Whitlock: Chiefs need to put up "Law"-full defense [Archive]

tk13

02-26-2005, 02:26 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/sports/10996001.htm

Chiefs need to put up a Law-full defense

JASON WHITLOCK

The Chiefs say they want a real cornerback, not a converted safety. The Chiefs say they want to improve their defense and make a legitimate run at the Super Bowl.

Well, Ty Law, his three Super Bowl rings, his leaguewide reputation as the most complete corner in the game and his infectious swagger are now on the open market, available for any team that's serious about turning words into action.

On Friday, one hour after the New England Patriots released the perfect corner for Gunther Cunningham's system, Ty Law told me that he'd love to play in Kansas City.

“I would definitely be interested in Kansas City,” said Law, who was released in a salary-cap purge. “And the thing that I think about first when I think about Kansas City is their fans. That fan base, man, it's incredible. … You want to go someplace where you're going to have the fan support and something to play for other than your teammates and yourself. …

“That's definitely somewhere I would love to come. Their offense, with Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez, those guys are putting up 400 yards a game. Defensively, if I can come there and spark that defense, they could definitely have a chance to contend. I think I definitely would help put up a couple more wins. That's not being arrogant or nothing, that's just being confident. I can rub off on some of the other (defensive) guys to go out and win because the offense speaks for itself.”

OK, this is the Chiefs' most important offseason during the Carl Peterson era. Coach Dick Vermeil is in the final year of his contract. Priest Holmes, Trent Green, Willie Roaf, Will Shields, Tony Richardson and Tony Gonzalez are all moving toward their decline. The window of opportunity for KC's offense is right now. The Chiefs' miserable defense has undermined KC's brilliant offense for three straight years. Kansas City doesn't have time for a defensive rebuilding process.

The defense must be fixed this year. Ty Law is the first step. Even coming off season-ending foot surgery, Law is the best available free agent — regardless of position — this offseason. He's a difference-maker. He's a proven winner. He can handle a big contract, high expectations and the responsibility of being the leader of the defense. Law isn't a “potential” big-time player. He's been a big-time player for 10 years, and even at age 31, he could be an All-Pro-caliber corner for the next four years.

Signing Law would be similar to the 1993 offseason, when the Chiefs acquired Joe Montana and Marcus Allen, two guys with leaguewide respect and Super Bowl, Pro Bowl and Hall of Fame resumes. Law would be a lot like Allen, who needed a strong finish to his career to cement his Hall legacy. Montana and Allen made Chiefs fans and players believe the organization was serious about winning the Super Bowl.

Law would add a much-needed confidence boost. The Chiefs should not be allowed to hide behind the salary cap. They can sign Law — even if it requires a $10 million signing bonus — and still add a free-agent linebacker.

“I want an opportunity to win, first and foremost,” Law said. “That doesn't mean to say money won't play a part of anything. But if things are competitive out there for you, then you want to go to the place where you can win and make your market value. That's what I'm all about. It's not about making more. It's not about making less.

“It's about playing for something that's fair on both ends, playing for your market value and having an opportunity to win. No one wants to go out there and make of lot of money and lose. I'm definitely not one of them. I've been blessed and been very fortunate to make good money playing this game, so winning is just as much a factor as anything. Probably more of a factor is winning football games.”

All athletes say it's not about the money. It's always about the money. But Law won't sign with the highest bidder. He'll sign with the highest bidder of the teams that have a chance of winning. He'll sign with the team that recruits him the hardest and makes an aggressive, fair offer early.

Is Carl Peterson capable of being aggressive and fair? I have my doubts.

Is Dick Vermeil capable of making Carl Peterson be aggressive and fair? Yes.

Of course, Kansas City's doctors would have to examine Law's broken foot. Heck, there may have to be a clause in the contract concerning Law's availability for the beginning of training camp.

“I'm ahead of schedule,” Law said of his rehabilitation.

This is so perfect. Law is available, and he's interested in Kansas City. The Chiefs have a terrible defense that desperately needs a big, physical corner capable of playing bump-and-run and zone. They have room underneath the salary cap.

The only problem is that Peterson and Co. are making plans to duplicate the 2003 offseason in which the Chiefs signed Dexter McCleon, Vonnie Holliday and Shawn Barber. Peterson wants to be cheap. The fan base here should not tolerate it. The Chiefs want $270 million in stadium renovations. The Chiefs are never cheap when it comes to what they want from their fan base.

Should you be any less demanding than Lamar Hunt, Carl Peterson and Jack Steadman?

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:30 AM

Would Law be willing to compete with Dexter?

If so, sign him up!

Yours truly,

Dick Verklempt

royr17

02-26-2005, 02:32 AM

Come on Carl get this big boy in here and get him signed, i dont care if its the only free agent we sign, its a player so despirately need.

Fire Me Boy!

02-26-2005, 02:32 AM

How about we put Law at Safety and move Woods over to CB? He did a pretty good job when he filled in there a few years ago...

beer bacon

02-26-2005, 02:38 AM

Would Law be willing to compete with Dexter?

If so, sign him up!

Yours truly,

Dick Verklempt

Compete with Dexter? he has to get past Bartee, Battle, and Sapp first. We don't want Law getting cocky and thinking he can just run established corners out of town.

beer bacon

02-26-2005, 02:40 AM

How about we put Law at Safety and move Woods over to CB? He did a pretty good job when he filled in there a few years ago...

I would hope the general idea would be to play Law for two or three or four years at corner. When he becomes an ineffective CB try to get him to take a paycut and move to safety where he can still be a true impact player for a few more years.

Fire Me Boy!

02-26-2005, 02:41 AM

I would hope the general idea would be to play Law for two or three or four years at corner. When he becomes an ineffective CB try to get him to take a paycut and move to safety where he can still be a true impact player for a few more years.
I hope you know I was kidding.

beer bacon

02-26-2005, 02:42 AM

I hope you know I was kidding.

I thought you were just a member of the Chiefs coaching staff :deevee:

Fire Me Boy!

02-26-2005, 02:43 AM

I thought you were just a member of the Chiefs coaching staff :deevee:
Maybe I should not be kidding and go for an interview? :banghead:

HolmeZz

02-26-2005, 02:45 AM

beer bacon

02-26-2005, 02:48 AM

I know financially this might not be this best way to go, but from a morale standpoint, this would gather so much more support and positive energy heading into the season than if we signed a guy like Fred Smoot. I really do believe Law's experience can make a difference for us.

On the same topic but not really I really think both Bartee and Guinta are ciminally retarded. I could have sworn early in the season that Bartee was actually turning his head and making moves on the ball. I think Guinta actually scolds him and has him practice having staring contests with the receiver in an effort to psyche him out.

I have put a lot of thought into this subject and this is really the only viable reason why Bartee is so damn horrible.

tk13

02-26-2005, 02:54 AM

Rausch

02-26-2005, 03:02 AM

It's obvious Peterson is putting more effort into this offseason than any other since 93.

Law will be a Chief. I'll take a 6'er bet on it.

2 reasons:

1) The balance hasn't shifted towards the AFC, it has completely tilted. The Steelers, Colts, and Chargers (they need to improve their line) are all legit SB contenders. The Pats have just won their 3rd in 4 years. The Jets, Chiefs, Donks, and Bills are 2 or 3 players away from contenders.

Who's in the NFC?

The Eagles and Falcons. The Cowboys, Packers, and Rams are 2 or 3 players from contending. But the NFC still, at best, a distant 2nd when looking at who'd take the SB.

2) If Peterson goes to or wins a superbowl this year he can pretty much write his own contract. No one will care if he had a 5 or 50 year plan. Both DV and CP can say they got it done.

Manila-Chief

02-26-2005, 03:11 AM

"The only problem is that Peterson and Co. are making plans to duplicate the 2003 offseason in which the Chiefs signed Dexter McCleon, Vonnie Holliday and Shawn Barber. Peterson wants to be cheap. The fan base here should not tolerate it. The Chiefs want $270 million in stadium renovations. The Chiefs are never cheap when it comes to what they want from their fan base."

"Should you be any less demanding than Lamar Hunt, Carl Peterson and Jack Steadman?"

I have this nagging fear that Kingless will sign a couple or 3 middle of the road FA's and declare he has done his job.

Also, Kingless should be the one who is going after the best D F.A.'s never mind what D.V. thinks!!!! It is his 17th. year of his 5 year plan. He is the one who has led the Chiefs for almost half of their non-S.B. years. It is time he stood up and got the players Gun and the D coaches can mold into a winning unit.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 03:16 AM

I have this nagging fear that Kingless will sign a couple or 3 middle of the road FA's and declare he has done his job.

And I have a feeling CP will go ****ing insane this offseason.

He might as well, win or lose, he loses nothing.

If we have a bad season he "decides to retire" in a contract year and loses nothing. Our cap really doesn't mean squat to him then.

If he makes the superbowl he can pretty much write out the blank check for whatever he wants...

