PDA

View Full Version : Finally some news!!! Cadrez signed


keg in kc
06-06-2001, 07:02 PM
Chiefs | Cadrez Signs One-year Deal - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com)

16:58 PT: SportsLine.com's Len Pasquarelli reports the Kansas City Chiefs have signed free agent LB Glenn Cadrez (Broncos) to a one-year deal. The deal will pay Cadrez a base salary of $500,000 this year and includes a signing bonus of $25,000.

milkman
06-06-2001, 07:17 PM
When you read this on KFFL, did you get a little rush of excitement?:D
How many years:eek: left until TC starts?

keg in kc
06-06-2001, 07:23 PM
Yep, I did have a little rush, actually. :o

No news at all has been grating...

I've been hoping they'd sign this guy for weeks now, because he'd give us needed depth at all 3 LB positions. I wasn't sure if we could afford it, though...

Hopefully they'll try to add Belser now, if at all possible.

I'm wondering how long we have to wait for Blackshear to be cut...

The Bad Guy
06-06-2001, 07:27 PM
Outstanding signing.

Provides great depth at all linebacker positions and allows us to cut camp bodies like Richard Jordan, and possibly Larry Atkins early to create cap space to sign Keith Poole or Jason Belser.

The Chiefs had $543,000 before this signing. Now they are down to $18,000 if you subract Cadrez's $525,000 cap figure.

There are still more cuts that need to be made. I can see Ricks, Parker, Blackshear, Jordan and Atkins shown the door in the immediate future.

That would free up: $2,452,000 in cap space.

Blackshear- $750,000
Jordan- $424,000
Atkins- $389,000
Ricks- $500,000
Parker- $389,000

This move also makes our special teams outstanding.

milkman
06-06-2001, 07:32 PM
I still think that CP might try to find a trade partner for Blackshear. There are teams out there that need a good pass blocker.

Phobia
06-06-2001, 07:33 PM
Excellant News! Cadrez should know the secret to evading lubed jerseys to penetrate the donkos backfield.

milkman
06-06-2001, 07:38 PM
LOL, Phil.
One advantage I hadn't thought of.

DaWolf
06-06-2001, 07:42 PM
Foxsports.com just had a blurb on him this morning rating the available free agents:

Glenn Cadrez
Linebacker
Released by Denver

Cadrez was one of the more underrated players with the Denver Broncos over the past seasons. He's provided good depth over the last five seasons, which included two seasons as a starter when the Broncos suffered injuries. Cadrez is a productive run defender who attacks the gaps and also provides some help as a perimeter pass rusher when needed. More importantly, he's effective at all three linebacker positions. The Indianapolis Colts would be an excellent fit because they need depth and insurance in the middle and on the strong side.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/home/nfl_news.cfm?cont_id=63166

Cormac
06-06-2001, 08:09 PM
Good news!

Frank,

Thanks for the cap info. Is that just counting the top 51 salaries? We'll need to factor in 2 more (cheap) salaries by the time the roster is set??? But it looks like we can create some room pretty easily for a couple more bargain basement FAs.

keg in kc
06-06-2001, 08:22 PM
Cormac, that would be the current number counting 51 players I believe, although RealTeam shows us currently having 322K against the cap some way or another.

If I can find some more info I'll post it.

DaWolf
06-06-2001, 08:30 PM
Of course you never know the exact situation with the Chiefs. Peterson for all we know could be restructuring guys' contracts behind closed doors right now...

KCJohnny
06-06-2001, 10:28 PM
Greg Robinson, Glen Cadrez and Ray Crockett.
All key players in a D we beat 4 straight times under the man you 'experts' deem to be one of the worst coaches in Chiefs history (actually, 3rd winningest).

Please, do applaud.

When you are finished, wake me up.

KCJ:D

The Bad Guy
06-06-2001, 11:49 PM
I guess if the signings have nothing to do with keeping maulball, or RBBC in the Chiefs theories, Proctor is totally against it.

Cunningham also beat Mike Holmgren twice, and I still consider Holmgren a superior coach over Goonther.

Cadrez adds depth, something no Gunther team had a lot of unless it was in the backfield.

