PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Teicher: Chiefs interested in adding some veterans


Tribal Warfare
03-03-2009, 11:47 PM
Chiefs interested in adding some veterans (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chiefs/story/1066157.html)
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star

After their weekend trade for veteran linebacker Mike Vrabel, the Chiefs may soon be looking to add more veteran players.

They are showing interest in linebacker Clark Haggans, 32, and wide receiver Bobby Engram, 36.

Haggans, a nine-year NFL veteran, was scheduled to visit with Chiefs officials today. Haggans played eight years for Pittsburgh, and last season joined the Arizona Cardinals, where new Chiefs coach Todd Haley coordinated the offense.

Engram, a 13-year veteran, was in Kansas City on Tuesday but departed without a contract offer, agent Mitch Frankel said.

Haggans started for the Steelers for four seasons and had a career-high nine sacks when Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl in the 2005 season. He joined the Cardinals last year and played in 11 games before missing the last five games — and all of Arizona’s postseason — because of a foot injury, but the Chiefs evidently feel he will be healthy enough to play by the start of training camp.

In Arizona, Haggans worked with Clancy Pendergast, the Cardinals’ defensive coordinator who is now an assistant coach with the Chiefs.

If signed, Haggans could join the newly acquired Vrabel as a starter at outside linebacker. The Chiefs picked up Vrabel, 33, in the weekend trade with New England that also brought quarterback Matt Cassel.

Engram played five seasons for the Chicago Bears and eight for the Seattle Seahawks. He had the best statistical season of his career in 2007, when he caught 94 passes for 1,147 yards and six touchdowns.

Engram caught 47 passes for the Seahawks last year.

Count Alex's Losses
03-03-2009, 11:49 PM
I bet they're interested in adding some young players, too.

SNR
03-03-2009, 11:50 PM
If signed, Haggans could join the newly acquired Vrabel as a starter at outside linebacker.

:Lin:

DeezNutz
03-03-2009, 11:51 PM
I bet they're interested in adding some young players, too.

:clap:

Der Flöprer
03-03-2009, 11:52 PM
They're probably interested in signing some 27 year old guys.

Count Alex's Losses
03-03-2009, 11:54 PM
They're probably interested in signing some 27 year old guys.
REPOST

lazepoo
03-03-2009, 11:56 PM
I don't see what the huge backlash with the veterans is about. We're too young right now, and our roster needs some guys with experience and success to balance out or locker room. Haggans isn't going to tear the league up, but he's played on winning teams that have gone deep in the playoffs, and if he can make sound decisions on the field and help our defense as a unit, what's the downside?

Tribal Warfare
03-04-2009, 12:02 AM
I don't see what the huge backlash with the veterans is about. We're too young right now, and our roster needs some guys with experience and success to balance out or locker room.

This is correct.

RED BLITZ
03-04-2009, 12:22 AM
We should trade Dorsey to the saints for a 1st and Lance Moore. Thats a deal.

The_Doctor10
03-04-2009, 12:29 AM
We should trade Dorsey to the saints for a 1st and Lance Moore. Thats a deal.

I know there should be solidarity among noobs and all, but that's just effin inexecusable :)

dj56dt58
03-04-2009, 12:36 AM
finally a gm that gets it..you dont win with just young guys or just vets..you need both

keg in kc
03-04-2009, 12:37 AM
They applied to the league, but their request for 35 additional draft picks was met with silence, so they're going with plan 'B'.

RED BLITZ
03-04-2009, 12:59 AM
:cuss:I know there should be solidarity among noobs and all, but that's just effin inexecusable :)

RED BLITZ
03-04-2009, 01:03 AM
I know there should be solidarity among noobs and all, but that's just effin inexecusable :)

We would have 2 first round picks and lance. Dorsey is not going to make it in a 3-4 D. Then you might loose value if you want to trade him later.

RustShack
03-04-2009, 01:08 AM
Too bad we cut Donnie Edwards, he would have fit right in as a starting ILB.

mylittlepony
03-04-2009, 01:38 AM
We should trade Dorsey to the saints for a 1st and Lance Moore. Thats a deal.

