big game slips through your hands because a WR got behind the defense, you'll see Wesley's dreadlocks half-assing it after him and you'll know then why, exactly, we're looking to pawn him off.