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 04:32 AM

I don't want Law. I think his injury will affect him all year. And while the Chiefs are waiting to give physical to him and doing all that other junk, the other FAs will gone just like that. The bulk of FA signings happen within the first 7 to 10 days, and we'll be wasting that time waiting on a bum legged 31 year old CBs leg status, etc.

I want a Smoot or a Rolle, and then Bell or Hartwell, then WR Mason.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 04:41 AM

If there ever was a FA period to shore up a bad defense, this is one. As good as picks at LB and CB in a long time, and the Chiefs must act quick because they'll all be gone very soon. The Chiefs can't waste their time fiddling around with a CB that won't be able to walk until a couple months or whatever.

teedubya

02-26-2005, 04:51 AM

Law or Smoot PLUS Hartwell, and Im pleased. Color me Red.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 05:07 AM

teedubya

02-26-2005, 06:36 AM

elvomito

02-26-2005, 06:45 AM

this would really be great. an offseason worth mentioning

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 07:28 AM

I can't believe how easily this fat-ass shit-stirrer can lead some of you around like puppy dogs.

Signing an old, injured CB who will consume all of the excess cap money for several years sounds like a great way to start the free agency signing period to me, too....

Hey, what's Jeff George up to these days?

oh, so you know of a top CB that will be cheap?

people, at this point, are excited about getting any FA that is actually talented...and those FAs do, as you point out, require that we give them cap money...for several years even, but, you see, that also means we might have a real chance at winning a playoff game for the first time in 12 years...but then, you never would have signed Willie Roaf, I guess...he was so old and injured

HemiEd

02-26-2005, 07:34 AM

If this ego maniac Whitlock, understood anything about psychology, he would know that he is probably fugging up any chance of the Chiefs signing Law. If CP were to sign Law now, and he does well, Shitlock will be claiming credit. If he does poorly, it will be CPs fault. Make no mistake, CP has an ego of significant proportion.
As long as Shitlock keeps writing and calling out CP on what he should do, it will probably further entrench CP into proving Shitlock wrong. This is just human nature.
I am really sick of reading Whitlock's self promoting BS! :cuss:

bringbackmarty

02-26-2005, 07:40 AM

heh fat ass hit stirrer. law is the dude we need. Him, or maybe woodson, or bell.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 08:13 AM

oh, so you know of a top CB that will be cheap?

people, at this point, are excited about getting any FA that is actually talented...and those FAs do, as you point out, require that we give them cap money...for several years even, but, you see, that also means we might have a real chance at winning a playoff game for the first time in 12 years...but then, you never would have signed Willie Roaf, I guess...he was so old and injured

If there was a chance we could steal Law like we stole Roaf, sure I'd be in favor of it....But to break the bank on one player when we need so much on D is Whitlockesque thinking....

BigRedChief

02-26-2005, 08:24 AM

If there was a chance we could steal Law like we stole Roaf, sure I'd be in favor of it....But to break the bank on one player when we need so much on D is Whitlockesque thinking....

Why do we get only one player?

These are King Carls words to the Springfield, mo. paper:

We have enough cap room to get 2-3 defensive impact players.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 08:35 AM

Why do we get only one player?

These are King Carls words to the Springfield, mo. paper:

We have enough cap room to get 2-3 defensive impact players.

Where did he say he was speaking about Law?

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 08:43 AM

I know, I know...It's just Carl being greedy...

All he really has to do is get on the phone and sign Law, Baxter, Surtain, Woodson, Bell, Burress, Coles, Hartwell, Smoot, Lucas, Darius, maybe a few others and all the draft picks, and we got it made!

Welcome to the NFFL....

siberian khatru

02-26-2005, 08:45 AM

dirk digler

02-26-2005, 08:49 AM

From what I understand Smoot and Lucas are the top 2 corners on the Chiefs FA board though that could change with Law now available.

You also have to understand how Carl works and that he is not going to give a FA more signing bonus than Priest, Tony G or Trent it just ain't going to happen. So the max he will give a FA will be around the 8-9 million mark IMO because they gave Priest the most and that was around 10.

If Law wants 10 or more CP won't sign him and I don't know how much CP and DV is that interested to begin with.

IMO if they are that interested in signing him then the deal will be struck today or tomorrow because since he was released he can sign with any team now and he doesn't have to wait until March 2.

dirk digler

02-26-2005, 08:58 AM

I don't know, I think Law is gonna get more than a measley 10 million dollar signing bonus. If the Chiefs really only have 4-5 million of cap space, Law is probably going to take up half of that. There isn't going to be much room left after that. You have to leave some space under the cap because if you add two or three guys due to injuries, even if they only make 200-400,000 dollars, they can add up to almost a million dollars of cap space pretty quick. Anyone who ever wants to question why Whitlock got where he was and say he's not a good writer needs to read this article, he plays his cards extremely well to make it seem like anything less than adding Ty Law would be foolish. And not that we shouldn't add him, I'd pick him over all the other CB's easily, but if we don't get him I still think there are other ways we could go about having a successful offseason....

Great post tk but one thing you have to understand as CP would explain there is a salary cap and their is a team cash cap. Because of the unsuccessful season last year and players not getting any bonuses the Chiefs have alot of cash to spend. So say you give Law 8-9 million signing bonus which is cash and sign him to a 5 yr contract with the 1st year just paying him the veterans minimum of around $750,000 you can spread out the hit on the cap so the 1st year hit might be somewhere around 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Of course every year after that it goes up but for the upcoming season that is very reasonable.

Now you can do that to sign a couple other players and still be under the cap. All of the players really care about is the signing bonus since that is the only part that is guaranteed and the realize that they usually won't see the end of their contract anyway.

Also because of the CBA expiring soon you can only sign a FA to a 5yr contract so keep that in mind as well.

KevB

02-26-2005, 09:28 AM

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 09:48 AM

Some of you guys need to learn the difference between someone like a CB who has lost a half-step due to injury, or a position like LB or OL that has lost a little speed....

TEX

02-26-2005, 10:21 AM

Whitlock's dead wrong - Law WILL go to whoever offers him the most money. He already HAS his rings. And there's nothing wrong with that. If the 49'ers offerd him the most cash, he'd be there. etc...

Chief Roundup

02-26-2005, 10:50 AM

Defensively, if I can come there and spark that defense, they could definitely have a chance to contend. I think I definitely would help put up a couple more wins. That's not being arrogant or nothing, that's just being confident. I can rub off on some of the other (defensive) guys to go out and win because the offense speaks for itself.”
Boy that sounds awfully good to me. But I am still afraid that Law=only offseason FA pickup. Not to mention he is injured. And I have never heard of a player that is behind in thier rehab.

TEX

02-26-2005, 10:58 AM

Boy that sounds awfully good to me. But I am still afraid that Law=only offseason FA pickup. Not to mention he is injured. And I have never heard of a player that is behind in thier rehab.

Exactly. And GUN sure sounded good too last year when he was spewing all that CRAP about winning with the players he knows. Our _efense is total $HIT and it's gomma take more than 1 great CB to fix it. Now had they only added some defensive players last year, we might only be a player or two away from having a good defense... :shake: That's why I'm for getting a few good players for the price of adding just one great (injured) CB. :hmmm:

whoman69

02-26-2005, 11:14 AM

you know, it worked for the Patriots signing an aging injured Rodney Harrison.

If we can get Law at a somewhat decent price... I think his attitude would be INFECTIOUS and our overpaid Safeties W & W might make some plays in 2005. Law could spark us, no doubt.

But Law without a quality LB makes NO SENSE.
That's just it, he won't be had for a decent price. He wants to get paid. He complained last year when Bailey took over as highest paid CB in the league even though he held the title for 5 years running. He's 31 coming off an injury. We sign this guy and we won't be able to afford the other parts of the puzzle needed.
I knew Whitlock would be all over this. Its the popular thing to do, but not the smart thing. We're going to give a $10 million signing bonus to a guy who is at the tail end of his career? All you guys behind this, remember Hugh Douglas.

Calcountry

02-26-2005, 11:16 AM

How about we put Law at Safety and move Woods over to CB? He did a pretty good job when he filled in there a few years ago...Brilliant!

Calcountry

02-26-2005, 11:16 AM

Compete with Dexter? he has to get past Bartee, Battle, and Sapp first. We don't want Law getting cocky and thinking he can just run established corners out of town.ROFL

Calcountry

02-26-2005, 11:17 AM

whoman69

02-26-2005, 11:21 AM

Great post tk but one thing you have to understand as CP would explain there is a salary cap and their is a team cash cap. Because of the unsuccessful season last year and players not getting any bonuses the Chiefs have alot of cash to spend. So say you give Law 8-9 million signing bonus which is cash and sign him to a 5 yr contract with the 1st year just paying him the veterans minimum of around $750,000 you can spread out the hit on the cap so the 1st year hit might be somewhere around 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Of course every year after that it goes up but for the upcoming season that is very reasonable.

Now you can do that to sign a couple other players and still be under the cap. All of the players really care about is the signing bonus since that is the only part that is guaranteed and the realize that they usually won't see the end of their contract anyway.