Imagine them having both Ellis and Dorsey if you would have asked the planet last year it would have been like just giving them the SB by default.

melbar
03-04-2009, 01:50 AM
The thing is we cant draft every young player we need right now. The players we have at most positions suck. So why not bring in some veterans to fill positions till we can find our long term guys. As we bring in young guys at least there will be a player around to show them how to play the position, or be competent even if past prime to play beside our young guys. It would be nice if the young guys learn to play beside guys who at least know their assignments and can be where their supposed to be.

Short Leash Hootie
03-04-2009, 01:57 AM
:Lin:

Because he's a whole lot worse than what we already have...

Mecca
03-04-2009, 02:11 AM
Because he's a whole lot worse than what we already have...

Considering we have no 3-4 backers outside of the guy who was just traded for I don't think that even factors.

ChiefBrad
03-04-2009, 02:15 AM
We have to take Aaron Curry this guy is the real deal. He will be a play maker for years to come and it will be cool to get the best defensive athlete that the combine has seen in while at LB. He is a true football player also he will have a nose for the ball to go along with dominant physical ability. Hopefully nobody else steals him at #1 or #2.

Mecca
03-04-2009, 02:16 AM
We have to take Aaron Curry this guy is the real deal. He will be a play maker for years to come and it will be cool to get the best defensive athlete that the combine has seen in while at LB. He is a true football player also he will have a nose for the ball to go along with dominant physical ability. Hopefully nobody else steals him at #1 or #2.

:banghead:

lazepoo
03-04-2009, 02:26 AM
:banghead:

While I agree with the sentiments, I'm not so sure that Pioli doesn't think that Curry can do it all. If he thinks that Curry could play inside and outside, he could be our pick at 3 (assuming that we can't trade out of it). He's fast enough to play outside and rush the passer, so it wouldn't be out of the question to believe that they might draft him and hope he picks up some decent pass rush moves in camp and preseason. Really, there aren't a lot of other options for our #3, and at worst, I don't see him as worse than a solid ILB. With our weak ass LB corps, you could certainly stand to do worse.

Mecca
03-04-2009, 02:30 AM
I'd honestly like for someone to point to me a player similar to Curry that plays outside in the 3-4.

philfree
03-04-2009, 03:57 AM
I'd honestly like for someone to point to me a player similar to Curry that plays outside in the 3-4.

Why?


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
03-04-2009, 04:02 AM
Why?


PhilFree:arrow:

Because it's rather important to put players in their proper positions...

This idea that Aaron Curry can play OLB in a 3-4 is just ridiculous.

philfree
03-04-2009, 04:15 AM
Because it's rather important to put players in their proper positions...

This idea that Aaron Curry can play OLB in a 3-4 is just ridiculous.

Well.... you are one that says Curry can't play OLB in a 3-4....pretty much the only one.

PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
03-04-2009, 04:17 AM
Well.... you are one that says Curry can't play OLB in a 3-4....pretty much the only one.

PhilFree:arrow:

Why would you put a non pass rusher in a pass rushing role?

philfree
03-04-2009, 04:21 AM
Why would you put a non pass rusher in a pass rushing role?


I think he can rush the passer.


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
03-04-2009, 04:28 AM
Because his 9 sacks in 4 years bear that out....

BryanBusby
03-04-2009, 04:44 AM
BryanBusby: Teicher interested in adding more useless articles

philfree
03-04-2009, 04:47 AM
Because his 9 sacks in 4 years bear that out....

Well if that's you're only rebuke then that tells me that you haven't watched enough video of the guy. Or any video for that matter.


PhilFree:arrow:

Mecca
03-04-2009, 04:52 AM
Look I've seen him play a bunch of times, in a 3-4 scheme he's a middle backer.