I too think Gun was a nice guy, just a poor head coach. It's good that he could prepare his club to play the Broncos, and Rams, but I wonder what he was doing the other 14 weeks of the season.

DaWolf
06-07-2001, 12:00 AM
Well if I recall, Cadrez was picked up by the Donx after he was let go by the Jets, probably because Greg Robinson was familiar with him from his days in New York. And that didn't turn out to bad. Coaches always pick up players they were familiar with. Depth is never a bad thing, especially quality depth...

aturnis
06-07-2001, 12:53 AM
I am excited about this move, but I for one think we have some pretty severe depth at the LB position, and don't really want to see Larry Atkins leave, I kind of like the kid. Same deal with Larry Parker, most of you are excited to see him leave, but I am not so sure, he could be a project guy.

MrBlond
06-07-2001, 05:59 AM
When will the Broncavazation stop? I am so sick of adding cap friendly depth to a position of weakness with players wearing Superbowl rings that I could puke. The 69 Chiefs NEVER added a free agent and look how good they were. I feel so dirty.

Iowanian
06-07-2001, 09:42 AM
IT can never hurt to have veteran depth at LB. Cadrez fills both of those criteria and will be a solid backup.

turnis,

Larry Parker has been a "project guy" for what...4 years....how many does he need?...I think his spot could be better filled.

KCJ,
sounds like someone had an extra bowl of B@tch flakes for breakfast this morning....come on man...have some fiber in your diet....it will be ok...Marty and Gun both have new jobs and aren't going to starve to death....

Clint in Wichita
06-07-2001, 09:49 AM
I agree with KCJ on this one.

Why take players from a unit that sucks arse?

If you want defense, go after Ravens, Titans, Buccaneers, etc.

If you want offense, go after Vikings, Rams, Broncos, etc.

I'd rather see Atkins get a shot at OLB before Bush OR Cadrez.

Lzen
06-07-2001, 10:30 AM
Clint,
by your theory Lew Bush was a great pickup since he was on an outstanding Chargers defense. Therefore, by your theory he should be starting.
Mr. Blond,
Wakeup and smell the concrete. This isn't 1969. The NFL is a lot different now than it was then. This is the age of free agency. You have to sign FAs if you want to be a contender.
Iowanian,
I think Larry Parker has only played 2 years. Sure, he hasn't done squat but, who knows. Perhaps, he could be a solid backup with the right coaching. I guess we'll find out if the Chiefs organization thinks he has potentiel. If they do, he'll be on the roster come September. If they don't, he'll be cut in preseason.
This is a great pickup. Solid, veteran depth at a thin position. Very good move. Quit your bitching until you see what this team can do.

Gaz
06-07-2001, 10:35 AM
Clint, by your theory Lew Bush was a great pickup since he was on an outstanding Chargers defense. Therefore, by your theory he should be starting.

Yes, and per Clint's "theory," no one in their right mind would want Edwards, Hicks or Wesley because the Chiefs Defense was poor last season.

I say again: Feh!

xoxo~
Gaz
Shamelessly mocking an absurd theory.

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 10:40 AM
John - How about being constructive for a change and telling all of us morons exactly which NFL veteran we could sign for a grand total of 525K who knows this defensive system and is able to back up all 3 linebacker positions and challenge Lew Bush for a starting spot.

Clint - I think Atkins is way too small for the strong side (@230). I could be wrong about that, of course. I'd be wary, though, since he's never played an NFL down there.

I agree with your thought that we go after players from good defensive units. The problem is that the players that make these units good aren't on the market. It's not like Ray Lewis is available... Plus we're talking depth here, not starting players, and the price is what counts, especially in our cap situation. And we have picked up a couple of back-up players from good defensive units: Rich Owens from Miami and George McCullough from Tennessee.

bkkcoh
06-07-2001, 10:42 AM
How big was Dino Hackett, he wasn't much bigger was he? He was a good solid player until he got injured!!

MrBlond
06-07-2001, 10:49 AM
Izen,
Sarcasm.

Clint,
Mark McMillian played on some good to great defenses.
John Randle played on some horrible defenses.
Steve Young led an inempt offense in Tampa.
Steve Bono played on some great offenses in SF.

