Green scheduled to practice once daily... - Page 2

Chiefs Pantalones · 07-19-2001, 10:24 PM

when TC starts.

kcstar.com, Chiefs page.

ck_IN · 07-21-2001, 04:36 PM

Wow, I gotta disagree with you Luz, and that rarely happens. To me the team's offseason strategy has resmebled more Keystone Cops than brilliance.

First due to CP's backroom tricks we wound up hoplessly overpaying for our coach. If DV was to be the man, CP should've picked up a phone and said 'Martz we want DV. Lets make a deal' DV probably could've been had for a midround choice. At any rate it wouldn't have went to Tag's hands and out of our control. A 2nd and 3rd is outragous and inexcusible.

Next DV acted like a 15yr old with a crush on the homecoming queen and we wound up hoplessly overpaying for a 31yr old QB with 19 career starts and a losing record. Green is not worth a #12 pick. Maybe a #12 pick in the 3rd round but not the first round. I disagree with Ken, Green wouldn't not have been free till 2003 but he could've been had much cheaper than we paid. And if we'd waited till next year when he was in his final year the Rams probably would've parted with him for a 3rd rnd pick just to get something of value for him.

Then we bring in Robinson and pass on Rhodes. We've all argued with our Bronco buddies that the only reason the Denver D's were any good is because Elway and Shanny's O staked them to huge leads. So, were we wrong then or wrong now?

Then the draft came. Knowing we have huge holes on D and need a speed WR and don't pick till the 3rd round what do we do? We essentially waste our first two picks. We draft at positions that aren't need spots and apparently treat the whole affair like we've got someplace better to be.

Then we top it off by wasting roster spots on Crockett and Cadrez. Two ex-Broncos who never were any good, still aren't and have Robinson to thank for their jobs.

I do think we've got good people in some good spots, but the braintrust needs to change in major ways or we'll all be asking 'what happened?' in very short order.

Luzap · 07-21-2001, 05:19 PM

ck_IN,

The world would be a boring place if we always agreed with each other :)

I respect your opinion greatly and can't argue some of the points you've made but, I do see some things differently.

I don't think we overpaid for Vermeil (and I don't think what we paid was Carl's fault). If it would have been in a court of law instead of the NFL's political version of Arbitration we would have gotton him for nothing.

To me, the single biggest problem that has kept the Chiefs from a Championship has been coaching ~ and as much as I respect Marty, this goes back further than just Gun.

There just aren't a lot of options to bring in a bona fide, proven HC. Rolloing the dice on another coordinator would probably of sentenced us to several more years of mediocracy and perhaps caused us to miss the window when the right man did become available.

Having said that, it is very difficult for me to second guess what has happened since then. Although I may scratch my head on a particular draft pick or FA aquisition, etc., I see the overall direction that he is taking the team and I like it.

For example: I am not in love with Cadrez or Crockett, however, I do understand Robinson's desire to have players he's worked with, players that know his systems and can teach others to make the calls, on the team.

IMO, in this years draft we got much more than a few players and a coach. We got a new team.

Luz
i have been praying for this for a long time...

Packfan · 07-22-2001, 12:30 PM

CK_IN,

You think the Rams would continue to pay 1st string money to a 2nd string QB?? Especially with two #1 draft picks and their desire to trade for Anneass Williams?

Green would eventually have been cut, IMO. Or, they would have settled for a 3rd round pick like you suggested. Green had been a free agent twice in his illustrious career (8-11 as a starter). He would have been one again had the Chiefs not bent over for the Rams. At the time of the trade, nobody else wanted him.

BTW, Brett Favre has never had a losing season as a staring QB for the Packers. Lets not compare him to a backup, journeyman QB (Green). If we are going to that, then we may as well compare Priest Holmes to Terrell Davis.

ck_IN · 07-22-2001, 12:52 PM

Ken,

Yes I think the Rams would've hung onto him. I'm not sure of his contract details but I don't think it was that lucrative by QB standards. And in this dearth of QB talent, where even Tony Banks has a starting job, the Rams knew they could get something for him if they were patient. And with us, they hit the motherlode.

I doubt that Green would've been a FA till 2003. And even then I doubt his price would've been that high. If CP were smart he'd signed Beurline and Dilfer as #1 & #2, and drafted Palmer/Mcmahon this year or waited till next year with a deeper QB draft to get a QB project. But as is typical, we paid the maximum price and have staked our future on an unproven commodity.

keg in kc · 07-22-2001, 02:13 PM

Off the mark as usual peckerfan.

Point 1. Name another team who did not have an established starter. The Chiefs were unique in this following the Bucs signing of Johnson and the Bolts signing of Flutie.

Point 2. Name any team willing to pay the Rams asking price of a first, third [b]and[/b] a pick from the 2002 draft. Not even KC. We got Green and two other players for the #12 alone, so we didn't even, in essense, pay a #1 for him.

Point 3. How is Kurt Warner's head?