OLB's in a 3-4 are converted fast undersized DE's that have pass rush skills, not traditional OLB's.

philfree
03-04-2009, 05:08 AM
Look I've seen him play a bunch of times, in a 3-4 scheme he's a middle backer.

OLB's in a 3-4 are converted fast undersized DE's that have pass rush skills, not traditional OLB's.

IMO Curry's more than traditional. Well my opinion and everybody elses cept yours. Anyway I gotta get sleep.



PhilFree:arrow:

Pioli Zombie
03-04-2009, 05:20 AM
Gotta get a nose tackle first and foremost. My question is if you can get Rogers from Cleveland first do you still get Raji or do you then grab Curry at #3?
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman
03-04-2009, 07:33 AM
Gotta get a nose tackle first and foremost. My question is if you can get Rogers from Cleveland first do you still get Raji or do you then grab Curry at #3?
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm still taking Raji.

Big uglies in the middle need plays off to stay fresh.

CoMoChief
03-04-2009, 07:40 AM
Gotta get a nose tackle first and foremost. My question is if you can get Rogers from Cleveland first do you still get Raji or do you then grab Curry at #3?
Posted via Mobile Device

Raji is a major reach at #3

Mecca
03-04-2009, 07:41 AM
Raji is a major reach at #3

No more than anyone else is.

Chiefless
03-04-2009, 08:14 AM
No more than anyone else is.

This is unfortunately true. No reward for sucking THIS year.

htismaqe
03-04-2009, 08:19 AM
IMO Curry's more than traditional. Well my opinion and everybody elses cept yours. Anyway I gotta get sleep.

PhilFree:arrow:

Not everybody.

People are enamored with his athleticism and have thrown reason out the window. Athleticism alone doesn't beat OT's. You need leverage, pass rush moves, etc. and Curry has NONE of those things.

htismaqe
03-04-2009, 08:22 AM
I don't see what the huge backlash with the veterans is about. We're too young right now, and our roster needs some guys with experience and success to balance out or locker room. Haggans isn't going to tear the league up, but he's played on winning teams that have gone deep in the playoffs, and if he can make sound decisions on the field and help our defense as a unit, what's the downside?

I think alot of people are hung up on the fact that this is exactly the approach Carl used to use.

For me it's vindication.

Carl was right about HOW to do it all along. The difference between him and Pioli was that one of them knows WHICH players to bring in/draft and one of them doesn't.

Shag
03-04-2009, 08:49 AM
I think alot of people are hung up on the fact that this is exactly the approach Carl used to use.

For me it's vindication.

Carl was right about HOW to do it all along. The difference between him and Pioli was that one of them knows WHICH players to bring in/draft and one of them doesn't.

I'm not sure I'd really agree with that. Carl seemed to rely mostly on free agent veterans, while we never really developed any of our own players. Plus, most of his pickups seemed to be guys going into their third contracts, rather than their second - guys on the back-end of their career.

IMHO, the best approach is somewhere in the middle - building a base of young, talented players, while using carefully selected veteran FAs to offer experience, leadership, skills at specific positions of need. Having that young core allows for some continuity for more than just a couple years.

Reerun_KC
03-04-2009, 08:53 AM
I'm not sure I'd really agree with that. Carl seemed to rely mostly on free agent veterans, while we never really developed any of our own players. Plus, most of his pickups seemed to be guys going into their third contracts, rather than their second - guys on the back-end of their career.

IMHO, the best approach is somewhere in the middle - building a base of young, talented players, while using carefully selected veteran FAs to offer experience, leadership, skills at specific positions of need. Having that young core allows for some continuity for more than just a couple years.

That is what Htismaqe just said... ;)

chiefzilla1501
03-04-2009, 09:01 AM
Well.... you are one that says Curry can't play OLB in a 3-4....pretty much the only one.

PhilFree:arrow:

He's not the only one.

Most OLB/DEs in a 3-4 are 260+ lbs. Curry is not and should not get to that weight. That's why they're usually DEs that convert to OLB. If anything, Everett Brown is a more likely candidate.