Cadrez is what he is... solid veteran depth.

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 10:50 AM
Izen, unless I miss my guess, Mr. Blonde was being sarcastic.

KCJohnny
06-07-2001, 11:09 AM
:p :p :p :p

You got me, MrBlond (LOL!).

Kyle, thank you so much once again for your humorless dissection of my every thought. You make Logical Jim look like Jim Carey.

Remember the bad old days when the Donx craved OUR defensive players? (Look for the hidden meaning here, Kyle; there has to be some Freudian allusion to my Care-package encrypted in my response).

Welcome aboard, Glen. You are now a Kansas City Chief, and we're damned glad to have you! Your first assignment? Kick the living snot out of anybody on the field wearing those ugly blue and orange uniforms. Got it?

KCJ
:D

Clint in Wichita
06-07-2001, 11:16 AM
IMO the money Cadrez is getting is being wasted.

Why not fill an actual NEED, like a good, veteran CB?

No, Crockett doesn't count. He should've retired 2 years ago.

Gaz,

I see what you're saying, but we now have 3 Broncos...a coordinator, and 2 guys that will see playing time. Their D sucked last year, and these 3 were significant contributors. I'd rather use our young, unproven guys (Atkins, Bartee, etc.) than mediocre-at-best Broncos who simply add to the salary cap.

Let's just be glad Vince Tobin didn't get the D.C. job...he almost did.

We'd have 2 or 3 Cardinals on the roster right now, and Aeneas Williams wouldn't be one of 'em.

KCJohnny
06-07-2001, 11:19 AM
Clint,
The check is in the mail.

KCJ
This getting regulars to agree with me is costing me a fortune!
:eek:

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 11:32 AM
Typical John.

I asked a question, and like usual, you ignore it and instead try to insult me or question my knowledge or some other pointless crap. And the little shot about the care package. What the hell was that? I've never mocked you, nor your love for Marty or Cunningham. I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic. Either grow up or shut up.

If you want to talk football, fine. Keep insulting me and I'll just put your sorry @ss on ignore where it belongs. Take your pick.

I don't have a problem with you or with your opinion. But if you can't handle a dissenting voice then just stop posting. We're here to discuss and debate the Chiefs, and we don't have to agree. But we do have to respect each other. And apparently you completely lack the ability to respect anyone who doesn't see things the way you do.

Like I said on another thread "I don't care if you disagree, just don't be disagreeable".

You're getting more disagreeable by the day. :mad:

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 11:47 AM
Clint, I agree with you on the cornerback issue, that doesn't have anything to do with Cadrez. Let me explain that:

I don't like the Crockett signing (which I've said all along...). That doesn't relate to signing Cadrez at all - we signed Glenn for 525K, and no veteran cornerback in the NFL will sign for that. Crockett, as bad as we all agree he may be, costs us 916K against the cap this season, and that's just a drop in the barrel compared to what Aeneas Williams got from the Rams: he's guaranteed 7.5 million in the first two years of his contract! We just can't afford that kind of cash with the cap sieve we're still in.

Again, I don't like Crockett, and I wish we had signed a better veteran cornerback. I just don't know who that would be, what player would play here that we could afford to get (remember we're less than 500K under the cap right now, and that's only counting 51 contracts)...

Cadrez is a linebacker, and I just separate that from the CB issue in my mind. I think we did need veteran depth at LB, and he gives us just that, and, more importantly, he's not guaranteed a spot on the team: if we cut him we're only out 25K. You may not like the player, but it's a very smart signing...

So, that's why I'm happy about Cadrez. At worst he's a training camp body for token change, and at best he's quality depth at LB. I'm still worried about cornerback, but I have no idea how to solve that problem other than to give young, younger and youngest a chance to prove themselves...

Clint in Wichita
06-07-2001, 12:00 PM
I really don't think LB depth was a problem, but apparently CP did. Geez, we've got Atkins and Maz just rotting on the bench, and I still believe Andre O'neal should get a shot...and they were already under contract.