Point 4. Name the Ram backups. Joey Germaine and Paul Justin. No wonder they wanted so much for Green.

Point 5. Name Trent Green's QB coach in D.C. I'll give you a hint: his initials are "Mike Martz". Hmm. Interesting.

Point 6. What's an H-back? Not really related, but I thought I'd ask.

Point 7. How much did the Rams save against the cap with the departure of Green?

Chuck, while I see the attraction to the Dilfer/Beuerlein solution, I also understand the team's attraction to Green. In Green we have a known quantity with a thorough knowledge of the playbook, something which should serve to speed the learning curve of what amounts to a very young roster. His knee is only an issue to me in that they're keeping him out of a practice daily at the start of camp for extra rehab - we'll have to see how that plays out...

Frankly, I'm about as anti-Dilfer as you can get, as well, because I think he's a completely horrible QB (yes I watched the QB challenge - I thought he was a jack@ss, btw), so that might have something to do with my sheer joy that he's not here, but I believe we should have signed Beuerlein as a backup instead of Brister. I just don't get the Brister signing. I'd be happier with Green, Beuerlein, Collins, Helming than I am seeing "Bubby" on there anywhere.

Beyond that, I am probably the only guy on the board who thought like this, but I was absolutely against drafting a QB this season because I consider this year's draft class to be simply pathetic, although it does appear that we were positioned to grab Mike McMahan, but had to "settle" for Derrick Blaylock, someone I considered 3rd/4th round talent. I see no point in wasting a later round pick on a qb no better than what's available among the rookie free agents, when you can spend it on something like a quality fullback to back up Tony (we got that), a quality O-lineman (we got that) or a quality linebacker (we didn't get that...). Getting a chance for a starter at another position is more important for me than spending a pick and getting crap at quarterback that won't develop for 5-6 years if at all. Now, next season if we want to pick a QB in the first two rounds I'm all for it, but not this year, so I'm happy about that....

We, as I recall, disagree about the players we drafted this year, so I'll leave it at that... ;)

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in 2001 in any event...

keg in kc · 07-22-2001, 09:13 PM

Yep, Punisher, I was against the Green trade.

Actually, my position was against paying a 1st and 3rd for Green - I was willing to accept the trade if it involved a swap of 1sts or a 2nd round in return for our 1st and 3rd. What we got in the end is Green, the rights to Horne and a 5th (Derrick Blaylock) for only the #12, and I consider that to be acceptable.

The issues with Green are the same as before for me, although since the guy's on my team now, I'm supporting him more:

1) Is the sack problem a matter of poor blocking or Green's proclivity to hold on to the ball for too long? Both sides of this argument can be argued quite successfuly, so it's tough to tell...

2) How will he perform without the benefit of Faulk, Holt and Bruce? I happen to think he'll be fine, because we have weapons of our own, albeit it different ones...

3) What will be the status of his knee? Unknown.

4) How will the team respond to Green? Very positive so far. He says and does the right things.

5) How will the community respond to Green? Again, very positive.

6) What sort's of things will he say after a win/loss? Unknown.

7) How will he and the fans react to a poor performance or a late-game interception? Unknown.

8) How well will he run the 2-minute offense? Unknown.

9) Can/will he be the team leader? Unknown.

Most of those questions I would have leaned toward the negative before, but now that he's on the squad, I'm more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Homerism, I guess... ;)

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach, reserving any real judgement until I see something on the field. If he performs well, it was a good deal...

Chiefs Pantalones · 07-22-2001, 09:18 PM

Kyle,

This is off the topic, but have you ever considered writing for a sports magazine, etc.? I enjoy your writing (I'm sure that means your book is going to be good) and insight on things.

CG

future Dr. Z?....

just don't be so mean to the Chiefs like he is:D

keg in kc · 07-22-2001, 10:26 PM

Nope, Cody, not for a second, although I do appreciate the sentiment.

I simply don't know enough, first of all, and was not involved in athletics after high school, so I think I'd have a hard time breaking into the "fraternity" so to speak. I believe it would be hard to garner the respect of coaches and of players if I'd never been in the trenches myself, not to mention the readers...

Plus if I was a journalist, unless I worked for the Chiefs in some capacity, I'd have to be neutral (self-imposed neutrality - I hate biased journalism), but here on the boards I can be a happy, misguided homer. :)

Chiefs Pantalones · 07-23-2001, 01:24 AM

Are you sure? C'mon!!!

;)

You gonna give me a holler when your finished with your book? If its anything like your posts, I'm sure its great!! Good luck to you!!

Good night Kyle, etc. I gotta get some sleep. I'm recovering from a car wreck.

CG

God didn't want me yet...unfinished business:D

Packfan · 07-23-2001, 07:11 AM

Keg,

Typical Chief fan: Against the trade for Green, but now that he's here, he the best thing since sliced bread. I cant wait until after he departs to read what you have to say about him.