Also because of the CBA expiring soon you can only sign a FA to a 5yr contract so keep that in mind as well.
Say we sign him a 5 year $9 million bonus. That's a 1.8 million cap hit every year before salary. If he's like Hugh Douglas and we have to cut him in the 2nd year, we have to wait until June cuts to take the cap hit over 2 years which is $3.6 million cap hit for two seasons. That's alot of dead money in the cap for two whole years.

dirk digler

02-26-2005, 11:29 AM

Say we sign him a 5 year $9 million bonus. That's a 1.8 million cap hit every year before salary. If he's like Hugh Douglas and we have to cut him in the 2nd year, we have to wait until June cuts to take the cap hit over 2 years which is $3.6 million cap hit for two seasons. That's alot of dead money in the cap for two whole years.

You're exactly right but whoever you sign at CB you are going to have almost the exact situation. Smoot, Surtain, Lucas all will command 8-10 million signing bonuses + salary as well. Most players don't see the end of their contract anyway.
IMO this the Chiefs last opportunity with the current group of players so you might as well go for broke.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 11:43 AM

I really hope we sign Ty Law!!! He's injured, but his experience on the sideline will help us reach our goal!!!! Sure he'll cause us to decrease the FA pickups by one player, but oh well, we have Ty Law, even if he isn't in the game, teams will be fearful of our dangerous defense with probably one other FA pickup added onto the worst D in the last 4 years.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

No Law, more signings. Sign Law, less signings. It's s moot point anyway, the Chiefs will not go after him; if they do, they won't offer him a big contract. I think they're smart enough to realize that they need someone that will not only help this year, but on after that. And that if they want Law, they will have to overpay. I'm all for overpaying to fix this D, but not for a CB that is injured and can't hardly walk and at the sacfice of defensive FA pickups.

dirk digler

02-26-2005, 11:45 AM

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 11:52 AM

It depends on what his time table is to be fully healed. I totally understand your point by signing Law means less signings but Smoot or Lucas won't come cheap either.

I'd rather spend that money on Smoot or Lucas, instead of Law. Those two players will make just as good an impact as Law, and will be more than just a quick fix, which I doubt Law will be anyway. Ty Law won't solve our problems on D alone. Injured or not, he and his agent will say he's the best CB in the game, pay me accordingly...and then BOOM...there goes our money.

dirk digler

02-26-2005, 11:58 AM

I'd rather spend that money on Smoot or Lucas, instead of Law. Those two players will make just as good an impact as Law, and will be more than just a quick fix, which I doubt Law will be anyway. Ty Law won't solve our problems on D alone. Injured or not, he and his agent will say he's the best CB in the game, pay me accordingly...and then BOOM...there goes our money.

I guess it depends on the mindset of CP and DV. They may not be back next year so what happens in the future is the least of their concerns.

I agree Law won't solve all of our problems on D. Hey people laugh at me when I say that we need 6-7 new starters on D next season. People are of the belief we are 2-3 players away on D to be good which I think is ridiculous.

Raiderhater

02-26-2005, 12:12 PM

Say we sign him a 5 year $9 million bonus. That's a 1.8 million cap hit every year before salary. If he's like Hugh Douglas and we have to cut him in the 2nd year, we have to wait until June cuts to take the cap hit over 2 years which is $3.6 million cap hit for two seasons. That's alot of dead money in the cap for two whole years.

The key word here being "If". I see one group of people here who are adament Law is what we need and on the other hand I see another group that is adament he is a bad pick up. There is no garuntee either way. However, considering the fact that Law has been a defensive leader on a team that has won 3 SBs, I have a hard time seeing him become a Hugh Douglas. Especially given that the team is NE.

I will say this, when Lawyer Milloy was cut, no one could understand what BB was thinking, yet that one turned out pretty good for the team in the end. If he is getting rid of Law, I have to ask myself, why?

Raiderhater

02-26-2005, 12:15 PM

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 12:23 PM

Tell me Cody, were you this against us signing our old injured RB to a big contract a couple of years ago?

Is it something to take into consideration? Of course. Is it a reason to automaticaly dismiss a player as a contributor? Of course not.

I learned my lesson with Hugh Douglas a couple years ago, that is all. :)

We'll see if he is an impact player still when the season begins. All guesses. But one guess I'd like to bet on is that he won't be a Chief.

Raiderhater

02-26-2005, 12:33 PM

I learned my lesson with Hugh Douglas a couple years ago, that is all. :)

We'll see if he is an impact player still when the season begins. All guesses. But one guess I'd like to bet on is that he won't be a Chief.

Again with the Hugh Douglas thing. WTH? What about my equally relevant point in regards to Priest? He is an older RB who was coming off an injury (a bigger one than LAw has to boot) and we signed him to a big contract. That year he set the leage record for rushing TDs in a season. He scored more points than a lot of kickers in the league.

You are only looking at one instance, and that is not a wise thing to do.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 12:37 PM

Again with the Hugh Douglas thing. WTH? What about my equally relevant point in regards to Priest? He is an older RB who was coming off an injury (a bigger one than LAw has to boot) and we signed him to a big contract. That year he set the leage record for rushing TDs in a season. He scored more points than a lot of kickers in the league.

You are only looking at one instance, and that is not a wise thing to do.

I think the Chiefs will make a wiser choice in going after a younger CB who doesn't have injury problems and that will potentially be with the team longer than 2 years.

I don't really think the Chiefs will go after Law.

If they sign him, I won't be ticked. There's nothing I can do about it.

Brock

02-26-2005, 12:38 PM

I will say this, when Lawyer Milloy was cut, no one could understand what BB was thinking, yet that one turned out pretty good for the team in the end. If he is getting rid of Law, I have to ask myself, why?

And in fact, Law was very vocal about what a mistake Belichick was making when he cut Milloy. He also accused Pioli and Belichick of lying to him during his contract negotiations. Yeah, he sounds like a real leader.

Braincase

02-26-2005, 12:38 PM

CP will grab one of the other younger CB's, and tell JW to shove it up his fat @$$. Carl doesn't like being dictated too.

HemiEd

02-26-2005, 12:43 PM

CP will grab one of the other younger CB's, and tell JW to shove it up his fat @$$. Carl doesn't like being dictated too.

agreed, that was the point I was trying to make earlier.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 12:55 PM

I could end up being completely wrong, and eating every single word ive said, and it wouldnt be the first or last time probably.

But I really hope that they dont go after Ty Law. I just have a funny feeling about him. That "Lis Franc" injury he had with his foot is one of those really touchy injuries.

I mean, think how long its been since that happened, and he still cant even put any pressure on that foot at all, and travels around on a cart.

He's 31 years old, and has had great past experiences with New England, but remember folks, New England just won the superbowl without him.

There are definite pros to having Law on the team, especially when it comes to playing a certain Peyton Manning, who Ty Law owns on gameday when they face one another.

But I think the cons outweigh the pros in signing him.

He will command a big chunk of the cap, limiting what other positions can be helped on the defense. He's up in years, and we have no clue how he will come back from that inury. Will he return to top form, or will he not reach his old form again?

With the other guys that are out there at the position, I think the Chiefs need to pursue one of the younger guys, who arent hurt, and will allow for other positions on the D to be addressed this offseason.

I could, as I said, eat my words on that, and end up watching Ty Law return to top form this season and be the shutdown guy he has always been and help whatever defense he goes to out tremendously, and then be wishing that the Chiefs had gone ahead and signed him.

But at this point, I think with all the needs this defense has, its too big of a gamble to put a ton of money into him right now.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 01:00 PM

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 01:02 PM

I could end up being completely wrong...
But I really hope that they dont go after Ty Law. I just have a funny feeling about him. That "Lis Franc" injury he had with his foot is one of those really touchy injuries...

I've had exactly the same thoughts on him as well. The potential for this deal to blow-up far outweighs any potential benefits... my intuition says whoever gets The Law, The Law Loses.

Smoot over Law and Woodson without a doubt.

--->

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 01:11 PM

It goes without saying, doesn't it?, that we expect the Chiefs to do their due diligence with respect to Law's injury..just as they did when they signed Roaf/Holmes/and Green, all coming off of injuries...nobody is saying just hand the man a bag of cash...the difference in price between Smoot and Law will not be much, you don't get #1 CBs for cheap...I'd prefer Smoot just based on age, but if we move on Law I will be equally ecstatic. And if we really want him there are ways to make it work.