Cormac
06-07-2001, 12:14 PM
Clint,

I agree with you. I have been hoping all along that we'll use as many young players as possible this season while we are not in contention. For this reason, I hope we don't sign the likes of Keith Poole. Having said that though, Cadrez' signing is without any pitfall. As Kyle pointed out, we only committed 25K to him. Regarding CB too.....We might be weak at that position, but that is another spot (along with WR) where I think we should evaluate what we have before we fling money the way of other veterans like Crockett this year, and Gray before him. Cadrez is a good gamble for depth at LB (although the best case scenario is if he gets outplayed in TC by Atkins and/or O'Neal). We're still going to have to sign a Safety, and I hope we find a quality back-up DT too before opening day.

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 12:22 PM
Well, Maz is in contention for the starting spot with Patton, according to Vermeil and Robinson. The coaches love him from what I can gather, and if he's not starting after TC it's because he couldn't beat out Patton yet, not because he couldn't play. He might well be starting when the season starts, who knows...

Either way, Maz is a shoe-in to start in 2002, because Marvcus will be 34 and due 2 million dollars in base salary.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the linebacker depth, I guess. I just don't see Atkins as a sure thing since he's been a safety for his short career, and thus hasn't played any LB. Also, I consider him undersized until he adds at least 10 pounds, which he should be able to at 6'3. 230 seems awfully light at that height for a SAM LB. I also have questions about O'neal, but that's mainly because I haven't seen him play very much.

I see it like this now:

SLB: Bush, Cadrez, Atkins
MLB: Patton, Maz, Cadrez
WLB: Edwards, O'Neal, Cadrez

CB is still an issue though, although I really think both Dennis and Barlow could be good starters. However, there's no real "stud" there, and that's something I think we need.

Allen, Bartee, Carter, Crockett, Dennis, McCullough, Warfield.

Someone is going to have to step up bigtime...

The question is, are any of them good enough to do it?

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 12:25 PM
Yeah, with Atkins moving to LB we need a safety in the worst way. We drafted Harts, but I see him as a project with great upside, and not much more than a possible special teamer this year.

Logical
06-07-2001, 12:38 PM
Johnny,

On this one I agree that Cadrez does not appear to be a great move.

However, if after camp and preseason he has not worked out they can cut him for all of $25K against the camp and the prorated portion of his salary for those two months. There really is almost no risk and some potential for upside.

Try thinking about it in those terms.

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 12:48 PM
Thank you, Jim. I've been trying to say that exact thing and just couldn't find the right words... ;)

Cannibal
06-07-2001, 01:10 PM
I am not excited about this signing at all, as others seem to be. Cadrez is nothing but an old journeyman, basically a 3rd tier, bottom of the barrell free agent signing. I am tired of us recycling these has-been/never-will-be's. Especially when the only reason we seem to be signing them is because they played under our current coaches at one time.

If we're signing players like this just to add depth, I'd MUCH rather a young kid that has fresh legs. With a player like Cadrez, you know what you're getting, a completely mediocre player who should probably be out of the league. At least w/ a young guy you might find a "diamond in the rough".

I HATE the Cadrez signing, I HATE the Crockett signing, I HATED and still HATE the Bush signing, I HATED the McCancer signing, I HATED the Carlton Gray signing etc. etc. etc.

If it's for depth, let's give the young guys a shot, at least they have fresh legs, athletic ability, SPEED and MIGHT have game. We know those free agents we've signed don't.

Cannibal
06-07-2001, 01:17 PM
I am not excited about this signing at all, as others seem to be. Cadrez is nothing but an old journeyman, basically a 3rd tier, bottom of the barrell free agent signing. I am tired of us recycling these has-been/never-will-be's. Especially when the only reason we seem to be signing them is because they played under our current coaches at one time.

If we're signing players like this just to add depth, I'd MUCH rather a young kid that has fresh legs. With a player like Cadrez, you know what you're getting, a completely mediocre player who should probably be out of the league. At least w/ a young guy you might find a "diamond in the rough".

I HATE the Cadrez signing, I HATE the Crockett signing, I HATED and still HATE the Bush signing, I HATED the McCancer signing, I HATED the Carlton Gray signing etc. etc. etc.

If it's for depth, let's give the young guys a shot, at least they have, athletic ability, SPEED and MIGHT have game. We know those free agents we've signed don't.

