20/20 thread. Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda. - Page 2

**BigRedChief** · 12-27-2005, 11:19 AM

What should have happened to make this a Super Bowl Team or at least a "real" playoff contender?

I'll start.

We should have picked up Ty Law on the cheap.

We could have had both. Law didn't get any money from the Jets for this year. ESPN reports even though he made the Pro Bowl he's still getting just a little over a million for the season including the signing bonus.
We pay Woods $5 million a year. We could have signed Law for $1 million and moved Warfield to nickel.

We should have used Bell and DJ differently.

They are blitzers and playmakers. Too often they were misused in Gun's scheme.

We should have got a reciever that could stretch the defense.

This team with LJ is a play action team that could have great success throwing the deep ball to a fast WR.

Gun's scheme and use of his defenive talent was poor.

Come on, you are showing the blitz and not even trying to hide it but you still have your CB's playing off the WR's 10 yards?

You put Surtain on Moss, T.O. or their best WR. No left side right side chit.

What say you?

keg in kc · 12-27-2005, 12:56 PM

Anybody who thinks we should've gotten Ty Law didn't watch Ty Law play this year. And I use the term "play" loosely.

Chiefnj · 12-27-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggRedChief

When are you going to prove that you are as smart as you think you are?

http://www.chiefswarpath.com/resourc...ersalaries.htm

with his signing bonus added in comes to $5 mill against the cap.

In 2004 he made 4.46 Million

2004Chiefs $ 660,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 302,600 $ 4,462,600 $ 2,860,871 S
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ds&player=2560

Take the cock out of your mouth and pay attention.

He did not make 4.46 million in 2004. The 4.46 million that you refer to was money he never received. He was scheduled to become a free agent and the Chiefs re-signed him. Look at your first link, dumbass. He had a base salary of $660,000 in 2004.

**BigRedChief** · 12-27-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

Take the cock out of your mouth and pay attention.

If you ever met me or seen a pic you would know that the path to "gayness" is closed to me. But if you would post a pic of yourself I might reconsider?

Dude asking someone for proof about a statement or fact is whats sending this board down the path on the Star board.

InChiefsHeaven · 12-27-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggRedChief

Dude asking someone for proof about a statement or fact is whats sending this board down the path on the Star board.

And here I thought it was all the facts being pulled from people's asses...

**BigRedChief** · 12-27-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

And here I thought it was all the facts being pulled from people's asses...

This is an internet BB where posters talk Chiefs football not a court of law. You don't believe a poster then don't believe it. You can pull facts and stats out to support just about any position or statement.

**dirk digler** · 12-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

Take the cock out of your mouth and pay attention.

He did not make 4.46 million in 2004. The 4.46 million that you refer to was money he never received. He was scheduled to become a free agent and the Chiefs re-signed him. Look at your first link, dumbass. He had a base salary of $660,000 in 2004.

So when a player becomes a FA and signs a new contract with a signing bonus he doesn't receive the signing bonus? Interesting.

His base salary was $660,000 and he received a $3.5 million signing bonus which counts against the cap plus other bonus = 4.46 million last year.

Abba-Dabba · 12-27-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Anybody who thinks we should've gotten Ty Law didn't watch Ty Law play this year. And I use the term "play" loosely.

Yeah. We could have never used his 7 INTs, 7 PDs and 1 TD.

Considering we don't have a CB that matches those number I can see where you say we couldn't have used him.

**BigRedChief** · 12-27-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So when a player becomes a FA and signs a new contract with a signing bonus he doesn't receive the signing bonus? Interesting.

His base salary was $660,000 and he received a $3.5 million signing bonus which counts against the cap plus other bonus = 4.46 million last year.

I wasn't going to say that and get into some internet argument but it does seem like a valid point.

sedated · 12-27-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggRedChief

We should have got a reciever that could stretch the defense.

This team with LJ is a play action team that could have great success throwing the deep ball to a fast WR.

We have 2 speedsters:

Kennison (not as fast as he used to be, but he's no Keyshawn)
&
Parker (Oregon track star)

What more do you want?

