Clayton says we might sign a tackle - Page 4

**the Talking Can** · 09-12-2006, 06:40 AM

Mike Pearson?

Was with the Jags and someone else the last couple of years...I'm assuming he's a RT but Clayton didn't say....just heard it on Mike & Mike this morning...

Pitt Gorilla · 09-12-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bwana

Cool, another scrub. Hey Carl, get off your ass and "TRADE" for someone or enjoy the 6-10 or 7-9 record. If we have to give up a late round draft pick to do it, so be it. With Black in there, Green is going to be out again within two games of his return from getting beat like a circus monkey.

Great idea!!! We only have to give up a late round pick and we get a starting-quality tackle! I'm guessing that teams are lining up for that deal.

jspchief · 09-12-2006, 10:04 AM

So you wanted us to go out and get a starting tackle, when Roaf and Welbourn were still playing for us?

A team that has glaring needs for starters on defense was supposed to go out and spend big money on depth at OT?

Chiefnj · 09-12-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

I'm thinking his "retirement" coincided with him getting busted, considering the way it came out of left field.

.

I'm not that familiar with the procedure, but I thought players get a 2nd test and an appeal if the first test comes up positive. It's usually kept quiet becaus it's technically a medical issue.

IIRC, when he was suspended the first time for the first 4 games of the season it was from a test that was positive much earlier.

TEX · 09-12-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yeah, if only we would have signed an OT in the offseason, like say, Kyle Turley...

Yeah, if only we could sign one that new he was a Tackle INSTEAD of a TE...

Archie Bunker · 09-12-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

How about one of these offensive tackles that was a free agent this offseason. Or how about drafting an offensive tackle in the first 3 rounds of the draft. There are several veteran offensive tackles on this list I'd take over what the Chiefs currently have now.

Most of the FA on that list were signed before Roaf and Welbourn retired and Sampson glass vagina acted up. When Welbourn retired the Chiefs acted quickly and got the best tackle available in Turley and are currently looking at one of the tackles you listed.

Since a time machine wasnt invented yet and Miss Cleo was busy the Chiefs still considered the OL a strength during FA and the draft. The #1 priority in the offseason was D and the Chiefs did a great job filling those needs. 3 new starters on the DL, Ty Law, and 2 promising safeties.

I guess I am just a blind homer but I really can't fault the Chiefs on this.

FloridaMan88 · 09-12-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

So you wanted us to go out and get a starting tackle, when Roaf and Welbourn were still playing for us?

A team that has glaring needs for starters on defense was supposed to go out and spend big money on depth at OT?

Damn straight they should have. Even if the Chiefs went with the assumption that Roaf was coming back, you are looking at a 36 year old left tackle coming off a re-occurring hamstring injury from last season who wasn't even practicing during the spring minicamps. After watching what happened to the offensive line and the offense as a whole when Roaf went down last season... why SHOULDN'T the Chiefs have been more aggressive in trying to upgrade the depth along the offensive line?

jspchief · 09-12-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

I'm not that familiar with the procedure, but I thought players get a 2nd test and an appeal if the first test comes up positive. It's usually kept quiet becaus it's technically a medical issue.

IIRC, when he was suspended the first time for the first 4 games of the season it was from a test that was positive much earlier.

Yea, he tests positive and knows he's guilty so "retires" in May. Then the appeal process takes all summer, and week or so ago it finally breaks that he tested positive.

He never actually filed retirement papers (at least he hadn't last I heard).

TEX · 09-12-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

So you wanted us to go out and get a starting tackle, when Roaf and Welbourn were still playing for us?

A team that has glaring needs for starters on defense was supposed to go out and spend big money on depth at OT?

No, I wanted quality depth to prevent what happened last season. We proved the depth we had was not quality last year.

jspchief · 09-12-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

Damn straight they should have. Even if the Chiefs went with the assumption that Roaf was coming back, you are looking at a 36 year old left tackle coming off a re-occurring hamstring injury from last season who wasn't even practicing during the spring minicamps. After watching what happened to the offensive line and the offense as a whole when Roaf went down last season... why SHOULDN'T the Chiefs have been more aggressive in trying to upgrade the depth along the offensive line?

How many good tackles do think are in the NFL? Half the teams in the league don't have a good LT starting for them, yet you expect us to have some stud on the bench?

Maybe we should have brought in Peyton Manning to back up Green while we were at it.

You think there's a bunch of good O-linemen floating around that can't get a better job than backup?

MichaelH · 09-12-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEX

The more things change, the more they remain the same because the same guy is running things.