That's important, because if Curry is an ILB in a 3-4 only, then picking an ILB is an enormous reach. And quite frankly, given that DJ would likely take on coverage responsibilities as an ILB, then Maualuga becomes a better fit for this defense because he'd be the run stuffing ILB. And that would also be a huge reach.

Molitoth
03-04-2009, 09:02 AM
ugh

DJ's left nut
03-04-2009, 09:02 AM
I don't see what the huge backlash with the veterans is about.

It's not vets, per se. It's really MFing lousy vets like Haggans.

I'd be okay with bringing in a few solid veterans to lead the young guys and maybe make a play here and there.

I'm not okay with bringing in ancient 'never weres' like Haggans because he played for the new coach (and poorly, I might add).

chiefzilla1501
03-04-2009, 09:03 AM
I'm not sure I'd really agree with that. Carl seemed to rely mostly on free agent veterans, while we never really developed any of our own players. Plus, most of his pickups seemed to be guys going into their third contracts, rather than their second - guys on the back-end of their career.

IMHO, the best approach is somewhere in the middle - building a base of young, talented players, while using carefully selected veteran FAs to offer experience, leadership, skills at specific positions of need. Having that young core allows for some continuity for more than just a couple years.

It's true, but I don't know that these guys are being brought in for experience as much as it to serve as stopgaps until they have the resources to bring other players. When you have a million holes to fill, you have to get some placeholders. That's what makes a guy like Haggans so intriguing--he can be fairly productive for 1-2 years and then you can get rid of him for cheap.

Shag
03-04-2009, 09:13 AM
That is what Htismaqe just said... ;)

It is? He's saying that Carl's approach was correct, which I don't agree with. Carl was about mostly veterans and few young guys, while I'm advocating mostly younger guys with a few well-placed veterans.

Maybe I'm missing something... :shrug:

Chiefnj2
03-04-2009, 09:15 AM
I like bringing in Vrabel for his experience. I'm a little less thrilled about Haggans. He missed a lot of last season. Older players coming off a significant injury and time off usually don't recover and produce all that well. Plus he was slipping a bit his last two years in Pitt. Maybe I've got a fear of Kendrall Tinker-Bell-itis clouding my judgment.

Shag
03-04-2009, 09:16 AM
It's true, but I don't know that these guys are being brought in for experience as much as it to serve as stopgaps until they have the resources to bring other players. When you have a million holes to fill, you have to get some placeholders. That's what makes a guy like Haggans so intriguing--he can be fairly productive for 1-2 years and then you can get rid of him for cheap.

Agreed - I think it's a combination of the two at this point, given our lack of 3-4 players. It'll take a few years to get the "base" in place...

Chief Roundup
03-04-2009, 10:00 AM
Too bad we cut Donnie Edwards, he would have fit right in as a starting ILB.

I am sure that they knew what defense we are going to run when we cut him. So I am sure they didn't want Donnie because of his price tag with him losing a couple of steps.

ChiefRon
03-04-2009, 10:07 AM
Kinda funny to hear from the Star about bringing these guys in, after we all already knew about it.

Wonder if Teicher found out by visiting CP?

htismaqe
03-04-2009, 10:18 AM
I'm not sure I'd really agree with that. Carl seemed to rely mostly on free agent veterans, while we never really developed any of our own players. Plus, most of his pickups seemed to be guys going into their third contracts, rather than their second - guys on the back-end of their career.

IMHO, the best approach is somewhere in the middle - building a base of young, talented players, while using carefully selected veteran FAs to offer experience, leadership, skills at specific positions of need. Having that young core allows for some continuity for more than just a couple years.

Did Carl just skip the draft every year?

There were PLENTY of young guys on those teams - remember 1997?

The problem was that, by and large, they were the WRONG young guys. And when we actually DID hit on a guy, we got rid of them - see Donnie Edwards.

milkman
03-04-2009, 10:21 AM
Did Carl just skip the draft every year?

There were PLENTY of young guys on those teams - remember 1997?