**dirk digler** · 12-27-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

We have 2 speedsters:

Kennison (not as fast as he used to be, but he's no Keyshawn)
&
Parker (Oregon track star)

What more do you want?

My problem with our WR's is that they are average or below average and we don't have a true #1 WR. We don't have that go-to-guy when we need to make a play in a passing situation.

htismaqe · 12-27-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

My problem with our WR's is that they are average or below average and we don't have a true #1 WR. We don't have that go-to-guy when we need to make a play in a passing situation.

I'm still wondering why we need one. I'd love to have a go-to WR, but we've certainly fared pretty well without one.

**dirk digler** · 12-27-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I'm still wondering why we need one. I'd love to have a go-to WR, but we've certainly fared pretty well without one.

Our WR's are to inconsistent IMO.

Just think if we had a WR like Harrison or Holt and what would happen to our O and especially for a guy like TonyG. We would be almost unstoppable.

IMO the Chiefs should have tried to sign a guy like Mushin Muhammad this past offseason.

philfree · 12-27-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

My problem with our WR's is that they are average or below average and we don't have a true #1 WR. We don't have that go-to-guy when we need to make a play in a passing situation.

What is a true "#1" WR? IMO Our WRs are fine with both Kennison and Parker on the field at the same time. Parker is just breaking the ice with his talent. Kennison if has a good game this week will go over 1000 yards for the 2nd year in a row. IMO Eddie is a #1 what ever that really is. Yeah he's getting along in his career but what he's lost in his speed he's made up for with gained savvy.

PhilFree

**dirk digler** · 12-27-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

What is a true "#1" WR? IMO Our WRs are fine with both Kennison and Parker on the field at the same time. Parker is just breaking the ice with his talent. Kennison if has a good game this week will go over 1000 yards for the 2nd year in a row. IMO Eddie is a #1 what ever that really is. Yeah he's getting along in his career but what he's lost in his speed he's made up for with gained savvy.

PhilFree

A true #1 WR is one that a D-Coordinator has to game plan around, a difference maker and one that needs to be accounted for at all times. Our WR's do not match that criteria, our WR's are an after thought. D-Coordinators game plan for our running game and TonyG.

True #1 WR's are: Harrison, Holt, Chad Johnson, TO, Santana Moss, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress, Mushin Muhammad, Steve Smith, Deion Branch, Chris Chambers...etc etc.

4th and Long · 12-27-2005, 05:51 PM

When ifs and buts are candies and nuts, we'll all have a Merry Christmas.

This thread is pointless.

12-27-2005, 11:19 AM
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $2879627 VARSITY	20/20 thread. Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda. What should have happened to make this a Super Bowl Team or at least a "real" playoff contender? I'll start. We should have picked up Ty Law on the cheap. We could have had both. Law didn't get any money from the Jets for this year. ESPN reports even though he made the Pro Bowl he's still getting just a little over a million for the season including the signing bonus. We pay Woods $5 million a year. We could have signed Law for $1 million and moved Warfield to nickel. We should have used Bell and DJ differently. They are blitzers and playmakers. Too often they were misused in Gun's scheme. We should have got a reciever that could stretch the defense. This team with LJ is a play action team that could have great success throwing the deep ball to a fast WR. Gun's scheme and use of his defenive talent was poor. Come on, you are showing the blitz and not even trying to hide it but you still have your CB's playing off the WR's 10 yards? You put Surtain on Moss, T.O. or their best WR. No left side right side chit. What say you?
Posts: 79,209

12-27-2005, 12:56 PM	#16
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Anybody who thinks we should've gotten Ty Law didn't watch Ty Law play this year. And I use the term "play" loosely.
Posts: 58,682

12-27-2005, 05:51 PM	#30
4th and Long Wheeeeee!!! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: In a house Casino cash: $9234925	When ifs and buts are candies and nuts, we'll all have a Merry Christmas. This thread is pointless. __________________
Posts: 19,795