Cannibal
06-07-2001, 01:22 PM
I am not excited about this signing at all, as others seem to be. Cadrez is nothing but an old journeyman, basically a 3rd tier, bottom of the barrell free agent signing. I am tired of us recycling these has-been/never-will-be's. Especially when the only reason we seem to be signing them is because they played under our current coaches at one time.

If we're signing players like this just to add depth, I'd MUCH rather a young kid that has fresh legs. With a player like Cadrez, you know what you're getting, a completely mediocre player who should probably be out of the league. At least w/ a young guy you might find a "diamond in the rough".

I HATE the Cadrez signing, I HATE the Crockett signing, I HATED and still HATE the Bush signing, I HATED the McCancer signing, I HATED the Carlton Gray signing etc. etc. etc.

If it's for depth, let's give the young guys a shot, at least they have, athletic ability, SPEED and MIGHT have game. We know those free agents we've signed don't.

nickman
06-07-2001, 01:33 PM
I'm with Cannibal. He is maxed out and was not that good. I would rather see O'neal or Atkins get a chance to play. I would rather see Maz (out of position) play the outside than either him or Bush. Maybe if we had a potential superbowl his leadership and experience might be necessary. I'm not of the opinion that we are even in the hunt for the playoffs right now.

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 01:58 PM
You can't really put the Cadrez signing in the same bone-head class as the Crockett signing. Cadrez signed for 525K for one year, Crockett signed a multi-year deal for 18+ million. If Cadrez really is washed-up, we cut him during camp and lose 25K, no big deal. We have to keep Crockett on the team because of his signing bonus.

That one still p!sses me off...

But Cadrez isn't a Chester the Digester or a "Ray, Ray can he play?" Crockett. He's basically a training camp body with a shot to make the team, and if he does, we pay him which is a wise move. We'll still get to see what the youngsters can do. We didn't give Cadrez enough $$$ to guarantee him a roster spot.

KCJohnny
06-07-2001, 02:53 PM
My dear brother Kyle:
Such ferocious words to a brother in the cause of the red'n'gold!

Apparently you didn't appreciate the humor I intended by my slight on the Cadrez signing. I was not insulting you or making light of your thread topic, just posting a caveat on the whole topic of the Chiefs (seeming) neglect of the defensive squad.

And you can't ignore me. I give you too many set ups. You LOVE me.

You dissent? Methinks you jest.

KCJ
;)

Cannibal
06-07-2001, 02:57 PM
He's basically a training camp body with a shot to make the team, and if he does, we pay him which is a wise move.

Again, if he's just a training camp body, [which is all the guy is worth IMO] why not just use a young guy? These washed-up vets are old and tired, they bring nothing to the table.

It was dumb signing IMO. I'd much rather bring in a rookie free agent that has good "measureables" like speed, strength and agility and then hope the guy can be molded into a football player.

Logical
06-07-2001, 04:07 PM
Cannibal,

I am going to agree and disagree with you.

If a young guy that actually has a chance of making the squad is denied the opportunity I am against Cadrez being brought in.

On the other hand Cadrez because of his experience both as a veteran and as a player from Robinson's system is able to pass some knowledge to our veterans and our young guys that make them Gel into the system faster, he has done the team a service that a young guy who had no real chance could not.

Denver has had great linebacker play for years so what Cadrez can do to help Robinson teach the system to our linebackers will be of value.

If there were a young guy out there who could actually help the team, and is not on a roster who would it be?

keg in kc
06-07-2001, 04:19 PM
Cannibal, he's a good training camp body because he's familiar with the system we're running and he can help the other guys learn what's going on. We have a slew of young LBs who will be in training camp: Larry Atkins, Donnie Edwards, Richard Jordan, Mike Maslowski, Andre O'Neal, Wes Robertson (here's a rookie free agent for you...), Gary Stills, Casey Tisdale. That's 8 guys under the age of 28, of which only 1 is a proven player with significant playing time (2 if you think Maz is proven enough). Compare that with the three old farts on the roster, Bush, Cadrez and Patton, and it's pretty evident that young guys are something we have plenty of at this point.