One way or the other we're going to pay an ass load of cash for a CB. Worrying about the price is pointless, only the structure of the contract really matters.

bricks

02-26-2005, 01:12 PM

Bottomline is, when a team signs a player there are several circumstances, consequences involved. Your always gonna hear some fans, media, AND EVEN TEAMS say stuff like, "oh well that guy is 31 years old, and, he is coming off an injury." "Oh well he is going to demand a lot of money, and, if we sign him he'll take up a lot of cap space and we won't sign anybody else". "Or, he doesn't fit the system". "Nah, we don't wanna this to be another Hugh Douglas type of thing", etc, etc. Several excuses. I'm not knocking anybody here, and i'm aware everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I'm also aware that, this is a gossip board and ppl need stuff to talk about. and, I respect that. I just hope there is room for understanding. All I want to say is, regardless of what type, kind of transaction the Chiefs make, the reality is, it is either gonna be a good or bad transaction. My point is, I don't think we can afford excuses, we've heard too many of them. Not only from us, media, but, EVEN the Chiefs! Why let our fears stand in the way! IF we don't sign anybody ala like last year, look what happened?! Last year we didn't sign anybody, and, we blasted our team! Now, the Chiefs are saying they're going to sign some defensive FA's, and, one of, IF not the best darn defensive fa is available. I don't give a crap what others say, think. Ty Law is tha man! And that is my opinion.

p.s. I hope that the Chiefs sign him! I hope our off-season starts with a bang!
I hope our team approaches FA with courage, and NO fear! Successfull
men have balls, they are willing to burn all their ships, and makes no
sources of retreat. Will Carl Peterson have that approach to FA? I hope
so. I'm tired of excuses. Excuses are alibis for failure. Last year we
made a ton of them, and made no moves, and, it showed. we gotta be
willing to take risks, regardless of the circumstances. Especially with our
defense in this day, and age.

Raiderhater

02-26-2005, 01:17 PM

And in fact, Law was very vocal about what a mistake Belichick was making when he cut Milloy. He also accused Pioli and Belichick of lying to him during his contract negotiations. Yeah, he sounds like a real leader.

I guess I do not recall the contract situation. I but I do know that he was one of the most vocal team members about the Milloy situation. Hell, I can't really blame him, they made a great tandem together.

I just have to wonder what it is that Belicheck knows that we do not.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 01:17 PM

I wonder how good he can play CB on one leg...

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 01:17 PM

I'm tired of excuses. Excuses are alibis for failure. Last year we
made a ton of them, and made no moves, and, it showed. we gotta be
willing to take risks, regardless of the circumstances. Especially with our
defense in this day, and age.

that's where I'm at...risk is inherent, and it may not work, but we have to roll the dice cause 12 years without a playoff win is simply insane

PHOG

02-26-2005, 01:20 PM

Well...if they sign Law, they damn well better be sure he will have NO concerns regarding his foot, what with all the other healthy CB's available. :titus:

bricks

02-26-2005, 01:22 PM

Well...if they sign Law, they damn well better be sure he will have NO concerns regarding his foot, what with all the other healthy CB's available. :titus:

Well, that's what the physicals are for.

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 01:23 PM

I say give Law a suped-up wheel chair...he'll then single handedly improve our defense and lead us to glory.

bricks

02-26-2005, 01:25 PM

I say give Law a suped-up wheel chair...he'll then single handedly improve our defense and lead us to glory.

If thats the case, this sounds crude, but, what the hell. He'll still be better than Bartee, or McCleon.

Raiderhater

02-26-2005, 01:25 PM

I say give Law a suped-up wheel chair...he'll then single handedly improve our defense and lead us to glory.

It couldn't be any worse than Bartee, and in all seriousness, probably an improvement.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 01:31 PM

My point is, I don't think we can afford excuses, we've heard too many of them. Not only from us, media, but, EVEN the Chiefs! Why let our fears stand in the way! IF we don't sign anybody ala like last year, look what happened?! Last year we didn't sign anybody, and, we blasted our team!

Yes, but you should be equally aware that putting most of your eggs in one basket on a guy that does pose potential risk of not living up to the hype and taking away your chance to address multiple defensive positions and going with just fixing one or two is just as bad as not signing anyone if your gamble fails.

Right now, the FA market is full of guys who can contribute to this defense, allow for multiple signings on defense, with worlds less risk involved than if we pursue Ty Law with his age and injury.

If we go after Law, sink a big bunch of cap money in him, and only get one more player on defense besides him in FA (A low tier player, because thats all we will be able to afford) and Law turns out to be a bust, what then?

We are stuck out there on the field with the same personnell we had out there this season, Ty Law rides his little cart on the sideline drawing a check, and we only have our lower tier player FA pickup out there to help the defense.

I think you have to go after multiple players on defense, and not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially a 31 year old basket suffering from a "Lis Franc" injury.

Smoot, Surtain, Lucas, these guys are solid, and while they will command big money, they present much less risk, and more longevity due to their age. Surtain has a knee issue, but he's at least able to walk right now. Ty Law cant even say that.

And as was mentioned, we DESPERATELY need help at Middle Linebacker. If we get Law and no help at linebacker, it will do very little good. We might stop a few more passes, but we will get the ball crammed down our throats on the run, or the guy playing across the field from Law (Toasty, Crispy, or McPassOn) will be the one getting the passes thrown at him.

Like I said, I could end up eating my words, but something tells me to skip Ty Law. Go for one of the younger corners, get a linebacker, and have some money in there to potentially sign a third free agent pickup, and still have the cash to sign our first round draft choice.

PHOG

02-26-2005, 01:33 PM

Well, that's what the physicals are for.

I would just want him to be 100% by TC, to justify the signing.

And yes, him in a wheelchair would be better than McPasson or :Bartee: . :LOL:

melbar

02-26-2005, 01:33 PM

On the other hand he did say he wants to go to a winner. NE just won the SB without him. I think he'll be out to prove that he can be a difference maker. What better place to make a difference real or percieved than on the worst D in the league? He also stated that he has been blessed to have made a lot of money in his career already and he wants to go to a winner. The Chiefs are a team that has the best O in the league and needs only (ha, I say only) a large improvement on D to go to the next level. I think he will deal with us so that we can bring in other players who are solid so he looks like the savior when the D takes a leap forward. I think its a win-win for him. He'll still get his money.

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 01:36 PM

I don't give a crap what others say, think. Ty Law is tha man! And that is my opinion...

No one's saying if he ends up in KC we won't support the guy.

I say let DV make an informed decision on his character. Can Ty Law do for the defense what James Hasty did when he was signed? I doubt it. Me thinks Ty Law talks a good line but that injury combined with marginal proven leadership ability tips the debate to someone else.

BTW, what's the speculation of his decision not to renegotiate in order to stay with "the dynasty"?

--->

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 01:38 PM

Folks, any FA can get injured...there is always risk.

And any #1 CB is going to cost us big time, it makes no sense to say we can only afford Law, but if we sign Smoot we can all these other FAs as well. It just isn't true.

The only meaningful difference between Smoot and Law's contract will be its structure. And thats up to CP to figure out. You really think that Smoot, in his prime, is going to come cheap?

We can get a LB and a CB in FA, it doesn't matter who the Cb is. As long as we don't get cheap, again, and go the McCleon/Holliday route.

No risk, no reward. Haven't we learned this over the last decade of CP's miserable employment?

All veterans, all coming off injuries, all top performers:

Green
Roaf
Priest
..........Law?

PHOG

02-26-2005, 01:39 PM

BTW, what's the speculation of his decision not to renegotiate in order to stay with "the dynasty"?

--->

All about the monay, clearly.

unlurking

02-26-2005, 01:42 PM

Honestly, with his confidence (trying to avoid ego because I like him), the Chiefs would be a PERFECT place for him to end his career. If he were one of the signings that could turn this defense around and get us to a championship game or the SB, it would instantly cement his "greatness" and chances for being a first round HOFer. I like what he can bring and would be VERY happy to see him in Arrowhead next year.

I do however agree with many of the other posters here worried about (as The Stinger put it) "putting all of our eggs in one basket". If we can bring in Law AND AT LEAST 2 more impact players (MLB anyone?) I would be ecstatic. I don't think only 2 new starters will cut it. I would also probably be pretty upset if Law were the only FA addition.

Unfortunately, I am not a cap whiz, so will have to see how things turn out. CP may be able to bring in Law and 2 more players and I may be being unduly worried. I'd like to hope so, but at this point, I'll just have to wait and see.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 01:45 PM

The only meaningful difference between Smoot and Law's contract will be its structure. And thats up to CP to figure out. You really think that Smoot, in his prime, is going to come cheap?

Nope, but there is a helluva lot less risk when you go for Fred Smoot over Ty Law. Smoot is healthy, and is a solid young player who could help this defense for several years.

Ty Law is 31, and cannot walk as of the time of this posting, and probably has only a couple years left at corner before he is the Chiefs next attempt at Free Safety.

Not only that, with a big structured contract, Fred Smoot is much more likely to be able to play out that contract with a lot less chance for dead money coming up, than a guy like Ty Law. If Law were to get a structured deal of 5 years, thats saying he is going to play until he is 36 years old. I dont see it.

Smoot can honor a 5 year deal and be a solid contributor every season, Law's talent will steadily decline, as with his body's ability to recover from injury as he ages.

philfree

02-26-2005, 01:46 PM

Can Ty Law do for the defense what James Hasty did when he was signed? I doubt it. Me thinks Ty Law talks a good line but that injury combined with marginal proven leadership ability tips the debate to someone else.

I thought Law was a jerk last year with his squable with the Patriots when they wanted him to re-do his contract and he wouldn't but if we're gonna compare Law and Hasty then we gotta remember that Hasty refused to re-do his contract too.

