PDA

View Full Version : DV on 610 this am. No to McCardell. No to Smith


BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 07:58 AM
It's being said on another Chiefs board that this was said by DV on 610 am this morning. Anyone catch the interview? Is this what he said?

DV made it clear that the Chiefs are not even interested in McCardell and they have not even contacted his agent. There is no need too.
He feels his guys will get it done, but then added that ever since they started throwing in game plans, Richard Smith was lost. Even in the game against Denver he looked lost.
DV said that Richard Smith does not look as lost now and is starting to adapt to the NFL, and will get more playing time this week

Hoover
09-16-2004, 08:02 AM
Yeah, we need Kennison and Morton to step up and get open. We need our RT to give Green time, we need Col Saunders to run more play action to help Welbourn and our recievers.

Sure-Oz
09-16-2004, 08:47 AM
We need to take advantage of Smith's speed and have him in on plays.

ChiefsCountry
09-16-2004, 08:49 AM
Thats DV way of saying that I am too loyal to Morton.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 08:54 AM
Translation:$6 million in cap room, but as long as there is people in the seats we won't do a damn thing.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 08:56 AM
I didn't hear anything about Richard Smith.

I did hear the part about McCardell and he basically danced around the issue.

2 things he DID NOT say:

1) we have ZERO interest in McCardell. Like I said, he skirted the issue instead of answering the question. Talked about money, etc. He made it sound like we're not interested, but he never answered definitively.

2) we have not contacted McCardell's agent. He said something like "if we've contracted McCardell's agent, I don't know about it". And that's true. Thum, Stiles, and CP do that kind of stuff. The HC has no need to know, and probably wouldn't be bothered with it, unless the team is intent on bringing the guy in for an interview.

Sure-Oz
09-16-2004, 08:58 AM
I hope we get him damnit, we need help at WR bad. I would liek to see Smith play in this game though.

Pitt Gorilla
09-16-2004, 09:18 AM
Translation:$6 million in cap room, but as long as there is people in the seats we won't do a damn thing.Translation: We HAVE to spend this money, even if it means signing marginal players to ridiculous contracts that fug us in the future!

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 09:27 AM
Translation: We HAVE to spend this money, even if it means signing marginal players to ridiculous contracts that fug us in the future!

so your saying the McCardell is a marginal player?

penguinz
09-16-2004, 09:29 AM
We do not need McCardell.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:34 AM
We do not need McCardell.

No, but he sure as hell would HELP.

morphius
09-16-2004, 09:34 AM
Did anyone here watch Morton in Detriot? I was of the opinion that he was never as great at getting open as he was at catching in traffic, but I didn't get to see him much at all. Just wondering if anyone else here see's it that way...

Morphius
probably suffering dellusions

WarCry!
09-16-2004, 09:36 AM
I really don't understand what the fascination is with Keenan Mcardell. IMHO, he' Johnny Morton reincarnate and we already have one of those. We definitely need an upgrade at receiver, but we need a speedy #1 wideout (of which there are none to be had at the moment), NOT another older, slower, possesion receiver.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:45 AM
I really don't understand what the fascination is with Keenan Mcardell. IMHO, he' Johnny Morton reincarnate and we already have one of those. We definitely need an upgrade at receiver, but we need a speedy #1 wideout (of which there are none to be had at the moment), NOT another older, slower, possesion receiver.

I really don't understand what the fascination is with a speedy WR that can stretch the field. We had one of those in Derrick Alexander. We HAVE one of those in Eddie Kennison.

We need a guy who can get open and catch the ball. We ABSOLUTELY need a possession WR.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:48 AM
Translation: We HAVE to spend this money, even if it means signing marginal players to ridiculous contracts that fug us in the future!
I wouldn't consider going after Keenan McCardell, going after a marginal player. There are several other players we could have pursued as well. Antoine Winfield, Bobby Taylor, Robaire Smith just to name a few.

HC_Chief
09-16-2004, 09:51 AM
Did anyone here watch Morton in Detriot? I was of the opinion that he was never as great at getting open as he was at catching in traffic, but I didn't get to see him much at all. Just wondering if anyone else here see's it that way...

Herman Moore lined up on the opposite side of the field.
Moore was a legit '#1' receiver. Morton is/was a #2.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:53 AM
I wouldn't consider going after Keenan McCardell, going after a marginal player. There are several other players we could have pursued as well. Antoine Winfield, Bobby Taylor, Robaire Smith just to name a few.

Bobby Taylor I'll give you.