John, I didn't recognize any humor to appreciate, or I probably would have appreciated it more. ;)

ck_IN
06-07-2001, 04:54 PM
This smells distressingly like a stop gap 'win now' move. If that's the case then it's a poor move since we're certainly not going to win anything now, except for a high draft choice.

If the arrivial of Caderez means the departure of Bush, then I can support it. If it means less time for Stills, O'Neil, and Atkins then it's bad.

All in all, I'd just as soon we not signed him. We're rebuilding, regardless of what the brain trust calls it. We need to cut the stop gaps and get on with the rebuilding.

HC_Chief
06-07-2001, 05:12 PM
Cadrez = pretty good veteran who can backup <i>all three</i> LB positions... and do it cheap at that.

Consider our 'experienced' LB corps: Bush, Edwards, Maslowski, Patton. After them, we have Atkins - a converted safety, O'Neal - practice squad and ST contributor, Gary Stills - NFLE pass rusher, and a bunch of guys that make most Chiefs fans say "who?!".

IMHO, it was a good signing. Good value, provides depth at three positions, knows the DC's system and can contribute on ST. :)

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 08:09 AM
Again, if he's just a training camp body, [which is all the guy is worth IMO] why not just use a young guy? These washed-up vets are old and tired, they bring nothing to the table.

It was dumb signing IMO.

I'd much rather bring in a rookie free agent that has good "measureables" like speed, strength and agility and then hope the guy can be molded into a football player, than bring in a guy that we already know basically sucks.

HC_Chief
06-08-2001, 08:44 AM
Cannibal - we already <i>have</i> the young guys. We need experience in their also. Cadrez provides an experienced backup at all three positions.

Atkins would have to play <i>brilliantly</i> to get past Bush and Maslowski on the depth chart. Stills will not take Edwards' spot... and neither wil O'Neal. Face it, the young guys we have are there as backups too. Difference: Cadrez has experience; thus making him a better choice if Bush/Patton/Edwards/Maslowski go down with an injury.

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 09:06 AM
Cadrez has experience... very, very mediocre experience [to put nicely].

Put a guy in that has some speed and athletic ability.

Our starters are experienced. If they go down, put a young guy in. You never know, you just might find "playa" with one of the young guys that takes his place. Unless you play them you'll never know. We know what Cadrez brings to the table and it's not much.

Should the Broncos have signed a mediocre vet that had "experience" instead of giving Terrell Davis a shot when he was a rookie? I think not. They took a chance and found a future hall of famer.

HC_Chief
06-08-2001, 09:11 AM
Robinson knows Cadrez & what he is capable of. By the end of TC, he'll kinow what ALL of our LBs are capable/incapable of.

'Throwing' an inexperienced player into a game just because he is young is asking for trouble. That player because a focal point for attack by the opposing team <i>because</i> he's young & inexperienced.

We got depth at a position where we had a lot of youth, but NO experience. We got it for very little money.

There is no reason to b|tch about this signing... unless you just like hearing yourself b|tch ;)

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 09:29 AM
There is plenty of reason to b1tch about this signing and many others like it, unless you have rose colored glasses permanently attached to your dome.

He's a washed up journeyman and most of us all know it. There was NO value in this signing.

Waste of a roster spot.

Clint in Wichita
06-08-2001, 09:32 AM
Well, either Robinson DOESN'T know what Crockett brings to the table, or he's so screwed in the head that he believes Crockett is starting material.

The Bad Guy
06-08-2001, 09:39 AM
Terell Davis is a future hall of famer?

I agree that Davis was spectacular from around 1996-1998, but two all-pro seasons won't get him in the hall of fame.

HC_Chief
06-08-2001, 09:41 AM
<i>He led Denver with 97 tackles in 1998 and was second on the team with 105 tackles in 1999, but he made only three starts last year. </i> (source: <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news/ap/20010607/ap-chiefsmoves.html">Yahoo Sports</a>)

202 tackles in last two years as a starter in Denver.

Compare:
Patton - 183
Edwards - 215
Bush/Maslowski - 55


"washed up " my @ss! You really need to do some research before you start spouting, dude.