PhilFree :arrow:

Mr. Kotter

02-26-2005, 01:47 PM

I don't have time to read the thread, but I did read Whitlock's column...and he is dead on. As much as it pains me to say it, he is bsolutely right--about everything.

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 01:48 PM

CanadaKC

02-26-2005, 01:48 PM

One of the potential early landing spots for Law is the Cleveland Browns, who hired former Patriots defensive coordinator Romeo Crennel as their head coach.

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 01:51 PM

OK, who's post is responsible for the table not wrapping properly...

--->

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 01:51 PM

Nope, but there is a helluva lot less risk when you go for Fred Smoot over Ty Law. Smoot is healthy, and is a solid young player who could help this defense for several years.

Ty Law is 31, and cannot walk as of the time of this posting, and probably has only a couple years left at corner before he is the Chiefs next attempt at Free Safety.

Not only that, with a big structured contract, Fred Smoot is much more likely to be able to play out that contract with a lot less chance for dead money coming up, than a guy like Ty Law. If Law were to get a structured deal of 5 years, thats saying he is going to play until he is 36 years old. I dont see it.

Smoot can honor a 5 year deal and be a solid contributor every season, Law's talent will steadily decline, as with his body's ability to recover from injury as he ages.

no risk, no reward....Smoot could get injured on his first play as a Chief...CP/DV/Green/Roaf/Shields/T-Rich/Priest/Kennison are all gone in the next year or two, and we haven't won a playoff game in 12 years...I don't care what happens to our salary cap 5 years down the road...

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 01:53 PM

foot injury + position predicated on speed + Moss twice a year = ?

--->
who knows...why are we all pretending this is the first time a player has ever been injured?

Priest, Roaf, Green....hell, Gonzo played an entire season on a broken foot....why are we so desperate to come up with reasons to not sign the best CB in the league?

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 01:59 PM

who knows...why are we all pretending this is the first time a player has ever been injured?

Priest, Roaf, Green....hell, Gonzo played an entire season on a broken foot....why are we so desperate to come up with reasons to not sign the best CB in the league?

Can, I enjoy reading your pre-game analyses during the season but I think you're dead wrong on this. However, if he comes in and can do what Hasty did in the 90's --I'm all for it.

Another aspect of the deal: What's the implications for the current secondary players having Law come in versus Smoot, or Woodson? Somehow, player chemistry seems to matter, especially with DV.

--->

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:03 PM

Can, I enjoy reading your pre-game analyses during the season but I think you're dead wrong on this. However, if he comes in and can do what Hasty did in the 90's --I'm all for it.

Another aspect of the deal: What's the implications for the the current secondary players having Law come in versus Smoot? Somehow, player chemistry seems to matter, especially with DV.

--->

Who cares what our incredibly shitty secondary players think about Law? I hope Law takes a bat and beats every single one of them to death.

DV cares more about hurting super-pussy Hicks/Bartee/Woods/McCleon/Sims feelings than benching their worthless asses.

Seriously, why are trying so hard to justify not signing the best CB in the league?

I only care about results.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 02:09 PM

no risk, no reward....Smoot could get injured on his first play as a Chief...CP/DV/Green/Roaf/Shields/T-Rich/Priest/Kennison are all gone in the next year or two, and we haven't won a playoff game in 12 years...I don't care what happens to our salary cap 5 years down the road...

Yeah, Im sure thats what the Jags are saying after having to eat Hugh Douglas' contract after he douched the place up after getting paid.

who knows...why are we all pretending this is the first time a player has ever been injured?

You obviously havent seen the explanation of what Ty Law's injury is. The "Lis Franc" injury is not your common, garden variety injury that you sustain and heal, and everything returns to being hunky dory. Especially at his age. This injury could be what makes the great Ty Law into just normal Ty Law.

Priest, Roaf, Green....hell, Gonzo played an entire season on a broken foot....why are we so desperate to come up with reasons to not sign the best CB in the league?

Last I checked, to be the best CB in the league, you have to finish the season. Obviously he wasnt all that great, because the Patriots never missed a beat after losing him to the injury.

Noone is desperate to come up with reasons not to sign him. The reasons are right there smacking everyone in the face. Youd have to be a blind man not to see why there would be questions on whether or not to give Ty Law the bank given the current situation.

This defense is so bad right now, the Chiefs cannot afford to be wrong, pay a huge sum of money to have Law suffer a relapse or not even make it back to his old form and just be a high paid douchebag out there playing mediocre football like our esteemed cornerback Eric Warfield, who is drawing 4.5 million to get beaten like he's stolen something.

Yes, there is risk in picking up ANY player. But with Ty Law, the risk is significantly higher than anyone else available at the position right now.

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 02:09 PM

Who cares what our incredibly shitty secondary players think about Law?

We've got a defense with a fragile psyche --don't you think the personality of the player is given consideration by every staff member involved in acquisition?

Hey, I don't have any answers, a lot of questions though.

--->

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 02:13 PM

I'm all for taking risks, but not on a 7 month injured 31 year old CB with no signs of improvement (I don't listen to the "I'm ahead on my rehab" one bit).

I won't say anything if we sign him, but I'd rather go after a younger CB. I don't think we'll sign him anyway, so that means he'll be a Chief in about 24 hours lol.

HipHopper4Life

02-26-2005, 02:32 PM

On ESPN radio they were saying that Jacksonville plans to take a hard run at Ty Law. If I'm not mistaken, they have alot of cap room to work with.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:32 PM

We've got a defense with a fragile psyche --don't you think the personality of the player is given consideration by every staff member involved in acquisition?

Hey, I don't have any answers, a lot of questions though.

--->

So we can't bring in good players because our shitty players might not like it?

Deberg_1990

02-26-2005, 02:39 PM

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:39 PM

(whoops...this is a reply to Stinger)

You let Hugh Douglas determine your approach to FA?

Bizarre. I could use the examle of signing McGlockton to rule out signing any FA under 30....but that would be pretty dumb, wouldn't it?

We'll just get ready to welcome McCleon 2 to the Chiefs, since Smoot and Law are going to eat up our cap (and we don't want that).

Rausch

02-26-2005, 02:45 PM

No risk, no reward. Haven't we learned this over the last decade of CP's miserable employment?

All veterans, all coming off injuries, all top performers:

Green
Roaf
Priest
..........Law?

Don't forget that even if he does lose a step he can step down to FS like Mark Collins or Rod Woodson and stil be damned good.

Hell, look at Terrel Owens. Anyone who thought he could come back and be a serious factor in the SB is a liar. What he did is simply amazing. D!ckhead or not.

And we don't have the liberty of saying Smoot/Law cost too much. BARTEE cost us too much.

He costs us wins.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:46 PM

God, ive about given up hope. If Carl doesnt make a serious run at talented top tier free agents this off-season, we have no hope. Ive defended CP for a long time now, but ive just about reached my breaking point with the man.

Well, don't worry..we've established some fool proof ground rules:

1. We can't sign anyone who has ever been injured (this rules out Kearse, for example-look how that blew up in Philly's face, or Roaf or Holmes or Green or etc...)

2. We can't sign anyone who will "eat up our cap" (this rules out every single good FA CB on the market)

3. We must consider the feelings of our shitty, untalented, defensive players before bringing in a Probowl player. (this is the "DV Rule")

Now, applying these rules it becomes apparent their is a perfect CB for the Chiefs to pursue in FA. One that meets all the criteria: he is cheap, untalented, healthy, and meek: Chad Scott.

Let's all gather to welcome the newest addition to the Chief's 32nd ranked defense!

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 02:47 PM

(whoops...this is a reply to Stinger)

You let Hugh Douglas determine your approach to FA?

Nope. I used Hugh Douglas as an example of how your "No risk No Reward" philosophy justifying blindly throwing money at an aging player who had some great seasons in the past as basicly the ramblings of someone full of crap. It isnt quite that simple. You dont have to take risks to have a successful offseason.

Bizarre. I could use the examle of signing McGlockton to rule out signing any FA under 30....but that would be pretty dumb, wouldn't it?

Yep.

We'll just get ready to welcome McCleon 2 to the Chiefs, since Smoot and Law are going to eat up our cap (and we don't want that).

I was under the impression that the Chiefs were going to buy one corner, draft another corner, and pursue linebacker help in free agency.

I very seriously doubt that the Chiefs will sign two of the top tier corners on the market.

But I like your optimistic attitude. McLeon 2. Thats very clever.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 02:49 PM

Don't forget that even if he does lose a step he can step down to FS like Mark Collins or Rod Woodson and stil be damned good.

Hell, look at Terrel Owens. Anyone who thought he could come back and be a serious factor in the SB is a liar. What he did is simply amazing. D!ckhead or not.

And we don't have the liberty of saying Smoot/Law cost too much. BARTEE cost us too much.

He costs us wins.

Law even mentioned playing safety at the end of his contract, in his first interview with Whitlock.

We had this same discussion about Owens last year. And I was one of the "he's an a-hole, I don't want him" guys....well, I've changed my mind: I want to win. Owens is a winner...Law is a winner.

