Chiefs Draft Picks Signed? - Page 2

Micjones · 07-22-2009, 05:15 PM

Who has signed already?
IIRC: Ryan Succop, Jake O'Connell, and Colin Brown

They report a week from this Friday...
Are we gonna see picks signed in bunches this week and next or are we preparing to open camp without a lot of the draftees?

Titty Meat · 07-23-2009, 03:13 PM

Kolby smith isn't that good of a RB. He doesn't get a yard when the game is on the line. Plus he's coming off a knee injury and doesn't play special teams. The Chiefs should give that 7th round pick a look.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-23-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc

What has Smith done that makes you think he is a "really good 3rd option"? He had one good game against a terrible Raiders run defense as a rookie (a game that was lost because Smith couldn't pick up less than a yard on 4th down). He has been terrible since.

In all fairness, IIRC, Kolby didn't get that yard in the Raiders game because Brian Waters got his dick knocked in the dirt on the play.

I do agree that he's not exactly a great option right now.

talastan · 07-23-2009, 03:18 PM

It wouldn't have had to happen if we'd have had a decent FG kicker that the coaching staff could've trusted, then again I didn't trust the coaching staff. We were doomed from the start. Piss on you Herm!!!

**RealSNR** · 07-23-2009, 05:45 PM

It's the newest trend in team management. You severely underball all offers to the rookies. If they sign anyway, then great. If not, then they hold out the entire season and you trade their rights to other teams in exchange for proven veterans. Their rookie values look better than they are because they're on holdout, so teams pay better players for them.

And there's no need to worry about a team getting too old. Keep in mind, you get draft picks every year to replenish the veterans that get too old.

It's sneaky, fresh, and new. And only the Chiefs are doing it. It's a brilliant strategy. Thank God we've got a mastermind like Pioli to implement it here in KC.

LaChapelle · 07-26-2009, 02:27 PM

Chiefs doing three-year deals for second-day picks
Posted by Mike Florio on July 26, 2009 1:42 PM ET

The 2006 revisions to the labor deal between the NFL and its union limit the length of contract for players not drafted after the first round to four years.

Previously, some teams were insisting on five-year deals in round two and beyond. Plenty of players, however, were doing three-year deals in the lower rounds of the draft.

Once the four-year was adopted, however, more and more teams began using four-year contracts, all the way to round seven.

This year, we've only spotted five teams using three-year deals in the latter rounds.

And one of them is one of the least likely to use the shorter terms -- the Chiefs.

New G.M. Scott Pioli came from New England, were longer rookie deals were the norm. But in the first year of the Pioli regime, the three second-day picks that the Chiefs have inked to date signed three-year deals: tackle Colin Brown, tight end Jake O'Connell, and kicker Ryan Succop.

It's unclear why the Chiefs have opted not to lock the players up for an extra year. Since the contracts aren't guaranteed, the Chiefs could cut a player if, by year four, he hasn't developed into a long-term contributor.

The only benefit to the team for a shorter deal is that it entails a smaller signing bonus. But not by much. In signing Brown (a third-rounder) to a three-year deal, the Chiefs saved about $45,000 in signing bonus money, given the signing bonuses paid to the player taken just in front of him and just behind him, both of whom signed four-year contracts.

The other teams using three-year deals for second-day picks are the Cardinals, Ravens, Lions, and Steelers.

Given that both the Super Bowl champs and the first 0-16 team in league history are doing it, it's hard to say whether it's a good idea or a bad idea.

In our view, it makes sense to tie the guy up for a fourth year, since it eliminates the season of restricted free agency under the current CBA. (Of course, the system of restricted free agency could change dramatically or disappear by the time the fourth year of the current rookie deals arrive.)

Regardless, we assume that the teams who are using shorter deals are doing it for a reason. For the better organizations, it's likely a good reason. For the Lions, chances are it's a bad reason -- or no reason at all.

07-22-2009, 05:15 PM
Micjones Whose house? Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: KCMO Casino cash: $10005180	Draft Picks Signed? Who has signed already? IIRC: Ryan Succop, Jake O'Connell, and Colin Brown They report a week from this Friday... Are we gonna see picks signed in bunches this week and next or are we preparing to open camp without a lot of the draftees?
Posts: 15,344

07-23-2009, 03:13 PM	#16
Titty Meat Inmem 2.0 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: My house Casino cash: $-1122442	Kolby smith isn't that good of a RB. He doesn't get a yard when the game is on the line. Plus he's coming off a knee injury and doesn't play special teams. The Chiefs should give that 7th round pick a look.
Posts: 78,118

07-23-2009, 03:18 PM	#18
talastan Manning, we're coming for you! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Springfield, Mo Casino cash: $10004950	It wouldn't have had to happen if we'd have had a decent FG kicker that the coaching staff could've trusted, then again I didn't trust the coaching staff. We were doomed from the start. Piss on you Herm!!! __________________ Can we please just draft AND DEVELOP a QB - est. since 1983 Check out my band: Truett and the Traitors
Posts: 4,815

07-23-2009, 05:45 PM	#19
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $-1474792	It's the newest trend in team management. You severely underball all offers to the rookies. If they sign anyway, then great. If not, then they hold out the entire season and you trade their rights to other teams in exchange for proven veterans. Their rookie values look better than they are because they're on holdout, so teams pay better players for them. And there's no need to worry about a team getting too old. Keep in mind, you get draft picks every year to replenish the veterans that get too old. It's sneaky, fresh, and new. And only the Chiefs are doing it. It's a brilliant strategy. Thank God we've got a mastermind like Pioli to implement it here in KC.
Posts: 93,399

07-26-2009, 02:27 PM	#20
LaChapelle Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	Chiefs doing three-year deals for second-day picks Posted by Mike Florio on July 26, 2009 1:42 PM ET The 2006 revisions to the labor deal between the NFL and its union limit the length of contract for players not drafted after the first round to four years. Previously, some teams were insisting on five-year deals in round two and beyond. Plenty of players, however, were doing three-year deals in the lower rounds of the draft. Once the four-year was adopted, however, more and more teams began using four-year contracts, all the way to round seven. This year, we've only spotted five teams using three-year deals in the latter rounds. And one of them is one of the least likely to use the shorter terms -- the Chiefs. New G.M. Scott Pioli came from New England, were longer rookie deals were the norm. But in the first year of the Pioli regime, the three second-day picks that the Chiefs have inked to date signed three-year deals: tackle Colin Brown, tight end Jake O'Connell, and kicker Ryan Succop. It's unclear why the Chiefs have opted not to lock the players up for an extra year. Since the contracts aren't guaranteed, the Chiefs could cut a player if, by year four, he hasn't developed into a long-term contributor. The only benefit to the team for a shorter deal is that it entails a smaller signing bonus. But not by much. In signing Brown (a third-rounder) to a three-year deal, the Chiefs saved about $45,000 in signing bonus money, given the signing bonuses paid to the player taken just in front of him and just behind him, both of whom signed four-year contracts. The other teams using three-year deals for second-day picks are the Cardinals, Ravens, Lions, and Steelers. Given that both the Super Bowl champs and the first 0-16 team in league history are doing it, it's hard to say whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. In our view, it makes sense to tie the guy up for a fourth year, since it eliminates the season of restricted free agency under the current CBA. (Of course, the system of restricted free agency could change dramatically or disappear by the time the fourth year of the current rookie deals arrive.) Regardless, we assume that the teams who are using shorter deals are doing it for a reason. For the better organizations, it's likely a good reason. For the Lions, chances are it's a bad reason -- or no reason at all.
Posts: 8,588