Clint - no one likes the Crockett signing; but he is NOT guaranteed the starting spot as you claim. He might currently be slated there, but last time I checked, the regular season did not start 'till Autumn.

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 09:44 AM
Davis has 7,000 rushing yards and two Superbowl rings. I believe he also has an MVP award. Earl Campbell had a short, but stellar career and still got in. And he didn't even have a Superbowl ring.

I'm pretty sure Davis gets in. Maybe he needs 1 more 1,000 yard season to close the deal.

Clint in Wichita
06-08-2001, 09:48 AM
The 2 rings and his 2,000 yard season will get him in if he retires tomorrow IMO.

AustinChief
06-08-2001, 09:58 AM
NO way Davis gets in the HOF unless he has AT LEAST one more BIG season. He had 1 good season and 3 great seasons...

Earl Campbell had 5 great seasons... BIG difference... and I can't see Davis getting another 1000 yd season for the rest of his career... I honestly don't see him ever getting through another season without injury. He has been injured in 3 of his 6 seasons in the NFL.

--Kyle
~just my $.02

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 10:03 AM
You really think Cadrez is better than Maz just because he had more tackles?

Maz didn't get to start.

Anybody can get 100 tackles if they get to start the majority of the time.

Some better questions would be:

How many times did Cadrez miss a tackle? How many times did miss in coverage? How many times did he get juked out of his shorts? How many times did he get run over, or fail to wrap up? How many of his tackles were solo?

People ran all over Denver so a bunch of their player got a lot of opportunities to make tackles.

If he's so great why didn't the Donkeys keep him "for experienced depth"?

If he's so great why did he only get a 1 year deal for pud money?


Like I said, I'd rather see a young guy in his spot.

AustinChief
06-08-2001, 10:05 AM
I also think the performances of Gary and Anderson have significantly hurt Davis' reputation... I think that most of the NFL admits that anyone who is good can look great behind the Denver o-line...

Anderson had 1500 yds last year... and no one is going to convince me that he is a hall of fame RB...

--Kyle

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 10:09 AM
AustinChief,


When you factor in his MVP and rings he probably gets in.

Although, you could be right and he might need one more good year to seal the deal.

Oxford
06-08-2001, 10:33 AM
This was done to push the younger players, to let them know their roster spot was not safe because of the lack of other candidates. If someone goes down in training camp, then he's got a shot.

MrBlond
06-08-2001, 10:54 AM
I wonder if Baltimore fans said the same things about Sam Adams. Adams was a washed up, has been, under-achiever from a poor defense that did not bother to try to resign him. It is easy to look back now and say "Adams is totally different from Cadrez." Adams was different because he was motivated to perform. Cadrez may be also. Then again, he may be washed up. Either way what possible harm has been done? He hasnt been the one holding back Gary Stills for the last few years. O'Neal? Gunther saying this guy looks good may not be totally reliable. Gunther said EVERYONE looked good. Gunther said he loved Mark McMillan. Maz? Maz will stand or fall on his own, Cadrez will not affect him. The other LBs? If they can't beat out Cadrez, who cares?

Clint in Wichita
06-08-2001, 11:27 AM
The playing field in training camp may be skewed because of Robinson's "boys".

I'd say Crockett and Cadrez have a better shot at starting only because they played under Robinson.

Guys like Dennis and Maz will have to do more than the 2 ex-Broncos to win a starting job.

TEX
06-08-2001, 11:44 AM
The more ex - Donx the Chiefs sign on the defensive side of the ball, the worse off we'll be. IMHO, both Crockett and Cadrez should be back ups and not starters. They simply stifle the development of the young guys. Now. if we started signing ex Donx O-lineman...

DaWolf
06-08-2001, 11:45 AM
That would assume that Robinson is a guy who plays favorites. Since we know very little about Robinson, I don't think that's a fair judgement to make at this point. They have an edge in that they know the system. If the other guys pick up the system quickly, and they play better, they will be fine. Otherwise the guys who know their stuff give us the best chance to win. It's all about hard work, and if this breeds competition, then that hastens improvement. Having a bunch of untested backups does not push guys as hard as when they have to work hard to beat a guy who knows their stuff...