Deberg_1990

02-26-2005, 02:50 PM

Well, don't worry..we've established some fool proof ground rules:

1. We can't sign anyone who has ever been injured (this rules out Kearse, for example-look how that blew up in Philly's face, or Roaf or Holmes or Green or etc...)

2. We can't sign anyone who will "eat up our cap" (this rules out every single good FA CB on the market)

3. We must consider the feelings of our shitty, untalented, defensive players before bringing in a Probowl player. (this is the "DV Rule")

Now, applying these rules it becomes apparent their is a perfect CB for the Chiefs to pursue in FA. One that meets all the criteria: he is cheap, untalented, healthy, and meek: Chad Scott.

Let's all gather to welcome the newest addition to the Chief's 32nd ranked defense!

God, im so scared you may be dead on with this. If we sign Chad Scott and Carl and DV try and pass him off as our shutdown corner, ill throw a damn brick threw my tv screen!!

Rausch

02-26-2005, 02:52 PM

God, im so scared you may be dead on with this. If we sign Chad Scott and Carl and DV try and pass him off as our shutdown corner, ill throw a damn brick threw my tv screen!!

Ditto.

He was $#it in Pitt...

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 02:54 PM

So we can't bring in good players because our shitty players might not like it?

:banghead:
I still believe, everything as is, we improve some on defense next season mostly because of Gun-Y2. I also believe El Rey will deliver some defensive talent via FA and draft. The point I was trying to make, especially with DV's cerebral approach to player selection, is that you consider the impact on the new player "fitting in" with who's already in place... my original question concerned the possible implications Law, Woodson, and Smoot would have, that's all.

It's clear you'd rather pick-up the whore with the best reputation on the street and not stop to ponder if she's actually the best _uck available...
( :hmmm: )

--->

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 02:56 PM

Law even mentioned playing safety at the end of his contract, in his first interview with Whitlock.

We had this same discussion about Owens last year. And I was one of the "he's an a-hole, I don't want him" guys....well, I've changed my mind: I want to win. Owens is a winner...Law is a winner.

Actually, Law is a 31 year old corner riding around on a cart right now after riding the pine all season, watching his team very easily march to the superbowl, and win it handily without him. If thats your definition of a winner, then I guess he is.

And by the way, you arent a Dan Snyder fan by any chance are you? You seem to question the team chemistry aspect of the game also. Dan Snyder has had probably the best looking teams on paper that Ive seen in quite some time, bringing in the "best players in the league" in free agency, and it hasnt done the Redskins a damn bit of good.

Funny how the guys have to actually learn to play alongside one another in reality though, and that just throws everything all out of whack.

Yeah, if Ty Law is a dick, and our players that we currently have dont like him, it will have an adverse effect on the performances. Noone likes to work with an A-hole. Its common knowledge.

This aint Playstation 2 football here. You have to take all factors into account before dropping that much money on a guy like him when you need so much help everywhere else.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 02:59 PM

Well, don't worry..we've established some fool proof ground rules:

1. We can't sign anyone who has ever been injured (this rules out Kearse, for example-look how that blew up in Philly's face, or Roaf or Holmes or Green or etc...)

2. We can't sign anyone who will "eat up our cap" (this rules out every single good FA CB on the market)

3. We must consider the feelings of our shitty, untalented, defensive players before bringing in a Probowl player. (this is the "DV Rule")

Now, applying these rules it becomes apparent their is a perfect CB for the Chiefs to pursue in FA. One that meets all the criteria: he is cheap, untalented, healthy, and meek: Chad Scott.

Let's all gather to welcome the newest addition to the Chief's 32nd ranked defense!

It's damn near impossible to believe you're as retarded about football as you are about politics, but here it is....

Not one single poster has implied they do not want CB help in free agency. Law is 31 years old, has a rare type of foot injury with an unknown prognosis. What the hell can you not understand about that? Why do you act like he is the only CB in free agency? How can you ignore his desire to be the highest paid CB in the NFL when we have myriads of problems on defense and fairly limited cap space? If you're going to break the bank on a CB why not a younger, healthier one?

Rausch

02-26-2005, 03:01 PM

Yeah, if Ty Law is a dick, and our players that we currently have dont like him, it will have an adverse effect on the performances. Noone likes to work with an A-hole. Its common knowledge.

Well, he wasn't too big a d!ick to win two superbowls before his injury. He didn't have any problems playing as part of a "team" then.

Andy Reid is the same type of coach. But Reid also knows that it isn't a Coach's job to find good players, it's his job to MAKE good players.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 03:05 PM

Well, don't worry..we've established some fool proof ground rules:

1. We can't sign anyone who has ever been injured (this rules out Kearse, for example-look how that blew up in Philly's face, or Roaf or Holmes or Green or etc...)

As I recall, at the time the Chiefs acquired those players, all of them were capable of passing a physical. Hell, forget the physical. They were able to get up to go take a piss without riding on a cart to get there.

If Ty Law is capable of passing a physical, go for it. But HE CANNOT F'ING WALK RIGHT NOW. And youre still ready to just throw every red cent we have at him, betting that he will fully recover from the "lis franc" injury and return to top form.

Some of us need a bit more reassurance than that, before we agree with the Chiefs sinking the majority of their cap on just one player.

2. We can't sign anyone who will "eat up our cap" (this rules out every single good FA CB on the market)

In case you havent noticed, One cornerback on this defense isnt going to do jack diddly shit. We need 2 corners, Middle linebacker, outside linebacker, and defensive end.

This defense cannot afford to have the majority of its assets put toward a single player, like it or not. Especially one who cannot even walk right now. Unless the NFL has appended the rules and allowed for Ty Law to use his cart on gameday, I have no interest in him until I see that he is back to top form. Waiting for that proof could be very costly to the chiefs, especially if it never comes. By that time, the rest of the FA's will be signed.

3. We must consider the feelings of our shitty, untalented, defensive players before bringing in a Probowl player. (this is the "DV Rule")

You have to consider the feelings of the players on the team, yes. Because if the guy doesnt fit in, it creates a hostile environment that benefits noone. Thats common sense, and applies to nearly every job on the planet where you work with other people.

Now, applying these rules it becomes apparent their is a perfect CB for the Chiefs to pursue in FA. One that meets all the criteria: he is cheap, untalented, healthy, and meek: Chad Scott.

Let's all gather to welcome the newest addition to the Chief's 32nd ranked defense!

Once again, your wit is insipiring.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 03:06 PM

Actually, Law is a 31 year old corner riding around on a cart right now after riding the pine all season, watching his team very easily march to the superbowl, and win it handily without him. If thats your definition of a winner, then I guess he is.

And by the way, you arent a Dan Snyder fan by any chance are you? You seem to question the team chemistry aspect of the game also. Dan Snyder has had probably the best looking teams on paper that Ive seen in quite some time, bringing in the "best players in the league" in free agency, and it hasnt done the Redskins a damn bit of good.

Funny how the guys have to actually learn to play alongside one another in reality though, and that just throws everything all out of whack.

Yeah, if Ty Law is a dick, and our players that we currently have dont like him, it will have an adverse effect on the performances. Noone likes to work with an A-hole. Its common knowledge.

This aint Playstation 2 football here. You have to take all factors into account before dropping that much money on a guy like him when you need so much help everywhere else.

so, basically, there is no limit ot amount of excuses you'll come up with to not sign a good player....boring...welcome to year 13 of no playoff victories...and by the way, how did the FA risks pay off for Philly last year...I heard Kearse was a bust becuase his injured foot never healed...or something

Rausch

02-26-2005, 03:08 PM

It's damn near impossible to believe you're as retarded about football as you are about politics, but here it is....

Not one single poster has implied they do not want CB help in free agency. Law is 31 years old, has a rare type of foot injury with an unknown prognosis. What the hell can you not understand about that? Why do you act like he is the only CB in free agency? How can you ignore his desire to be the highest paid CB in the NFL when we have myriads of problems on defense and fairly limited cap space? If you're going to break the bank on a CB why not a younger, healthier one?

The health issue is a concern, no doubt. I can't argue that point because it is still mostly and unknown.

But as far as the money issue goes, he could sign the fattest contract in the history of the NFL and still only have about a 2mil cap hit this year.

It would mean he won't be here for the long haul, but I don't give a $#it about the long haul. I want to win a superbowl, this year.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 03:09 PM

Deberg_1990

02-26-2005, 03:13 PM

Looks like Whitlock was right...KC fans have been brain washed by CP.

We'll pass on this years Kearse because it might be "risky" and it will "eat up our cap" and our shitty players "may not like him" and we'll sign Chad Scott and then scratch our heads again nect off season...been there...done that, no thanks.

Exactly why CP is now in year 16 of the famous "5 year Plan" because he has done this same crap over and over and over again. Im tired of it. I want to win a Super Bowl! I dont care about whats good long term for the franchise anymore. Hes said that crap over and over and it still hasnt gotten us anywhere.