The problem was that, by and large, they were the WRONG young guys. And when we actually DID hit on a guy, we got rid of them - see Donnie Edwards.

I guess a player that didn't completely suck ass could be referred to as a hit.

Darth CarlSatan
03-04-2009, 10:25 AM
We have to take Aaron Curry this guy is the real deal. He will be a play maker for years to come and it will be cool to get the best defensive athlete that the combine has seen in while at LB. He is a true football player also he will have a nose for the ball to go along with dominant physical ability. Hopefully nobody else steals him at #1 or #2.

No. No we don't.

He will look fantastic in silver and blue.

BryanBusby: Teicher interested in adding more useless articles

Kinda funny to hear from the Star about bringing these guys in, after we all already knew about it.

Wonder if Teicher found out by visiting CP?

His shit is getting pretty sad. No access = No news and hilarity for all!:D

htismaqe
03-04-2009, 10:51 AM
I guess a player that didn't completely suck ass could be referred to as a hit.

He didn't suck ass in San Diego. And Holliday hasn't sucked in Miami. And. And. And.

Yet more evidence that the cancer here went deeper than just one guy.

milkman
03-04-2009, 10:57 AM
He didn't suck ass in San Diego. And Holliday hasn't sucked in Miami. And. And. And.

Yet more evidence that the cancer here went deeper than just one guy.

He didn't suck ass in KC either.

He was a decent player.

I just don't know that "decent" is a hit.
Though I guess it has to be if it wasn't a miss, and it wasn't.

I agree with the second sentence 100%.

Micjones
03-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Hopefully the Chiefs are also interested in a couple 26-27 year old guys.
I can think of a couple who'd fit in nicely here.
Olshansky and Willis. And maybe Henderson...
*Wink*

Shag
03-04-2009, 11:10 AM
Did Carl just skip the draft every year?

He might as well have... ;)


There were PLENTY of young guys on those teams - remember 1997?

The problem was that, by and large, they were the WRONG young guys. And when we actually DID hit on a guy, we got rid of them - see Donnie Edwards.

I missed the word "draft" in your original post, which had me focused on FA and Carl's approach to FA pickups. My bad... :)

StcChief
03-04-2009, 11:17 AM
I don't see what the huge backlash with the veterans is about. We're too young right now, and our roster needs some guys with experience and success to balance out or locker room. Haggans isn't going to tear the league up, but he's played on winning teams that have gone deep in the playoffs, and if he can make sound decisions on the field and help our defense as a unit, what's the downside?exactly.

a team of 25 yo rookies and 1st year players will get us to 3 Ws in 2009.
D needs help now.

HemiEd
03-04-2009, 12:12 PM
OLB's in a 3-4 are converted fast undersized DE's that have pass rush skills, not traditional OLB's.doesn't that description fit Tamba Hali?

milkman
03-04-2009, 12:14 PM
doesn't that description fit Tamba Hali?

If you ignore the "fast" part.

KC_Clipse
03-04-2009, 12:22 PM
exactly.

a team of 25 yo rookies and 1st year players will get us to 3 Ws in 2009.
D needs help now.

Agreed, people want to complain about the vrabel signing and the possiblity of bringing haggans in, but i say its perfect two experienced players well versed in the 3-4 defense. Ya they may only be a year or two stop gap, but they are immediate upgrades on a this shittiest d in the nfl, i know i dont want to see Hali at OLB, and they the both are experienced and can teach wht it means to play defense, also i believe pioli will be picking through some lower round pass rushing OLBs in the draft to make the transition if vrabel/haggans/whoever isn't cabable of playing at the highlevel of play required by 3-4 OLBs.
O and my two cents on curry is yah he is a major athlete, but in order for him to even be a realistic option at 3 you better believe he can get to the qb like lawrence taylor. That being said if we stay and draft at the position we are at almost anyone for us is a reach i dont see the chiefs going qb now, monroe is a possibility but im not real keen on moving albert after watchin him play LT last year, cabtree no thanks, b.j. raji is a possibility but if its feasible i would like to see the chiefs trade out of three, just my opinion