Winfield and Smith got OUTRAGEOUS contracts, and after we spent a fortune on Green, Gonzo, Priest, Holliday, and Barber the last 2 season, there was no way we could afford that.

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 10:03 AM
2003 Receiving Yards

Player _____Team Rec Yds Avg TDs Long
Torry Holt___ STL 117 1696 14.5 12 48
Randy Moss__ MIN 111 1632 14.7 17 72
Anquan Boldin ARI 101 1377 13.6 08 71
Chad Johnson CIN 090 1355 15.1 10 82
Derrick Mason TEN 095 1303 13.7 08 50
Marvin Harrison IND 094 1272 13.5 10 79
Laveran Coles WAS 082 1204 14.7 06 64
Keen McCardell TB 084 1174 14.0 08 76

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 10:05 AM
.... after we spent a fortune on Green, Gonzo, Priest, Holliday, and Barber the last 2 season, there was no way we could afford that.


bullchit ... we had/have plenty of cap room, lamar hunt has plenty of money to spend and the chiefs are making plenty of profit.



the chiefs made a CHOICE not to spend .... they easily could of

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:07 AM
bullchit ... we had/have plenty of cap room, lamar hunt has plenty of money to spend and the chiefs are making plenty of profit.



the chiefs made a CHOICE not to spend .... they easily could of
Agreed.

Pitt Gorilla
09-16-2004, 10:07 AM
I actually know very little about Keenan outside his stats. I'd assume CP & DV would know more than me. I just don't want another situation where we've signed a guy for relatively big money and we're trying to dump him a year later. It seems that this trend is even worse when dealing with older players.

Rausch
09-16-2004, 10:09 AM
the chiefs made a CHOICE not to spend .... they easily could of

I'd like to see you prove that...

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 10:10 AM
I'd like to see you prove that...

i'd like to see you disprove it

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:13 AM
I'd like to see you prove that...
It's easily proven by only landing a back-up DT in FA. That speaks volumes in my book. That and having $6 million in cap room to work with and pocketing it instead of spending it.

Hydrae
09-16-2004, 10:14 AM
I really don't understand what the fascination is with Keenan Mcardell. IMHO, he' Johnny Morton reincarnate and we already have one of those. We definitely need an upgrade at receiver, but we need a speedy #1 wideout (of which there are none to be had at the moment), NOT another older, slower, possesion receiver.


Show me a speedy #1 that is available right now and we will talk. In the meantime, McCardell is the best available option.

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 10:16 AM
Show me a speedy #1 that is available right now and we will talk. In the meantime, McCardell is the best available option.

that..... is the real point


they should of been after a wide receiver 3 months ago


but lack of insight,motivation and desire kept them from any real additions to the team this year.



doing vitually nothing in FA this year was a terrible,terrible decision

Rausch
09-16-2004, 10:19 AM
It's easily proven by only landing a back-up DT in FA. That speaks volumes in my book. That and having $6 million in cap room to work with and pocketing it instead of spending it.

Again, if you want to take the time to prove to me that we can afford to sign players this year I'll listen.

Being under the cap, right now, does not allow free spending. Do you know what Trent's bonus money and salary are? How about Holmes and Gonzo?

Have you run these numbers for the entire team?

Have you considered that as these numbers balloon we are forced to cut people NEXT year?

Signing someone today might mean releasing someone else tommorow.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 10:23 AM
i'd like to see you disprove it

The burden of proof is not on him.

You are the one who produced the statement as fact.

It's also NOT a fact that the Chiefs have $6M in cap room. Those numbers are not published by the team or the NFL.

It is all 100% speculation.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:24 AM
It is all 100% speculation.

easy...

Swanman
09-16-2004, 10:25 AM
Again, if you want to take the time to prove to me that we can afford to sign players this year I'll listen.

Being under the cap, right now, does not allow free spending. Do you know what Trent's bonus money and salary are? How about Holmes and Gonzo?

Have you run these numbers for the entire team?

Have you considered that as these numbers balloon we are forced to cut people NEXT year?

Signing someone today might mean releasing someone else tommorow.

I've seen this brought up before and thought it seemed like a good idea, so I'll bring it up here. If we're definitely not going to sign any FA's right now and we really do have cap space, then we should, if possible, slightly restructure a couple deals (Holmes, Gonzo, Green) to move cap money to this year so the hit in future years is decreased slightly, leaving room to go after FAs in the future.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:27 AM
Again, if you want to take the time to prove to me that we can afford to sign players this year I'll listen.

Being under the cap, right now, does not allow free spending. Do you know what Trent's bonus money and salary are? How about Holmes and Gonzo?

Have you run these numbers for the entire team?

Have you considered that as these numbers balloon we are forced to cut people NEXT year?

Signing someone today might mean releasing someone else tommorow.
You asking me to do alot of work without getting paid for it :p , but I'll say this in regards to your post...Having $6 million in cap room is a considerable amount of money to work with. Yes, the salaries most likely will go up next year(most contracts increase every year) , but that doesn't negate the cap room we have to work with THIS year. Even if they didn't sign a single FA, with that kind of cap room, we should be re-structuring contracts THIS year to ease the hit for next year. That's what restructuring a contract is all about, easing the cap burden. If you aren't going to spend it, than re-structure, but they haven't taken that approach, because that is $6 mil that doesn't come out of Lamar's pocketbook. Thus making more profit.

jcl-kcfan2
09-16-2004, 10:33 AM
I've seen this brought up before and thought it seemed like a good idea, so I'll bring it up here. If we're definitely not going to sign any FA's right now and we really do have cap space, then we should, if possible, slightly restructure a couple deals (Holmes, Gonzo, Green) to move cap money to this year so the hit in future years is decreased slightly, leaving room to go after FAs in the future.


I think this one needs forwarded to Carl.

Very good thinking.

Rausch
09-16-2004, 10:33 AM
You asking me to do alot of work without getting paid for it :p , but I'll say this in regards to your post...Having $6 million in cap room is a considerable amount of money to work with. Yes, the salaries most likely will go up next year(most contracts increase every year) , but that doesn't negate the cap room we have to work with THIS year. Even if they didn't sign a single FA, with that kind of cap room, we should be re-structuring contracts THIS year to ease the hit for next year. That's what restructuring a contract is all about, easing the cap burden. If you aren't going to spend it, than re-structure, but they haven't taken that approach, because that is $6 mil that doesn't come out of Lamar's pocketbook. Thus making more profit.

So, one year removed from giving Green, Holmes, and Gonzo new contracts so that they are content and paid at a level relative to their increased production, you want Peterson to then turn around and ask them for that money back?

What would you tell your boss if he asked you to take a paycut right after a raise?

nmt1
09-16-2004, 10:35 AM
You asking me to do alot of work without getting paid for it :p , but I'll say this in regards to your post...Having $6 million in cap room is a considerable amount of money to work with. Yes, the salaries most likely will go up next year(most contracts increase every year) , but that doesn't negate the cap room we have to work with THIS year. Even if they didn't sign a single FA, with that kind of cap room, we should be re-structuring contracts THIS year to ease the hit for next year. That's what restructuring a contract is all about, easing the cap burden. If you aren't going to spend it, than re-structure, but they haven't taken that approach, because that is $6 mil that doesn't come out of Lamar's pocketbook. Thus making more profit.

Why do you have such a problem with the Chiefs making a profit? Isn't that why they're in business?
I have yet to see any 100% reliable source that says we have $6 million free under that cap right now. Only thing I've heard lately about our cap is from DV and he says we have no money to spend. I'll believe him over John Clayton any day of the week.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 10:38 AM
I have yet to see any 100% reliable source that says we have $6 million free under that cap right now.

I think it's more like 8M...you can trust me, I know.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2004, 10:46 AM
Have Richard Smith run deep routes...as Jon Gruden says, it's not that complicated.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 10:46 AM
I've seen this brought up before and thought it seemed like a good idea, so I'll bring it up here. If we're definitely not going to sign any FA's right now and we really do have cap space, then we should, if possible, slightly restructure a couple deals (Holmes, Gonzo, Green) to move cap money to this year so the hit in future years is decreased slightly, leaving room to go after FAs in the future.

It's entirely possible they've ALREADY done this.

They've re-done contracts before and we've not found out about it until months later.

Baby Lee
09-16-2004, 11:09 AM
so your saying the McCardell is a marginal player?
Morton
Perriman
Alexander
Rison
Slaughter
McCardell

Please differentiate these players

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:13 AM
Morton
Perriman
Alexander
Rison
Slaughter
McCardell

Please differentiate these players

Is this a trick question? Geez...McCardell has not played for KC, yet, and therefore does not suck.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:20 AM
Morton
Perriman
Alexander
Rison
Slaughter
McCardell

Please differentiate these players

Morton -- 1 team, 1 scheme before KC, artificial turf

Alexander -- 1 team, 1 scheme before KC, long ball guy ill-suited to a passing offense that depends on timing

Rison -- 3 (?) teams prior to KC, multiple schemes, excelled in both Atlanta and Cleveland, as well as here prior to an injury

McCardell -- 3 teams, 3 schemes including the WCO, excelled in each and every one of them

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:36 AM
Is this a trick question? Geez...McCardell has not played for KC, yet, and therefore does not suck.

DING DING DING!!! Perfect application of the Lexicon! 50,000 point bonus!

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 11:46 AM
The burden of proof is not on him.

You are the one who produced the statement as fact.

It's also NOT a fact that the Chiefs have $6M in cap room. Those numbers are not published by the team or the NFL.

It is all 100% speculation.
in other words....

rah rah gets a free ride, everyone else has to prove it (your mantra, even if you won't admit it)

it's your world .... the rest of us are just renting space



Besides I've already shown a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points to us having cap room.


you guys chose not to believe because you don't WANT to believe it.

Because you know the chiefs are the only ones who can provide the concrete paper work ... and they sure as heck won't incriminate themselves.




so why should i waste my time go over something i have already

Mr. Laz
09-16-2004, 11:47 AM
DING DING DING!!! Perfect application of the Lexicon! 50,000 point bonus!


brother luv ... ya gotta like it

ChiefsFanatic
09-16-2004, 11:49 AM
We do not need McCardell.

No, and we don't need a trip to the playoffs either.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:50 AM
brother luv ... ya gotta like it

Thanks, for stepping in and helping out BCF, Laz. Unfortunately, that one trick doesnt really do much. You've tried it before.

So what if nmt and I are brothers, like no one else here has friends or relatives on this BB.

Try something new for a change.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:51 AM
brother luv ... ya gotta like it

He ain't heavy, he's my brothuh.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:51 AM
Why do you have such a problem with the Chiefs making a profit? Isn't that why they're in business?
I have yet to see any 100% reliable source that says we have $6 million free under that cap right now. Only thing I've heard lately about our cap is from DV and he says we have no money to spend. I'll believe him over John Clayton any day of the week.I don't have a problem with them making a profit. Whether they spent up to the cap or not, they would still be making a profit. Lamar pocketed over $30 mil last year alone. That's considerably more than the $6 mil in cap room.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:55 AM
He ain't heavy, he's my brothuh.

brother, lover of kool aid (low carb of course)--actually crystal light is better, and all things 'rah rah'.

ChiefsFanatic
09-16-2004, 11:56 AM
Morton
Perriman
Alexander
Rison
Slaughter
McCardell

Please differentiate these players

Rison and McCardell played on winning SuperBowl teams. Alexander and Rison did have 1000 yard seasons in KC.

Perriman wasn't even that good in Detroit. Slaughter was way passed his prime. McCardell maybe isn't a number one, but he is a helluva lot closer than either of our number 2s.

Here is a link to the cap money as of July 15. Someone probably knows everything done since then, and could do the math.

Salary Cap (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=1510617)

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:58 AM
brother, lover of kool aid (low carb of course)--actually crystal light is better, and all things 'rah rah'.

Does rah-rah = Cabo Wabo?

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:59 AM
So, one year removed from giving Green, Holmes, and Gonzo new contracts so that they are content and paid at a level relative to their increased production, you want Peterson to then turn around and ask them for that money back?

What would you tell your boss if he asked you to take a paycut right after a raise?
They don't necessarily take a pay cut. In this case, since we do have considerable amount of money, they would make more THIS year, thus easing the burden for next. It could be the same amount of money, but we increase their pay THIS year since we have more cap roo to work with.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:59 AM
Does rah-rah = Cabo Wabo?

It could...Ive been known to go 'rah rah' after a couple of shots of that stuff.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 12:10 PM
in other words....

rah rah gets a free ride, everyone else has to prove it (your mantra, even if you won't admit it)

In other words, no one but you made an assertion that the Chiefs care more about making money than winning.

You would be 100% correct if I had made such an assertion, like "The Chiefs care more about winning than making money and here's why..."

However, I simply stated that you have no way of proving your assertion. And I'm right.

Besides I've already shown a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points to us having cap room.


Yes, you have. And I've said that those are good benchmark numbers to start with.

you guys chose not to believe because you don't WANT to believe it.

Ahem. Tell me where I chose not to believe it. Show me where I said I don't believe it. In acutality, I DO BELIEVE we have $6M in cap space. I just don't pretend that I know why. I'm simply acknowledging that none of us know the actual truth.