Have you ever heard of the salary cap Keg? The Rams couldnt afford to keep Trent Green. He was gone no matter what. Having two high priced starting QBs isnt an option anymore. The Rams would have loved to hang on to Green, but I suspect they were drooling all over themselves when they traded someone (Green) they picked up in free agency for a lottery pick (12th pick in the draft). How can you NOT make that trade if your the Rams??

Thats how you build a winner. You make savvy trades (Faulk, Green, A. Williams) and build through the draft.

And thats also how you stay mediocre. You trade your first two picks for a 64 year old coach and a backup QB that was a free agent twice in his career and is 8-11 as a starter AND has a gimp knee.

No wonder this team hasnt won a playoff game in 8 years. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Nice work Chiefs!

keg in kc · 07-23-2001, 12:14 PM

[quote]Keg,

Typical Chief fan: Against the trade for Green, but now that he's here, he the best thing since sliced bread. I cant wait until after he departs to read what you have to say about him. [/quote]

Well, you can read, apparently, but your comprehension leaves something to be desired. Here's what I said, again, but I'll do my part to fight idiocy and translate it into "little words" so that you might understand.

[i]Actually, my position was against paying a 1st and 3rd for Green.[/i] Translation for peckerfan: "KEG no want Green for 1st and 3rd."

[i]I was willing to accept the trade if it involved a swap of 1sts or a 2nd round in return for our 1st and 3rd[/i] Translation: "Less than 1st and 3rd okay."

[i]What we got in the end is Green, the rights to Horne and a 5th (Derrick Blaylock) for only the #12, and I consider that to be acceptable.[/i] Translation: "We pay less than 1st and 3rd, so okay."

I'm not like you, Ken, I don't play both sides of the argument. I didn't want to overpay for him, and I don't think we did, according to paramaters I set months before the trade. Look it up if you don't believe me, it's not like the posts aren't archived here. Beyond that, I have not stated any sort of great faith in Green, because he hasn't played a down for us. What he has done is say the right things to the media, and he seems popular with the team thus far, which is a clear improvement over the dearly departed Elvis, and a very good start. Now all he has to do is translate that into play on the field. I wasn't a Grbasher (or a Grbacker for that matter), I simply judged the guy by what he did on the field, and I'll extend the same courtesy and respect to Green. This trade is like the draft, we really won't know whether it was a good thing or a bad thing until after the players hit the field. If he plays well for us, it was a good trade, and if he doesn't, it was a mistake. To judge anything without considering any results is irresponsible, in my opinion. So for now I say the trade seems to be a good one, because we paid way, way below the asking price, and we got the guy(s) we wanted. But, as with any trade, they'll have to perform on the field, or it's all for naught. It's that simple. So as of preseason 2001, I say "good trade", but a definitive answer is at least months away, because I don't happen to own an accurate crystal ball.

[quote]Have you ever heard of the salary cap Keg?[/quote]
Yes, I have. And I'd venture a guess that I know a great deal more about it than you do.

[quote]The Rams couldnt afford to keep Trent Green. He was gone no matter what. Having two high priced starting QBs isnt an option anymore.[/quote]
Thank you for demonstrating to all of us, yet again, that you know absolutely nothing about what you're trying to talk about. We need a reminder every so often so just so we don't start to take you seriously.

Mike Martz immediately prior to the NFL Combine in February (from the AP):
[quote]Rams coach Mike Martz is hedging about what the club will do with backup quarterback Trent Green.

The thinking had been that St. Louis would trade Green for a high draft pick that could be used to shore up its defense. But Martz said Thursday he has enough room under the $67.4 million salary cap to keep Green as an understudy for starter Kurt Warner. Warner, the NFL and Super Bowl MVP two seasons ago, was in and out of the lineup with injuries in 2000.

``If we still want to look at ourselves as contenders, we need two guys at that position,'' Martz said. ``Look at what happened last year. That's why we'd like to keep Trent.'' [/quote]

You say they couldn't keep him, but Mike Martz says they could have. Gee, I wonder whose opinion should weigh more... :rolleyes:

That said, I'll give you a little salary cap primer, since you apparently could use one.

The Rams are more than 3.5 million (estimated) under the cap at the moment. They have 3 first round picks to sign, but without the Green trade, they would not have drafted Damione Lewis at #12, their most expensive pick, so they would have the following things to do: fit QB Trent Green, S Adam Archuleta (#20), DT Ryan Pickett (#29) and LB Tommey Polley (#42 - he has signed but his numbers are undisclosed and not included in the 3.5 mil, afaik) under the salary cap, again, about 3.5 million dollars. Likely cap figures for the rookies would be @ 700K for Polley and 800K to 1 mil each for Archuleta and Pickett. So let's say a total of 2.5 million. That leaves them with 1 million under the cap, and it's time to fit Green under the contract. There are several different ways to deal with this: 1) you restructure other players; 2) you restructure, or more likely extend, Green's contract; 3) you do both 1 and 2.