BINGO! We have a winner.

htismaqe · 09-12-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

Damn straight they should have. Even if the Chiefs went with the assumption that Roaf was coming back, you are looking at a 36 year old left tackle coming off a re-occurring hamstring injury from last season who wasn't even practicing during the spring minicamps. After watching what happened to the offensive line and the offense as a whole when Roaf went down last season... why SHOULDN'T the Chiefs have been more aggressive in trying to upgrade the depth along the offensive line?

I can see it now.

We drafted Eric Winston instead of Tamba Hali. And signed a free agent OT, instead of Ty Law.

You'd be here today bitching because Carl didn't do enough to fix the defense...

bringbackmarty · 09-12-2006, 10:39 AM

I think the ol problems are fixable. It depends on how good Denver ends up being. and San Diego. I guess it's possible as long as we win half of our games going into pittsburg. Sign one FA tackle (preferable a guy who can blay both sides.) soon, put him in on the right, when welbourne comes back, I would start Welbourne or FA @ rt, if Turley works out @ LT. If Turley struggles and Welbourne regains his form, have the FA push Turley for his job. I'm not sure Turley @ 280 lbs is big enough to withstand a full season, trying to block Merriman, Pryce, and co. So whomever we sign needs to prepare to play both sides.

Spicy McHaggis · 09-12-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I can see it now.

We drafted Eric Winston instead of Tamba Hali. And signed a free agent OT, instead of Ty Law.

You'd be here today bitching because Carl didn't do enough to fix the defense...

Exactly. People should be skeptical but at the same time they need to understand that this isn't Madden. You can't be loaded everywhere. You have to try to make shrewd signings, draft well, occassionally sign that big name guy and cross your fingers that unfortunate things don't happen (Roaf's retirement, Green's injury).;

I said it before and I'll say it again. Carl Peterson has done basically everything he can this year to give the Chiefs a chance at winning.

OmahaChief · 09-12-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I can see it now.

We drafted Eric Winston instead of Tamba Hali. And signed a free agent OT, instead of Ty Law.

You'd be here today bitching because Carl didn't do enough to fix the defense...

For what it is worth Winston went early 3rd round. We could have had him with our second pick. I was pissed we did not draft him as it was a need spot for a young player. Now we are stuck with leftovers. Don't get me wrong Pollard will be a nice player but Tackle was huge priority and we failed to draft even one tackle. We drafted a G in Stallings that might project to a tackle. My concern is it appears that the Chiefs have banked a lot on Black, Samson and Svitek all guys that have looked like huge question marks for the good part of their young careers.

If we don't get some tackles in FA or the draft this year we will look like the Raiders Oline and that is a big ole mess.

htismaqe · 09-12-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmahaChief

For what it is worth Winston went early 3rd round. We could have had him with our second pick. I was pissed we did not draft him as it was a need spot for a young player. Now we are stuck with leftovers. Don't get me wrong Pollard will be a nice player but Tackle was huge priority and we failed to draft even one tackle. We drafted a G in Stallings that might project to a tackle. My concern is it appears that the Chiefs have banked a lot on Black, Samson and Svitek all guys that have looked like huge question marks for the good part of their young careers.

If we don't get some tackles in FA or the draft this year we will look like the Raiders Oline and that is a big ole mess.

Yeah, we could look like the Raiders O-line, where SECOND OVERALL PICK Robert Gallery is probably the worst of the bunch...

09-12-2006, 06:40 AM
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	Clayton says we might sign a tackle Mike Pearson? Was with the Jags and someone else the last couple of years...I'm assuming he's a RT but Clayton didn't say....just heard it on Mike & Mike this morning...
Posts: 51,585

09-12-2006, 10:04 AM	#47
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	So you wanted us to go out and get a starting tackle, when Roaf and Welbourn were still playing for us? A team that has glaring needs for starters on defense was supposed to go out and spend big money on depth at OT? __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

09-12-2006, 10:39 AM	#57
bringbackmarty Gonna go back in time.... Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $3065510	I think the ol problems are fixable. It depends on how good Denver ends up being. and San Diego. I guess it's possible as long as we win half of our games going into pittsburg. Sign one FA tackle (preferable a guy who can blay both sides.) soon, put him in on the right, when welbourne comes back, I would start Welbourne or FA @ rt, if Turley works out @ LT. If Turley struggles and Welbourne regains his form, have the FA push Turley for his job. I'm not sure Turley @ 280 lbs is big enough to withstand a full season, trying to block Merriman, Pryce, and co. So whomever we sign needs to prepare to play both sides. __________________ https://www.facebook.com/The-Pheasan...6018120266009/
Posts: 3,033