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 03:13 PM

so, basically, there is no limit ot amount of excuses you'll come up with to not sign a good player....boring...welcome to year 13 of no playoff victories...and by the way, how did the FA risks pay off for Philly last year...I heard Kearse was a bust becuase his injured foot never healed...or something

By the same token, there seems to be an endless supply of shit that you will come up with to justify the Chiefs gambling on this guy making a full recovery, when there are other impact players that can help this defense out in free agency that are healthy right now.

I dont know where your hardon for Ty Law is coming from. You seem to be deaf to the fact that his injury is rare, and he his returning to top form is an unknown factor. But youre just automatically assuming that he will return to his top form, and want the Chiefs to bet the farm on him.

Jevon Kearse had an ankle problem. Very common. Not anything like what Ty Law has injured in his foot. But what the hell, Ive already told you that like 5 times already and you havent comprehended it, so heres to hoping that this time it sinks in.

But im not holding my breath.

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 03:18 PM

By the same token, there seems to be an endless supply of shit that you will come up with to justify the Chiefs gambling on this guy making a full recovery, when there are other impact players that can help this defense out in free agency that are healthy right now.

I dont know where your hardon for Ty Law is coming from. You seem to be deaf to the fact that his injury is rare, and he his returning to top form is an unknown factor. But youre just automatically assuming that he will return to his top form, and want the Chiefs to bet the farm on him.
.

uh, the only person on this thread who has suggested the Chiefs should pay Law without checking out his injury is you...as I've already stated, due diligence on his injury GOES WITHOUT SAYING...you need to come up with another excuse for not signing the best CB in the league...

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 03:26 PM

uh, the only person on this thread who has suggested the Chiefs should pay Law without checking out his injury is you...as I've already stated, due diligence on his injury GOES WITHOUT SAYING...you need to come up with another excuse for not signing the best CB in the league...

Yes.

And how long do you suggest the Chiefs wait on Law's injury to heal, before making any moves for other players?

Or perhaps you would rather them simply wait until it heals, when no other free agents are even available, and then make the offer?

Due dilligence on this injury cannot be done to the fullest extent. Ty Law is still going to be rehabbing when free agency is over. There is no way to sign him without being unsure of his status.

The injury isnt going to heal overnight.

So either the Chiefs pass on Law and go for some corners who are out there and healthy and can help this defense, or they gamble on Law and sign him with the hope he will recover and return to top form.

There isnt time to wait until Law is fully recovered.

If Law is signed, it will be a gamble. Noone can predict the future and see whether or not he can play at the level he played at before the injury.

And in my opinion, and the opinion of several others around here, that gamble is too big.

And once again, Ty Law is not the best corner in the league. To be the best corner in the league you have to at least finish the season. Riding the pine and watching your team win the superbowl doesnt make you the best corner in the league.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 03:27 PM

I dont know where your hardon for Ty Law is coming from. You seem to be deaf to the fact that his injury is rare, and he his returning to top form is an unknown factor. But youre just automatically assuming that he will return to his top form, and want the Chiefs to bet the farm on him.

What do you know about his injury?

Don't quote an article, what do YOU know about it?

Jevon Kearse had an ankle problem. Very common. Not anything like what Ty Law has injured in his foot. But what the hell, Ive already told you that like 5 times already and you havent comprehended it, so heres to hoping that this time it sinks in.

But im not holding my breath.

Is breaking your leg in two places and then comming back to be an impact in the superbowl common?

Is it common for an offensive lineman to have legs so $3it he can't even walk play good enough to make a probowl?

Was Priest Holmes hip injury common? Is it common for a player to have that type of injury and then come back and break NFL records?

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 03:38 PM

What do you know about his injury?

Don't quote an article, what do YOU know about it?

Without quoting an article, Ive seen that its an injury that can be very tough to recover from, and can have an effect on your overall physical capabilities after sustaining it. In other words, there is a chance that Ty Law will not return to his previous form after the injury.

Is breaking your leg in two places and then comming back to be an impact in the superbowl common?

When youve stayed out long enough for the break to heal enough to play, yep. Pretty common for players to get out there and play when their injury has healed enough for them to do so.

Not to mention that the injury here had nothing to do with Owens being signed or not. Try to keep up.

Is it common for an offensive lineman to have legs so $3it he can't even walk play good enough to make a probowl?

Lost me there.

Was Priest Holmes hip injury common? Is it common for a player to have that type of injury and then come back and break NFL records?

Nope, but once again you miss the point. At the time of Holmes injury, he was already under contract. There was no issue of whether or not to sign him, he was already here.

His contract extension was NOT redone until after he had played in the pre-season, and showed that he had in fact made a full recovery. There was no risk in giving Holmes the contract he wanted, as he proved out on the field that he was back to being the Priest Holmes capable of ripping 7 shades of shit out of the opposing defense.

How you want to relate these injuries to this particular situation on whether or not the Chiefs should gamble on Ty Law making a similar recovery, I dont quite understand. All the injuries you mention happened with the players already under contract, so there was no question on whether or not to add them to the team, they were already there.

Im saying that signing Ty Law BEFORE seeing if he is going to be able to play at his former level is not a wise idea. He is going to want a contract based on his past performances, before he was hurt, when it is not even certain he can play at that level again.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 03:43 PM

Stinger, I would give up if I were you.

For whatever reason, these "Sign Ty Law" groupies are impervious to logic.

Straight, No Chaser

02-26-2005, 03:43 PM

It's official. Talking has opened a Can of Worms (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110855).

No reason to melt down on people. IYO he's the best corner in the NFL --fine. Don't get your Can too excited by his posturing though; you may have to live without
:deevee:

--->

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 03:47 PM

Stinger, I would give up if I were you.

For whatever reason, these "Sign Ty Law" groupies are impervious to logic.

Apparently. But I will try this. This is what Ty Law suffered. Ive highlighted the most important parts of the article if you dont wish to read the entire thing.

By Brian Carpenter, D.P.M.

Editor, PodiatryNetwork.com

Description of Condition
Additional Information
Print This Article
Ask the Doctor
Foot Care Products

Description

The Lis Franc’s joint is a combination of joints in the middle of the foot. At the point where the long bones behind the toes, called metatarsals, connect with a grouping of small cube shaped bones, called cuniform bones, there are several joints the move together in an interlocking fashion. This grouping of interlocking joints is referred to as the Lis Franc’s joint. The Lis Franc’s joint are bound together by a series of transverse ligaments on the top and bottom of the joint, as well as an intermetatarsal ligament. This grouping of joints is clinically called the tarsometatarsal joints. Fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joint are named for Lis Franc who was a field surgeon in the Napoleonic army. Fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal joint (Lis Franc’s) is extremely significant in that it is a commonly missed diagnoses with a great potential for long term disability.

Lis Franc’s fracture-dislocations can occur in many different ways. It can be caused by both a direct crushing type injury or a force applied to the metatarsal heads (ball of the foot) which both can result in displacement of the Lis Franc’s joint or fractures that in involve the joint. Common causes are motor vehicle accidents, falls from heights, severe foot and ankle sprains, crushing force to the top of the foot. These injuries can occur during strenuous and competitive athletic activities. The athlete who complains of sudden onset of pain, in the middle of the foot during the course of an athletic event should be carefully evaluated for a possible Lis Franc’s injury.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is extremely important following the injury. Early diagnosis and treatment can prevent long-term chronic pain and other sequalae. Diagnosis is made by both clinical and X-ray modalities. On physical examination there is marked tenderness across the tarsometatarsal joint usually with pinpoint tenderness at the articulation of the second metatarsal base and the medial and intermediate cuneiforms. Global forefoot and midfoot swelling is commonly seen from several minutes to several hours following injury. In severe dislocations it is very easy to visualize a change in shape of the foot as compared to the other foot. X-rays may reveal either a partial or total dislocation at the tarsometatarsal joint. The difficult cases to diagnosis are those when the joint dislocates and then relocates on it’s own. When this occurs there may be little evidence of the injury on an x-ray. If there are no X-ray changes and clinical diagnosis makes the doctor suspicious of injury they may order stress X-ray, bone scan, CT scan or MRI. In all acute injuries circulation must be monitored to assess the possibility of compartment syndrome (increase in pressures within the foot which can shut off circulation). This could result in loss of oxygen to the tissues, which might result in loss of the foot.

Treatment

Closed reduction should always be attempted in an acute fracture-dislocation. Treatment involves general anesthesia to relax the patient and an attempted reduction of the second metatarsal base into its anatomic position is attempted. If the second metatarsal can be reduced then metatarsals two through five may reduce without much manipulation. If closed reduction is successful then reduction of the first metatarsal cuneiform joint is performed and pins are inserted to allow for stability during healing. If closed reduction fails it is usually due to one of the foot tendons, which may be caught in the dislocated joint. If closed reduction fails in an acute injury or the injury is old then open reduction must be performed to reduce long-term problems. If vascular compromise is evident this also constitutes a need for immediate surgery. There are usually two to three incisions placed on the top of the foot to allow for adequate visualization and manipulation of the bones. Once the foot has been placed back into anatomic position the tarsometatarsal joint is stabilized with either pins or screws to allow for stability during the healing process. If pins are used they are usually removed in six to eight weeks. Whether pins or screws are used doesn’t really matter as the patient is non-weight bearing for six weeks and is usually casted for at least eight to twelve weeks. Following bony healing and return to ambulation the patient will need a good functional foot orthotic to provide support and relieve stress from the tarsometatarsal joints and assist in pain free ambulation. Long-term prognosis for this injury is guarded. When any injury involves a joint the likelihood of an on-going arthritic process is likely. In sever cases fusion of the joints may be necessary. In the athlete this injury can be devastating. Rehabilitation to return to the same level of performance can takes several months or longer.