Voila, Trent Green is still a Ram, and they wouldn't be going into camp with Paul Justin and Joey Germaine fighting for playing time after Warner's imminent mid-October concussion.

That wasn't so complicated, now, was it?

My advice: in the future stick to your robotic "Carl sucks...blah blah blah...Chiefs suck...blah blah blah...no playoff wins in eight years" rant, because you lose all credibility when you try to actually talk football. All you do in those rare instances is expose your sheer ignorance of the game, and in this case, the business behind it.

Packfan · 07-23-2001, 04:17 PM

Keg,

You think Martz is an idiot? You think he is going to come out and say "we cant keep two high priced QBs because of the salary cap..." Of course not. He played Carl Peterson and made him BELIEVE that he was going to keep him and even said that he was a necessity if they were going to go back to the SB. But he did trade him, so using Martz quotes to support your theory, I guess the Rams dont want to get back to the bowl because they gave up the 2nd string QB. Bottom line is they didnt keep Trent Green. They cornholed Carl Peterson like many GMs have done in the past. C'mon, Keg, you are smarter than that!

Its moves like this (signing Green as a FA then parlaying him into the 12th pick in the draft) that separate the very good teams from the very mediocre one. The Chiefs, desperate for talent and depth at all positions, traded its top two picks for a backup QB and a burned out head coach.

Keg, its simple math. The Bill would love to have Flutie back up Johnson, but simple economics do not allow them to do that. Ditto for the Rams. NOBODY else was interested in Trent Green because Trent Green inevitably would have been FREE. He was twice before, he would have been again.

I know you are trying to justify the trade. You have convinced yourself that the #12 pick in the draft was well worth a back up QB, a punt returner and a 5th round pick.

Thats not the most efficient way to build a winner.

(save the "peckerfan" shit for someone who dishes it out to you. I try to treat MOST of you guys with a little respect. I expect the same from you. You know football and you know that I know football, so lets save that crap for some of the immature people on this board)

keg in kc · 07-23-2001, 07:12 PM

It's called "chicken" Ken (I'll stop the peckerfan stuff since you asked). The Rams blinked and backed off of their "1st and 3rd no less" stance and we got an acceptable deal. We won the game which started at "1st and 3rd plus a 2002 pick" and ended up at "12 for Green, the rights to Horne (kick returner with 4 tds in 2 years, he's never returned punts) and a 5th round pick".

Prior to the trade I said I'd take #12 and #75 for Green and #54 (that pick ended up going to 'zona in the Williams deal...). Green, the rights to Horne and #150 is an equitable or better deal than that in my opinion, just as I said the day of the trade. I haven't changed my stance in the least and I'm certainly not trying to justify anything. This is what I've said for months, including weeks before the draft.

You can try to convince yourself and anyone else who'll listen to the contrary, but the fact of the matter is that there is no way that Green would have been a free agent prior to next year . We may have made a mistake in not waiting that year, but trying to say he'd have been released this offseason is simply ludicrous. The Rams would have had no problems whatsoever finding room under the cap for him, unless they have the most incompetent management in the NFL.

Anyway, though, this really is a dead subject. You can argue "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact of what "is". Green is here, the trade is done, and beyond that we all know you hate Carl Peterson (and so do many folks here, myself being pretty close to being in that group...). We can argue about it until we're blue in the face, but it won't bring Dilfer, Johnson, Flutie or Beuerlein and, like it or not, Trent Green [b]is[/b] beginning to establish himself as a favorite here already. If his play on the field matches his media savvy (it may or it may not, he's got to prove it on the field) then it was a good trade, no matter how you shape it up. In the end, that's always what it comes down to. Just like virtually any player in any trade in any city, if he plays well, it was a great trade and he'll be the king of KC, if he doesn't, it wasn't and we'll probably see "Trent Trashers" popping up all over the place.

I'd personally rather see how he plays than keep having these same arguments for another three months ('cause this one's been going on ad nauseam since the day he was traded here, and weeks before...).

philfree · 07-23-2001, 09:37 PM

At this point we've got the better end of the deal because Trent Green and Tony Horne are both headed for camp. The Rams have yet to sign their 1st round picks so right now they have nothing to show for their efforts. Have they signed their 2nd round pick yet?

PhilFree :cool:

philfree · 07-23-2001, 09:58 PM

The only pick they got from us that has signed is the 3rd rounder. From this perspective I guess you could say we got 11 players out of this years draft if you count DV and they're all going to be at Training Camp come this week end. I'm pumped!