The Buddha
03-04-2009, 12:26 PM
Agreed, people want to complain about the vrabel signing and the possiblity of bringing haggans in, but i say its perfect two experienced players well versed in the 3-4 defense. Ya they may only be a year or two stop gap, but they are immediate upgrades on a this shittiest d in the nfl, i know i dont want to see Hali at OLB, and they the both are experienced and can teach wht it means to play defense, also i believe pioli will be picking through some lower round pass rushing OLBs in the draft to make the transition if vrabel/haggans/whoever isn't cabable of playing at the highlevel of play required by 3-4 OLBs.
O and my two cents on curry is yah he is a major athlete, but in order for him to even be a realistic option at 3 you better believe he can get to the qb like lawrence taylor. That being said if we stay and draft at the position we are at almost anyone for us is a reach i dont see the chiefs going qb now, monroe is a possibility but im not real keen on moving albert after watchin him play LT last year, cabtree no thanks, b.j. raji is a possibility but if its feasible i would like to see the chiefs trade out of three, just my opinion

People are obsessed with age on here, as if you're done after the age of 32 or so.

Like, IMO, Ray Lewis still has a good 4-5 years left... ILBs seem to last forever in this league.

Darth CarlSatan
03-04-2009, 12:31 PM
Agreed, people want to complain about the vrabel signing and the possiblity of bringing haggans in, but i say its perfect two experienced players well versed in the 3-4 defense. Ya they may only be a year or two stop gap, but they are immediate upgrades on a this shittiest d in the nfl, i know i dont want to see Hali at OLB, and they the both are experienced and can teach wht it means to play defense, also i believe pioli will be picking through some lower round pass rushing OLBs in the draft to make the transition if vrabel/haggans/whoever isn't cabable of playing at the highlevel of play required by 3-4 OLBs.
O and my two cents on curry is yah he is a major athlete, but in order for him to even be a realistic option at 3 you better believe he can get to the qb like lawrence taylor. That being said if we stay and draft at the position we are at almost anyone for us is a reach i dont see the chiefs going qb now, monroe is a possibility but im not real keen on moving albert after watchin him play LT last year, cabtree no thanks, b.j. raji is a possibility but if its feasible i would like to see the chiefs trade out of three, just my opinion

From a different thread:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5552263#post5552263)

It's only natural that Pioli and Haley would want to fill some roster spots with talent they know well, and more importantly; talent that they can get for a lowball price. And that means Vets.

We talked about this a few days ago. The Chiefs Free Agent acquisitions are not going to be very glamorous right now because they WANT to build a new "Kansas City Chiefs Identity" through the draft, and quality players from that poole will require at least one more cycle after the one coming up in April.

So basically, I'd wager that Matt Cassel is about as "Hollywood" as it's going to get this year.

:nosmilie:

KC_Clipse
03-04-2009, 12:32 PM
People are obsessed with age on here, as if you're done after the age of 32 or so.

Like, IMO, Ray Lewis still has a good 4-5 years left... ILBs seem to last forever in this league.

Yep im beggining to notice that, and as far as ray goes, i believe he can be a major contributor for about 2 more years before a noticeable decline, he would bring attitude and leadership to our SOFT D, but considering his character issues, legal trouble, the likelyhood that he may be demanding a larger contract than he is worth, and the fact that i dont know why he would want to go to the chiefs at this point in his career make him probably not a good match for the chiefs. But im on the same page as you with the veterans, expecially on defense hell we should sign fiesty deacon jones to a contract, at his age he can probably still lead the cheifs in sacks LMAO

HemiEd
03-04-2009, 12:33 PM
If you ignore the "fast" part.

I wonder if he will ever get used to wearing shoes? Carl really had a soft spot for those kind of stories. Junior Siavii was not all that different of a story.

KC_Clipse
03-04-2009, 12:35 PM
From a different thread:



:nosmilie:

spot on :thumb: