View Full Version : What do you think he means?

06-19-2001, 06:13 AM
Q: Can Deion Sanders still play and could he help your team ?

VERMEIL: "I don't think it's good for a veteran of his stature to be brought into a program that's winding up again. I think he's better off being in a program where he's trying to maitain a certain level or be the guy who makes the difference in an already Super Bowl contender."

Does "winding up" mean rebuilding? That is what it sounds like to me. What are your thoughts?

06-19-2001, 06:37 AM
Rebuilding. We've only replaced 99.9% of the coaches.

06-19-2001, 06:42 AM
I think we are rebuilding, but not in a drastic way. There are a lot of players gone, and cap problems solved this year. That's the first step to rebuilding - tearing down the old. And we didn't have to sacrifice too much to do it IMO. We probably have as many as 15 good young players in our starting rotation now, guys who will improve under this new scheme and still have at least some of their best years ahead. That's what I think he means by winding up. Not that we're starting from the bottom up, but that the next couple of years are where these younger guys will become more and more productive. From my point of view, he's exactly right.

06-19-2001, 06:44 AM
Teams that are rebuilding DO NOT sign the likes of Glenn Cadrez, Ray Crockett and Scrubby Blister!

Sounds like a built-in excuse for failure to me.

06-19-2001, 06:51 AM
I would say rebuilding....

All that really matters is that he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't want Sanders....THANK GOD

06-19-2001, 06:55 AM

I agree with that, but we did need some veteran depth at those positions. I like the Cadrez signing. He cost us nothing (25k signing bonus) so he can be cut for nothing if O'Neal or Atkins looks ready. Otherwise he gives us good depth at all 3 LB positions, and can long-snap so we can cut Gammons and keep Ricks or another TE (or another position). I think he's an excellent and cheap replacement for a guy like Ron George.

I hate the Crockett signing :mad: I especially hate the fact that he looks like he's walking into a starting job because of Greg Robinson :( But again, we did need some experienced warm body at CB. That doesn't change the fact that we way overpaid for him though :o

Brister was a crap signing too IMHO. I hope we pick up Dilfer or whoever gets cut by Chicago (Miller or Matthews) instead (if cheap). Brister is done, and I think he might retire if Collins beats him out for the #2 in TC.

IMO no team coming off a 7-9 season where coaching cost them 2-3 games (again MHO) should rebuild without having some veteran depth. It's not like we're the Bungles or Cards. The only aged signing we've committed to is Crockett, and just because I don't like this signing doesn't mean to me that we no longer fit as a pseudo-rebuilding team.

06-19-2001, 07:01 AM
I agree with Cormac...rebuilding wasn't necessary in this case, but retooling was...

06-19-2001, 07:02 AM
I just don't think we're in a serious "rebuilding" mode when we have a player like Maz who IS READY [IMO] to start but we sign 10 year veteran on his last legs to take his place.

Then paying Crockett all that money and not giving a young guy a shot. Crockett has been burned up and down the field for the last 3 or 4 years in a row now. I am serious when I say that Bartee or Dennis could play as well or better.

Then w/ the QB situation, if we were truly "rebuilding" Collins would be the back-up and we'd have young guy grooming for the future at the # 3. We certianly would not have signed a "veteran" who has sucked his entire career.

That is not rebuilding.

06-19-2001, 07:33 AM
I think this question is still to be answered. Historically new coaches replace most of the existing personnel in around 3 years.

06-19-2001, 07:38 AM

On the LB situation, I think we should be playing Maz in the middle and still sign Cadrez...Patton's cap number is high, and we'd have a badass starter and still have a good backup. For $25k, I still think the Cadrez signing was a good one...

On the CB situation, I just hope to God that Bartee and Dennis can win the starting spots.

06-19-2001, 07:46 AM
I have to believe this team is in somewhat of a rebuilding phase. As pointed out getting the cap problems in shape, thus far, has been the biggest positive. I, too, cannot believe the Crockett signing. Cadrez, doesn't bother me as much, only because of the low amount invested. I can only hope Crockett has a lot of "on field" coaching presence. Vermeil's history says he is going to tear a club down, and rebuild it. He has stated that was not as necessary here, than in previous places, so I am ready to give him a shot. Even Crockett's contract is severely backloaded, so I don't expect him here for more than two years.

06-19-2001, 07:52 AM
I still would rather have Patton than Cadrez.

If I had my druthers, the starting 3 LB's would be Patton, Maz and Edwards.

I'd then pass the torch to a young LB next year.


Starting Bush or Cadrez in his place is assinine! And that is what Vermiel said he plans to do.

California Injun
06-19-2001, 08:19 AM

Can you name one 3rd string QB that was ever on the Chiefs roster that was being groomed to take over?

Using that logic, the Chiefs were actually rebuilding with Montana, Krieg, and Blundin?:confused:

06-19-2001, 08:23 AM
This team has never truly made an attempt rebuild under Peterson.

That's what I'm talking about.

If we were rebuilding, Scrubby Blister would not be on the roster, Collins would be # 2, and a young guy would be # 3.

I can't stand the notion that just because these scrubs are veterans, it somehow makes us better. Scrubby has never been good, just because he's experienced doesn't improve us. A bad player is a bad player whether he's been in the league 10 years or 1 year.

06-19-2001, 08:28 AM

I guess we are in agreement that we are not in total rebuilding mode, but a serious retooling effort is in place for the next couple of years probably, as htis said.

I agree that Bartee or Dennis could probably play as well as Crockett. At least we could take our lumps this year (again) and when we are ready to make a run at the playoffs (next season and beyond) we'd no longer be talking about their inexperience.

I'm not worried about Maz though. I think he's a great influence on the field, with his attitude, tackling etc. I just don't know if he's worth starting at OLB when MLB is supposed to be his position. That's apparently what DV is doing.........leaving it to him to fight it out with Patton for the MLB starting job. I think the best man will get the job. If Patton wins, I can live with that. He'll probably be cut next year, and then Maz should start. Maz will get PT even if Patton is named starter. If Maz can't beat Patton, then why start him over Bush at OLB? He did pretty well there last season, but was not consistent. I think Bush is going to bounce back this season anyway.

I read somewhere recently that Collins is going into camp as #2. Can anyone remember where that was written and who said it? I think it was someone from the coaching staff as opposed to Teicher. As I said, if that happens, then I'd expect Brister to be cut or retire, although we'll probably sign another back-up vet then.

This team is never going to fully rebuild, because the FO always thinks (and usually rightly so) that we are not that far from a playoff run.

California Injun
06-19-2001, 08:39 AM
3rd string QBs on the Chiefs roster since the 1971 Xmas OT game against the Dolphins. I'm using this as a benchmark since the Chiefs were basically rebuilding since then.

The only #3 to creep up the depth charts was Bill Kenney from 1979-81. But then he got screwed over by the Blackledge drafting (including the Chiefs fans) in 1983.

Under Marty we went with the Rent-a-Niner throughout his coaching career (except for Krieg). So the 3rd string QB was basically a wasted roster space to him.

1972 - None
1973 - Pete Bethard
1974 - Dean Carlson
1975 - Tony Adams
1976 - Mike Nott (Adams moved to #2)
1977 - Mark Vitali (Adams still #2)
1978 - Dennis Shaw (Adams still #2)
1979 - Bill Kenney (Fuller #1)
1980 - Tom Clements (Kenney #2)
1981 - Bob Gagliano (Kenney #1)
1982 - Bob Gagliano
1983 - Bob Gagliano (Blackledge drafted)
1984 - Sandy Osiecki
1985 - Sandy Osiecki
1986 - Frank Seuer
1987 - Frank Seuer
1988 - Danny McManus (Steve Deberg signed)
1989 - Steve Peuller
1990 - Mike Elkins (Peuller to #2)
1991 - Mark Vlasic
1992 - Matt Blundin
1993 - Matt Blundin
1994 - Matt Blundin......

06-19-2001, 08:42 AM

I know where you're coming from and I'd actually go further.

My starter's would be Edwards and maybe O'Neal outside, and Maz inside. I agree Maz should be starting, but not outside. I'd cut Patton to free up the cap room...I wouldn't EVER start Cadrez, but he'd be quality, veteran backup for little to no cap cost...

06-19-2001, 08:56 AM

I don't know that O'Neal is ready to start or not, but prefer your scenario over Bush or Cadrez starting in place of Maz.

06-19-2001, 09:19 AM
I don't know if I have read that Collins is #2, but what I do know is that Collins was #1 AFTER Brister was signed and BEFORE Green was signed.

Vermiel is just being diplomatic. Its his nice way of saying, "I don't want that kind of overbloated ego here, I'm trying to establish a team attitude."

Rebuild? What rebuilding team deals away its #2 pick for a 64 year old coach and it's #1 for a 30 year old backup QB with a rebuilt knee?


06-19-2001, 09:23 AM

I couldn't agree with you more. He brings a ton of intensity. The kid deserves his shot.

06-19-2001, 09:46 AM
and that is a good thing!
Regarding the original post: DV is saying he doesn't want Neon in KC, period. Amen!!
Regarding Maz: I'm siding with Cannibal. While DV has done a great job so far, and Crockett is a big ?, the current Maz situation has me utterly perplexed. Is there something we, as fans, don't know about Maz?
That Maz should start is an absolute no-brainer. Intense, fast, physical, vicious, smart, and possessing a rare gift to <I>fly</I> to the ball no matter where it is. He's like a ball-seeking missile, and his passion is contagious.
That's how I see Mazlowski, and for the life of me I cannot understand why he isn't projected to be starting <B>at least</B> as OLB.
Hope TC resolves this issue, so we can see Maz ripping Raider heads off on 9 September.

06-19-2001, 09:54 AM
Anyone else remember that pathetic Atlanta loss last [sorry to re-open healed wounds]year?

Maz was on the sideline yelling at his teammates trying to get them fired up!

He is without a doubt the most intense player on the team and probably the most competetive. He hates to lose and it showed in that Atlanta game. Everyone else was going through the motions trying to end the season and he wanted to win even though we had no shot at the playoffs.

06-19-2001, 10:30 AM
If this team were truly in a "rebuilding" mode, they would not have hired a 67 year old head coach nor would they have traded the 12th pick in the draft for a journeyman QB. IMO, they are retooling to stay mediocre and keep the fans interested. Maybe a good bounce here and a good bounce there and the Chiefs can contend for a wild card.

Rebuilding means being willing to lose for a couple of years and building through the draft with the high picks that go with losing. The Chiefs arent ready to scrap their program even though they havent won a playoff game in 8 years. The fans here, IMO, could not stomach a 4-12 season or two. 7-9 is about all they will tolerate without mass season ticket cancellations. I think Carl Peterson agrees with me on that, therefore, does what ever is necessary to keep his team somewhat competitive in the short term as opposed to doing what is right for the long term. Signing Crocket, Cadrez, and Brister are other examples. Yes, these guys are washed up, but they wont embarrass themselves and give the Chiefs a chance to win 7 games.

06-19-2001, 11:25 AM
What do you think about Mazlowski?

Clint in Wichita
06-19-2001, 11:47 AM
IMO Maz is a poor man's Ray Lewis...and not THAT poor, either.

06-19-2001, 12:04 PM
Here's what I took it as:

"Deion at this point in his career has diminished skills, and we're not looking for that on the team. We'd rather go with our up and coming corners and get them playing time. We already have one experienced guy in Crockett to mentor the group. Dieon would make a nice third cornerback for some team making one final run at the Super Bowl this year. We need guys who can tackle and who will make us a better football team."

06-19-2001, 12:12 PM
Frankly, I think I disagree with just about everyone on this topic...

1) I like Patton alot and think he should be the starter at MLB.

2) I like Maz as the heir apparent to that role.

3) I like the competition between Cadrez and Bush for the starting OLB spot and the depth added with the signing of Cadrez.

4) I like Deion. We don't have a CB that can cover as well as he can. From the players that he has played with, he is a great practice guy (works hard, comes early, stays late) and a great lockerroom guy. All the media stuff and the dancing is marketing (actually pretty good business strategy). Some will say he can't tackle and that is fair, but our biggest issue at CB is one on one coverage.

06-19-2001, 12:17 PM
alphacroon: I have to disagree, Deion was routinely toasted towards the latter part of last season. Teams were exploiting the man/man coverage that Deion supposedly can play.

About the only thing Deion can do anymore is fair catch punts for you at 3M per year.

06-19-2001, 12:58 PM

Please explain what you mean by "routinely". Yes he got beat on some plays (more than he used to), but I don't think it was "routinely".

Also, what CB do we have on our team that can cover better than Deion?

06-19-2001, 01:10 PM
Teams had the choice to go at Champ Bailey or Sanders and more times than not, went after Sanders with success. I can remember seeing several games toward the end of the year where it was discussed how teams now were not afraid to go after Sanders.

Is there anyone that can cover better than Deion on the team? I honestly dont know because last years soft zone did not allow the corners to play tight man coverage.

06-19-2001, 01:16 PM
Much of our soft zones had a lot to do with the lack of faith in our CBs. Don't get me wrong, I like Dennis, Warfield, and Bartee. I would rather see Deion on the field than Crockett, but I don't see that happening. If DV is truly going to bring in a vet CB and if that CB will have a shot at starting, then I'd like to see Deion or Hasty. If it will be a backup then neither of these guys is the right guy.

As for choosing between Bailey and Deion, that doesn't prove that Deion is a liability at CB. It means that Champ is younger and quicker. Admittedly, Deion has lost a step but is still in the top 10% as a coverage CB in the NFL.