PhilFree :cool:

07-19-2001, 10:24 PM
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6888717	Green scheduled to practice once daily... when TC starts. kcstar.com, Chiefs page.
Posts: 26,653

07-21-2001, 04:36 PM	#16
ck_IN Feels so good. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Wow, I gotta disagree with you Luz, and that rarely happens. To me the team's offseason strategy has resmebled more Keystone Cops than brilliance. First due to CP's backroom tricks we wound up hoplessly overpaying for our coach. If DV was to be the man, CP should've picked up a phone and said 'Martz we want DV. Lets make a deal' DV probably could've been had for a midround choice. At any rate it wouldn't have went to Tag's hands and out of our control. A 2nd and 3rd is outragous and inexcusible. Next DV acted like a 15yr old with a crush on the homecoming queen and we wound up hoplessly overpaying for a 31yr old QB with 19 career starts and a losing record. Green <b>is not</b> worth a #12 pick. Maybe a #12 pick in the 3rd round but not the first round. I disagree with Ken, Green wouldn't not have been free till 2003 but he could've been had much cheaper than we paid. And if we'd waited till next year when he was in his final year the Rams probably would've parted with him for a 3rd rnd pick just to get something of value for him. Then we bring in Robinson and pass on Rhodes. We've all argued with our Bronco buddies that the only reason the Denver D's were any good is because Elway and Shanny's O staked them to huge leads. So, were we wrong then or wrong now? Then the draft came. Knowing we have huge holes on D and need a speed WR and don't pick till the 3rd round what do we do? We essentially waste our first two picks. We draft at positions that aren't need spots and apparently treat the whole affair like we've got someplace better to be. Then we top it off by wasting roster spots on Crockett and Cadrez. Two ex-Broncos who never were any good, still aren't and have Robinson to thank for their jobs. I do think we've got good people in some good spots, but the braintrust needs to change in major ways or we'll all be asking 'what happened?' in very short order. __________________ As sweet as Tupelo Honey
Posts: 2,718

07-21-2001, 05:19 PM	#17
Luzap 9.89 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dallas, TX Casino cash: $10004900	ck_IN, The world would be a boring place if we always agreed with each other :) I respect your opinion greatly and can't argue some of the points you've made but, I do see some things differently. I don't think we overpaid for Vermeil (and I don't think what we paid was Carl's fault). If it would have been in a court of law instead of the NFL's political version of Arbitration we would have gotton him for nothing. To me, the single biggest problem that has kept the Chiefs from a Championship has been coaching ~ and as much as I respect Marty, this goes back further than just Gun. There just aren't a lot of options to bring in a bona fide, proven HC. Rolloing the dice on another coordinator would probably of sentenced us to several more years of mediocracy and perhaps caused us to miss the window when the right man did become available. Having said that, it is very difficult for me to second guess what has happened since then. Although I may scratch my head on a particular draft pick or FA aquisition, etc., I see the overall direction that he is taking the team and I like it. For example: I am not in love with Cadrez or Crockett, however, I do understand Robinson's desire to have players he's worked with, players that know his systems and can teach others to make the calls, on the team. IMO, in this years draft we got much more than a few players and a coach. We got a new team. Luz i have been praying for this for a long time...
Posts: 3,327

07-22-2001, 12:30 PM	#18
Packfan Starter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI, Door Casino cash: $10004900	CK_IN, You think the Rams would continue to pay 1st string money to a 2nd string QB?? Especially with two #1 draft picks and their desire to trade for Anneass Williams? Green would eventually have been cut, IMO. Or, they would have settled for a 3rd round pick like you suggested. Green had been a free agent twice in his illustrious career (8-11 as a starter). He would have been one again had the Chiefs not bent over for the Rams. At the time of the trade, nobody else wanted him. BTW, Brett Favre has never had a losing season as a staring QB for the Packers. Lets not compare him to a backup, journeyman QB (Green). If we are going to that, then we may as well compare Priest Holmes to Terrell Davis. __________________ Ken Dienberg
Posts: 938

07-22-2001, 12:52 PM	#19
ck_IN Feels so good. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Ken, Yes I think the Rams would've hung onto him. I'm not sure of his contract details but I don't think it was <b>that</b> lucrative by QB standards. And in this dearth of QB talent, where even Tony Banks has a starting job, the Rams knew they could get <b>something</b> for him if they were patient. And with us, they hit the motherlode. I doubt that Green would've been a FA till 2003. And even then I doubt his price would've been <b>that</b> high. If CP were smart he'd signed Beurline and Dilfer as #1 & #2, and drafted Palmer/Mcmahon this year or waited till next year with a deeper QB draft to get a QB project. But as is typical, we paid the maximum price and have staked our future on an unproven commodity. __________________ As sweet as Tupelo Honey
Posts: 2,718