Gaz
06-08-2001, 12:37 PM
I like the Cadrez signing. We could use some backup and he is versatile.

As far as him taking playing time away from younger players, if he can beat them out for the job, then good for him. I am interested in who plays the position best, not who is youngest.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be amazed to see Cadrez start any game.

htismaqe
06-08-2001, 02:03 PM
I can't believe this...

We guarantee $25k to a guy that can play all 3 LB positions, and quite well at that, and the boo-birds are out in full force...

Where's MileHigh? My friend here at work -- he's a Bronco fan -- says we got a steal and he's actually SEEN Cadrez play...

You really think Cadrez is better than Maz just because he had more tackles?

Anybody can get 100 tackles if they get to start the majority of the time.

That's funny. According to several of the stat collecting services, somewhere between 11 and 23 linebackers amassed 100 tackles last year. THAT'S NOT EVEN ONE PER TEAM...

How many times did Cadrez miss a tackle? How many times did miss in coverage? How many times did he get juked out of his shorts? How many times did he get run over, or fail to wrap up? How many of his tackles were solo?

Is this a criticism or a legitimate question? If it's a criticism, how about "How many times did you see him play?" Probably the 2 times they played the Chiefs, right?

Oh, my god, the sky is falling...

nickman
06-08-2001, 02:11 PM
Yeah but is experience a great criteria for this team at this time? Are we superbowl bound or even playoff? If Cadrez makes the team because experience but has less talent is that not ultimately bad for this team. If O'neill gets little playing time or does not make it because of inexperience. Would he not get it if you kept him and let him play.

Clint in Wichita
06-08-2001, 02:12 PM
IMO Maz could be the best LB on the team, including Edwards, if given the chance. The same cannot be said about Cadrez.

Hopefully, GC will be relegated to the bench and make this a moot point.

Cannibal
06-08-2001, 02:12 PM
The dude has a grand total of 291 tackles in a ten year career.

That's two freaking seasons worth for most good LB's.


I hate ex-Donkeys, especially mediocre ex-Donkey's that are signed to my team just because the D-coordinator wants to bring in people he knows.

You guys getting excited about this guy cracks me up.

nickman
06-08-2001, 02:17 PM
The complaints about this signing are not the money spent but the potential roster spot he takes up at the expense of a future hopefully explosive performer. Cadrez was never that and certainly won't be. Its not like he is going to a new system that may use his skills better. Its the same system he was moderately sucessful in the last few years.

keg in kc
06-08-2001, 02:25 PM
Cannibal, who exactly is excited about this signing?

The guy has been signed to a 25K training camp contract for all intents and purposes. Nobody thinks he's a starter, nobody thinks he's the second coming of Ray Lewis, and I don't think very many of us think he's even guaranteed a roster spot. I sure don't think so...

He signed for nothing so there's no risk, and the only possible reward is that he might make the squad and back up the starters in multiple positions. He'll help the players adjust to the system in camp and then probably be released, unless Atkins, Stills, O'Neal, et al completely SUCK!

This ain't bringing in Ray Crockett for 18 million dollars, this is bringing in an experienced camp body and LB tutor for 25K.

That's all.

I'm not excited because Cadrez is signed - I'm simply excited that there's news, any news...

HC_Chief
06-08-2001, 03:18 PM
<b>Rev Amesj523 - 02:11pm Jun 8, 2001 MDT (#6 of 6)
<font size=1>"You know the Nazis had Flair" - Office Space</font></b>

<i>Cadrez made a few big time plays in his tenure with Denver - I think he will have a big play or few left in the tank... his real value comes from the ability that he can play all 3 positions pretty decently.... </i>

Cut & paste direct from Denver Post Online Broncos forum - Denver fans know him to be a solid player. Not great, solid.

DaWolf
06-08-2001, 03:29 PM
I don't know why some of you seem to be displeased with cheap, quality, veteran, super bowl experienced depth. If Maz and these guys are the badasses you think they are, they should have no problem stepping up to the plate and winning a job...

htismaqe
06-08-2001, 04:08 PM
I am not, and never was, very excited about this signing...

It's also not the end of the world, like some of you would have us believe.