06-19-2001, 01:51 PM

If that were true why is Vermeil here at all? regardless of age. If it were really status quo Peterson was interested in Gun could have delivered that and a hell of a lot cheaper. If 7 wins was what Peterson wanted why Green instead of Dilfer? Also rebuilding doesnt mean losing for a couple of years anymore. Teams go from bad to good alot faster these days...NO, STL, Baltimore, Giants. And if Peterson were not truly rebuilding(and a new HC, OC, DC, STC, starting QB, HB, Center, Returner, CB, and Punter lead me to believe they are) wouldnt Deion be a perfect signing? Carls actions THIS off-season speaks louder than your words. and what does age have to do with rebuilding? Marv Levy was how old when he went to Buffalo and turned that franchise around? Vermeil won a Superbowl 2 years ago. It took him 3 years with a team in MUCH worse shape than KC. 3 years is what he is signed for, and I think a perfect timetable to either rebuild and win it all or move on.

06-19-2001, 01:52 PM
Washington is not going to release Deion. To do so would require taking an almost 5.5M cap hit this year. Since Crockett is already signed, there's no need in signing another aging vet.

The fact that teams had such success going after Deion does not mean he's a bad corner, it just proves that he's not that great.

Hasty would've been good to keep, but there was no way KC was going to get around that cap #. They had no choice but to release him.

06-19-2001, 02:00 PM
Let's get real.
There is no one one the Chiefs roster who can hold Deion's jock in man coverage. One of the NFL's best all-round DBs is gone (Hasty) and the drop off is enormous. Even if he is 33-34, Sanders is still the guy I would want covering the other team's best WR at crunch time. I just don't want him on the Chiefs for mainly non-football reasons. The combination of Peter Guinta (DBs coach) who's Rams were scored on more than any team in the NFL last year and Robinson (Donx HC last year) who's secondary was ranked #30 overall does not give me much hope for dramatic improvement. Which is sad, because DB play has always been a standout feature of Chiefs football, even when we stunk. One great athlete can go along way to make up for the soft coaching. In his prime, Dale Carter was an athlete like that. Deion would instantly shut off half the field if he were on our defense. Problem would be, Pat Dennis or Ray Crockett would be getting torched on the other side. Maybe we're bettter off with too average to below avg CBs on the field... gives our excellent safeties a chance to make some plays..


06-19-2001, 02:00 PM
Point of clarification KCTitus:

Cutting Sanders carries a total cap hit of $6.856M, $1.144M this year, the rest in 2002. Cutting him would give the Redskins $3.5M in cap money to play with.

That quote is from NFL Insider. There is a very good chance that Marty will cut him. When he does, I expect to see him play in Arrowhead when the Broncos come to town. He'll be a Bronco within 3 days of the 'Skins releasing him.

06-19-2001, 02:35 PM
my bad, that is correct. I was looking at the 2002 number not the 2001 number.

Let's examine this for a minute...

Redskins sign Sanders last year and give him an 8M signing bonus. Now it would be completely absurd to release him after one year and defer a hit of almost 6M next year. Even if all Deion did was special teams, it would still be a worthwhile investment.

Marty would be playing into Sanders hands if he cut Deion. I give Marty a little credit here, but maybe I shouldnt.

Should it happen, and Marty takes Deion's bait, I hope he goes to Denver where they get screwed into a cap nightmare like Marty has with Deion right now.

06-19-2001, 03:24 PM
Marty should cut Deion even if he does take a cap hit next year.

Deion wasn't not brought in by Marty. Deion is not Marty's mistake, he is Dan Snieder's mistake.

Deion is well past his prime and for the last 3 years he's been ripping off the owner's he's played for and adimitted as much this offseason.

Marty would be smart to cut that Cancer after he lets him dangle a little bit.

If Marty is smart he'll make Deion go through training camp and then cut him.

06-19-2001, 03:47 PM
That's funny...

The HIGH PRIEST of Smashmouth is advocating the signing of Deion Sanders, the one guy in the NFL that's never put a hit on anyone...

We need more guys like Greg Wesley...**** Prime Time...

06-19-2001, 04:05 PM
Deion is the epitome of the 'Me First' sports personality. The guy is scum, a cancer, a selfish egomaniacal twat.

Here's the best article I've ever read on <a href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/halberstam/010515.html">"Neon Deion"</a>

Prime-Time jagoff is all he is...

06-19-2001, 04:11 PM
Even the thought of bringing in that overpaid, loudmouth, self-centered, me-me-me-me pile of goat vomit makes me want to puke.

I think Ive expressed my opinion on the stooges rather clearly and Id rather bring back the stooges than sign that jerk off.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 04:59 PM
We are not rebuilding!!!!!! DV is just making an excuse to not sign Deion because the guy is cancer(trouble maker, lockerroom axe, etc.)


because I said so:D

06-19-2001, 05:19 PM

You wouldn't by any chance have any Pittsburg ties would you? That's the first time I ever seen the word "jagoff" on this board.