07-22-2001, 02:13 PM	#20
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Off the mark as usual peckerfan. Point 1. Name another team who did not have an established starter. The Chiefs were unique in this following the Bucs signing of Johnson and the Bolts signing of Flutie. Point 2. Name any team willing to pay the Rams asking price of a first, third [b]and[/b] a pick from the 2002 draft. Not even KC. We got Green and two other players for the #12 alone, so we didn't even, in essense, pay a #1 for him. Point 3. How is Kurt Warner's head? Point 4. Name the Ram backups. Joey Germaine and Paul Justin. No wonder they wanted so much for Green. Point 5. Name Trent Green's QB coach in D.C. I'll give you a hint: his initials are "Mike Martz". Hmm. Interesting. Point 6. What's an H-back? Not really related, but I thought I'd ask. Point 7. How much did the Rams save against the cap with the departure of Green? Chuck, while I see the attraction to the Dilfer/Beuerlein solution, I also understand the team's attraction to Green. In Green we have a known quantity with a thorough knowledge of the playbook, something which should serve to speed the learning curve of what amounts to a very young roster. His knee is only an issue to me in that they're keeping him out of a practice daily at the start of camp for extra rehab - we'll have to see how that plays out... Frankly, I'm about as anti-Dilfer as you can get, as well, because I think he's a completely horrible QB (yes I watched the QB challenge - I thought he was a jack@ss, btw), so that might have something to do with my sheer joy that he's not here, but I believe we should have signed Beuerlein as a backup instead of Brister. I just don't get the Brister signing. I'd be happier with Green, Beuerlein, Collins, Helming than I am seeing "Bubby" on there anywhere. Beyond that, I am probably the only guy on the board who thought like this, but I was absolutely against drafting a QB this season because I consider this year's draft class to be simply pathetic, although it does appear that we were positioned to grab Mike McMahan, but had to "settle" for Derrick Blaylock, someone I considered 3rd/4th round talent. I see no point in wasting a later round pick on a qb no better than what's available among the rookie free agents, when you can spend it on something like a quality fullback to back up Tony (we got that), a quality O-lineman (we got that) or a quality linebacker (we didn't get that...). Getting a chance for a starter at another position is more important for me than spending a pick and getting crap at quarterback that won't develop for 5-6 years if at all. Now, next season if we want to pick a QB in the first two rounds I'm all for it, but not this year, so I'm happy about that.... We, as I recall, disagree about the players we drafted this year, so I'll leave it at that... ;) It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in 2001 in any event...
Posts: 58,682

07-22-2001, 09:13 PM	#21
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Yep, Punisher, I was against the Green trade. Actually, my position was against paying a 1st and 3rd for Green - I was willing to accept the trade if it involved a swap of 1sts or a 2nd round in return for our 1st and 3rd. What we got in the end is Green, the rights to Horne and a 5th (Derrick Blaylock) for only the #12, and I consider that to be acceptable. The issues with Green are the same as before for me, although since the guy's on my team now, I'm supporting him more: 1) Is the sack problem a matter of poor blocking or Green's proclivity to hold on to the ball for too long? Both sides of this argument can be argued quite successfuly, so it's tough to tell... 2) How will he perform without the benefit of Faulk, Holt and Bruce? I happen to think he'll be fine, because we have weapons of our own, albeit it different ones... 3) What will be the status of his knee? Unknown. 4) How will the team respond to Green? Very positive so far. He says and does the right things. 5) How will the community respond to Green? Again, very positive. 6) What sort's of things will he say after a win/loss? Unknown. 7) How will he and the fans react to a poor performance or a late-game interception? Unknown. 8) How well will he run the 2-minute offense? Unknown. 9) Can/will he be the team leader? Unknown. Most of those questions I would have leaned toward the negative before, but now that he's on the squad, I'm more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Homerism, I guess... ;) I'm taking a wait-and-see approach, reserving any real judgement until I see something on the field. If he performs well, it was a good deal...
Posts: 58,682

07-22-2001, 09:18 PM	#22
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6888717	Kyle, This is off the topic, but have you ever considered writing for a sports magazine, etc.? I enjoy your writing (I'm sure that means your book is going to be good) and insight on things. CG future Dr. Z?.... just don't be so mean to the Chiefs like he is:D __________________ Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white.
Posts: 26,653

07-22-2001, 10:26 PM	#23
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Nope, Cody, not for a second, although I do appreciate the sentiment. I simply don't know enough, first of all, and was not involved in athletics after high school, so I think I'd have a hard time breaking into the "fraternity" so to speak. I believe it would be hard to garner the respect of coaches and of players if I'd never been in the trenches myself, not to mention the readers... Plus if I was a journalist, unless I worked for the Chiefs in some capacity, I'd have to be neutral (self-imposed neutrality - I hate biased journalism), but here on the boards I can be a happy, misguided homer. :)
Posts: 58,682

07-23-2001, 01:24 AM	#24
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6888717	Are you sure? C'mon!!! ;) You gonna give me a holler when your finished with your book? If its anything like your posts, I'm sure its great!! Good luck to you!! Good night Kyle, etc. I gotta get some sleep. I'm recovering from a car wreck. CG God didn't want me yet...unfinished business:D __________________ Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white.
Posts: 26,653

07-23-2001, 07:11 AM	#25
Packfan Starter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI, Door Casino cash: $10004900	Keg, Typical Chief fan: Against the trade for Green, but now that he's here, he the best thing since sliced bread. I cant wait until after he departs to read what you have to say about him. Have you ever heard of the salary cap Keg? The Rams couldnt afford to keep Trent Green. He was gone no matter what. Having two high priced starting QBs isnt an option anymore. The Rams would have loved to hang on to Green, but I suspect they were drooling all over themselves when they traded someone (Green) they picked up in free agency for a lottery pick (12th pick in the draft). How can you NOT make that trade if your the Rams?? Thats how you build a winner. You make savvy trades (Faulk, Green, A. Williams) and build through the draft. And thats also how you stay mediocre. You trade your first two picks for a 64 year old coach and a backup QB that was a free agent twice in his career and is 8-11 as a starter AND has a gimp knee. No wonder this team hasnt won a playoff game in 8 years. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Nice work Chiefs! __________________ Ken Dienberg
Posts: 938

07-23-2001, 12:14 PM	#26
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	[quote]Keg, Typical Chief fan: Against the trade for Green, but now that he's here, he the best thing since sliced bread. I cant wait until after he departs to read what you have to say about him. [/quote] Well, you can read, apparently, but your comprehension leaves something to be desired. Here's what I said, again, but I'll do my part to fight idiocy and translate it into "little words" so that you might understand. [i]Actually, my position was against paying a 1st and 3rd for Green.[/i] Translation for peckerfan: "KEG no want Green for 1st and 3rd." [i]I was willing to accept the trade if it involved a swap of 1sts or a 2nd round in return for our 1st and 3rd[/i] Translation: "Less than 1st and 3rd okay." [i]What we got in the end is Green, the rights to Horne and a 5th (Derrick Blaylock) for only the #12, and I consider that to be acceptable.[/i] Translation: "We pay less than 1st and 3rd, so okay." I'm not like you, Ken, I don't play both sides of the argument. I didn't want to overpay for him, and I don't think we did, according to paramaters I set months before the trade. Look it up if you don't believe me, it's not like the posts aren't archived here. Beyond that, I have not stated any sort of great faith in Green, because he hasn't played a down for us. What he has done is say the right things to the media, and he seems popular with the team thus far, which is a clear improvement over the dearly departed Elvis, and a very good start. Now all he has to do is translate that into play on the field. I wasn't a Grbasher (or a Grbacker for that matter), I simply judged the guy by what he did on the field, and I'll extend the same courtesy and respect to Green. This trade is like the draft, we really won't know whether it was a good thing or a bad thing until after the players hit the field. If he plays well for us, it was a good trade, and if he doesn't, it was a mistake. To judge anything without considering any results is irresponsible, in my opinion. So for now I say the trade seems to be a good one, because we paid way, way below the asking price, and we got the guy(s) we wanted. But, as with any trade, they'll have to perform on the field, or it's all for naught. It's that simple. So as of preseason 2001, I say "good trade", but a definitive answer is at least months away, because I don't happen to own an accurate crystal ball. [quote]Have you ever heard of the salary cap Keg?[/quote] Yes, I have. And I'd venture a guess that I know a great deal more about it than you do. [quote]The Rams couldnt afford to keep Trent Green. He was gone no matter what. Having two high priced starting QBs isnt an option anymore.[/quote] Thank you for demonstrating to all of us, yet again, that you know absolutely nothing about what you're trying to talk about. We need a reminder every so often so just so we don't start to take you seriously. Mike Martz immediately prior to the NFL Combine in February (from the AP): [quote]Rams coach Mike Martz is hedging about what the club will do with backup quarterback Trent Green. The thinking had been that St. Louis would trade Green for a high draft pick that could be used to shore up its defense. But Martz said Thursday he has enough room under the $67.4 million salary cap to keep Green as an understudy for starter Kurt Warner. Warner, the NFL and Super Bowl MVP two seasons ago, was in and out of the lineup with injuries in 2000. ``If we still want to look at ourselves as contenders, we need two guys at that position,'' Martz said. ``Look at what happened last year. That's why we'd like to keep Trent.'' [/quote] You say they couldn't keep him, but Mike Martz says they could have. Gee, I wonder whose opinion should weigh more... :rolleyes: That said, I'll give you a little salary cap primer, since you apparently could use one. The Rams are more than 3.5 million (estimated) under the cap at the moment. They have 3 first round picks to sign, but without the Green trade, they would not have drafted Damione Lewis at #12, their most expensive pick, so they would have the following things to do: fit QB Trent Green, S Adam Archuleta (#20), DT Ryan Pickett (#29) and LB Tommey Polley (#42 - he has signed but his numbers are undisclosed and not included in the 3.5 mil, afaik) under the salary cap, again, about 3.5 million dollars. Likely cap figures for the rookies would be @ 700K for Polley and 800K to 1 mil each for Archuleta and Pickett. So let's say a total of 2.5 million. That leaves them with 1 million under the cap, and it's time to fit Green under the contract. There are several different ways to deal with this: 1) you restructure other players; 2) you restructure, or more likely extend, Green's contract; 3) you do both 1 and 2. Voila, Trent Green is still a Ram, and they wouldn't be going into camp with Paul Justin and Joey Germaine fighting for playing time after Warner's imminent mid-October concussion. That wasn't so complicated, now, was it? My advice: in the future stick to your robotic "Carl sucks...blah blah blah...Chiefs suck...blah blah blah...no playoff wins in eight years" rant, because you lose all credibility when you try to actually talk football. All you do in those rare instances is expose your sheer ignorance of the game, and in this case, the business behind it. Last edited by keg in kc; 07-23-2001 at 02:16 PM..
Posts: 58,682

07-23-2001, 04:17 PM	#27
Packfan Starter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI, Door Casino cash: $10004900	Keg, You think Martz is an idiot? You think he is going to come out and say "we cant keep two high priced QBs because of the salary cap..." Of course not. He played Carl Peterson and made him BELIEVE that he was going to keep him and even said that he was a necessity if they were going to go back to the SB. But he did trade him, so using Martz quotes to support your theory, I guess the Rams dont want to get back to the bowl because they gave up the 2nd string QB. Bottom line is they didnt keep Trent Green. They cornholed Carl Peterson like many GMs have done in the past. C'mon, Keg, you are smarter than that! Its moves like this (signing Green as a FA then parlaying him into the 12th pick in the draft) that separate the very good teams from the very mediocre one. The Chiefs, desperate for talent and depth at all positions, traded its top two picks for a backup QB and a burned out head coach. Keg, its simple math. The Bill would love to have Flutie back up Johnson, but simple economics do not allow them to do that. Ditto for the Rams. NOBODY else was interested in Trent Green because Trent Green inevitably would have been FREE. He was twice before, he would have been again. I know you are trying to justify the trade. You have convinced yourself that the #12 pick in the draft was well worth a back up QB, a punt returner and a 5th round pick. Thats not the most efficient way to build a winner. (save the "peckerfan" shit for someone who dishes it out to you. I try to treat MOST of you guys with a little respect. I expect the same from you. You know football and you know that I know football, so lets save that crap for some of the immature people on this board) __________________ Ken Dienberg
Posts: 938

07-23-2001, 07:12 PM	#28
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	It's called "chicken" Ken (I'll stop the peckerfan stuff since you asked). The Rams blinked and backed off of their "1st and 3rd no less" stance and we got an acceptable deal. We won the game which started at "1st and 3rd plus a 2002 pick" and ended up at "12 for Green, the rights to Horne (kick returner with 4 tds in 2 years, he's never returned punts) and a 5th round pick". Prior to the trade I said I'd take #12 and #75 for Green and #54 (that pick ended up going to 'zona in the Williams deal...). Green, the rights to Horne and #150 is an equitable or better deal than that in my opinion, just as I said the day of the trade. I haven't changed my stance in the least and I'm certainly not trying to justify anything. This is what I've said for months, including weeks before the draft. You can try to convince yourself and anyone else who'll listen to the contrary, but the fact of the matter is that there is no way that Green would have been a free agent prior to next year . We may have made a mistake in not waiting that year, but trying to say he'd have been released this offseason is simply ludicrous. The Rams would have had no problems whatsoever finding room under the cap for him, unless they have the most incompetent management in the NFL. Anyway, though, this really is a dead subject. You can argue "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact of what "is". Green is here, the trade is done, and beyond that we all know you hate Carl Peterson (and so do many folks here, myself being pretty close to being in that group...). We can argue about it until we're blue in the face, but it won't bring Dilfer, Johnson, Flutie or Beuerlein and, like it or not, Trent Green [b]is[/b] beginning to establish himself as a favorite here already. If his play on the field matches his media savvy (it may or it may not, he's got to prove it on the field) then it was a good trade, no matter how you shape it up. In the end, that's always what it comes down to. Just like virtually any player in any trade in any city, if he plays well, it was a great trade and he'll be the king of KC, if he doesn't, it wasn't and we'll probably see "Trent Trashers" popping up all over the place. I'd personally rather see how he plays than keep having these same arguments for another three months ('cause this one's been going on ad nauseam since the day he was traded here, and weeks before...). Last edited by keg in kc; 07-23-2001 at 07:20 PM..
Posts: 58,682

07-23-2001, 09:37 PM	#29
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $-1983802	At this point we've got the better end of the deal because Trent Green and Tony Horne are both headed for camp. The Rams have yet to sign their 1st round picks so right now they have nothing to show for their efforts. Have they signed their 2nd round pick yet? PhilFree :cool: __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 16,098

07-23-2001, 09:58 PM	#30
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $-1983802	The only pick they got from us that has signed is the 3rd rounder. From this perspective I guess you could say we got 11 players out of this years draft if you count DV and they're all going to be at Training Camp come this week end. I'm pumped! PhilFree :cool: __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 16,098