Once again, I reiterate, Signing Ty Law before he shows that he can come back from this injury is too big of a gamble to take. Very clearly it states that this injury's long term prognosis is guarded, and in athletes, this is a devastating injury that can take months to return to the same level of performance.

Get someone in here who can already play. Or at least walk for pete's sake.

Deberg_1990

02-26-2005, 03:53 PM

[url]

The window of opportunity for KC's offense is right now. The Chiefs' miserable defense has undermined KC's brilliant offense for three straight years. Kansas City doesn't have time for a defensive rebuilding process.

Is Carl Peterson capable of being aggressive and fair? I have my doubts.

Peterson wants to be cheap. The fan base here should not tolerate it. The Chiefs want $270 million in stadium renovations. The Chiefs are never cheap when it comes to what they want from their fan base.

Should you be any less demanding than Lamar Hunt, Carl Peterson and Jack Steadman?

These are the 3 most important pieces of imformation to take from the article. The verdict is still out...

philfree

02-26-2005, 04:13 PM

Obviously the injury to Law is a concern but that's why we pay the doctors the big bucks. If our (the Chiefs) doctors examine the foot and the healing process looks good to them then that's a step in the right direction. We can also sign Law to an incentive laden contract that is heavily weighted on his ability to be and stay healthy over the 1st year of his contract. Perhaps the two tierd bonus approach. To blindly sign Ty Law with the injury would foolish but to discount him until we take a really good look would also be foolish IMO.

PhilFree :arrow:

Chiefs Pantalones

02-26-2005, 04:17 PM

If we were real interested in Law, we would've heard something by now. Look how quickly Muhammad got signed when he was released. Law is a top CB, so why the wait? Because of his injury, obviously. IMO, the Chiefs aren't in a hurry to look at him because he isn't their main target as far as CBs are concerned.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:17 PM

Without quoting an article, Ive seen that its an injury that can be very tough to recover from, and can have an effect on your overall physical capabilities after sustaining it. In other words, there is a chance that Ty Law will not return to his previous form after the injury.

In other words you know nothing about the injury. You have no idea what it means. You have no idea exactly how long it takes to fully heal or what it may mean to his speed or athletic ability.

Good, it means you're being honest. Most doctors have said the same thing. It's a big question, and an uncommon injury.

Uncommon doens't mean bad, it means rare. Priest Holmes hip injury was rare, and he came back in the best shape of his life.

When youve stayed out long enough for the break to heal enough to play, yep. Pretty common for players to get out there and play when their injury has healed enough for them to do so.

Not to mention that the injury here had nothing to do with Owens being signed or not. Try to keep up.

No doctor believed he had stayed out long enough for it to heal. No team doctor, not his personal doctor. All were in agreement that he was comming back WAY too soon. He had to sign a realse to even play, a risk that might mean he'd get paid NOTHING from that point forward if he reinjured it.

Try and keep up.

Lost me there.

Really?

Willie Roaf has been here for years. Those who were paying attention read article after article, and one interview after another with DV stating that Roaf was in so much pain the guy limped on and off the field. He looked like he could barely walk.

So years after an injury and surgery to heal it, an injury that has ended many careers, he came back and dominated. Made 2 probowls.

Try and keep up.

Nope, but once again you miss the point. At the time of Holmes injury, he was already under contract. There was no issue of whether or not to sign him, he was already here.

No, you miss the point. This isn't about contracts, it's about health. You question Law's ability to overcome a rare injury, THAT'S the point. You are stating we shouldn't sign Law due to risk (risk of his injury.)

What I'm telling you is there is risk in all free agents, and even in most draft picks. You can't even get a majority agreement on players safe enough to draft in the first two round.

My point is that without taking risks you'll NEVER get a great player...

Wallcrawler

02-26-2005, 04:24 PM

My point is that without taking risks you'll NEVER get a great player...

I see.

So we should be looking for the highest risk players to bring in. Because if theres no risk, he will never be great?

I dont buy that.

Furthermore, the Chiefs have reached more than probably any other team on drafted players, taking risks, and as far as Ive seen, none of them are great players.

Ty Law has one of the worst injuries that an athlete can sustain and hope to return to top form. Thats just a bit too high of a risk in my book, considering the money he wants, and the issues we have on defense.

unlurking

02-26-2005, 04:27 PM

No, you miss the point. This isn't about contracts, it's about health. You question Law's ability to overcome a rare injury, THAT'S the point. You are stating we shouldn't sign Law due to risk (risk of his injury.)

What I'm telling you is there is risk in all free agents, and even in most draft picks. You can't even get a majority agreement on players safe enough to draft in the first two round.

My point is that without taking risks you'll NEVER get a great player...

Trying to stay out of the "keep up" parts, I agree with the comments quoted above. As stated before, I like Ty Law and would love to see him play here. If the team doctor's OK him and he's willing to sign a cap-friendly deal (for this year), I'm all for it.

I do believe that the FO needs to examine the "level of risk" attached with any one player. Anything we do in FA or the draft will be a risk, but that level of risk needs to be evaluated and one of the points in the equation for a FA is going to be the level of risk in regards to health. There seem to be MANY CBs in FA this year of high quality, so I think the Chiefs can afford to be a little "choosy".

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 04:34 PM

Come on Rausch, you're better than this.

You seem to say if any player has ever overcome any injury, than any player will always overcome any injury. Unsound logic.

Again, WTF is it with Ty Law? There are other CB's in free agency, you know. What is the preoccupation with the only one that can't walk?

And please stop with the Willie Roaf thing. It wasn't that long ago I read an article about him that quoted a friend of his from childhood who said he walked around like that when he was 9 years old.

And all the Willie Roafs and all the Terrell Owens' in the world don't mean a ****ing thing anyway. It is about Ty Law and his particular injury, no one else's. How about listing some of the many, many players who lost their effectiveness, or even their career, due to injury?

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:37 PM

I see.

So we should be looking for the highest risk players to bring in. Because if theres no risk, he will never be great?

I dont buy that.

Furthermore, the Chiefs have reached more than probably any other team on drafted players, taking risks, and as far as Ive seen, none of them are great players.

The Chiefs took a risk with Priest Holmes. Two actually. First when he was a nobody. We took a risk going with a guy considered to be too small to be a full time back instead of going with a more established guy.

Our 2nd when we gave the guy a raise comming off his hip injury. And he came back in amazing shape.

Another risk was trading up to take Gonzo. Was he worth giving up those picks for?

Another was a risk with Roaf. Yes, he's a sure HOF'er, but he was comming off a very serious injury and he was already long in the tooth.

We took a risk on Trent Green, who really hadn't proved a damned thing. We based that trade not on what Green had done but DV's opinion on what he could be.

We took a risk on Kennison, who's our only deep threat now and developed into a decent no 2 guy. When we signed him he was nobody. He was a 3rd reciever who quit on his last team in the middle of the season right before a game.

All draft picks are risks. They've proven nothing in the NFL and are only potential. The list of QB's or WR's who were supposed to be locks but turned out busts are a mile long...

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 04:41 PM

The Chiefs took a risk with Priest Holmes. Two actually. First when he was a nobody. We took a risk going with a guy considered to be too small to be a full time back instead of going with a more established guy.

Our 2nd when we gave the guy a raise comming off his hip injury. And he came back in amazing shape.

Another risk was trading up to take Gonzo. Was he worth giving up those picks for?

Another was a risk with Roaf. Yes, he's a sure HOF'er, but he was comming off a very serious injury and he was already long in the tooth.

We took a risk on Trent Green, who really hadn't proved a damned thing. We based that trade not on what Green had done but DV's opinion on what he could be.

We took a risk on Kennison, who's our only deep threat now and developed into a decent no 2 guy. When we signed him he was nobody. He was a 3rd reciever who quit on his last team in the middle of the season right before a game.

All draft picks are risks. They've proven nothing in the NFL and are only potential. The list of QB's or WR's who were supposed to be locks but turned out busts are a mile long...

The way you think, you definitely need to steer clear of Vegas forever....

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 04:46 PM

The Chiefs took a risk with Priest Holmes. Two actually. First when he was a nobody. We took a risk going with a guy considered to be too small to be a full time back instead of going with a more established guy.

Our 2nd when we gave the guy a raise comming off his hip injury. And he came back in amazing shape.

Another risk was trading up to take Gonzo. Was he worth giving up those picks for?

Another was a risk with Roaf. Yes, he's a sure HOF'er, but he was comming off a very serious injury and he was already long in the tooth.

We took a risk on Trent Green, who really hadn't proved a damned thing. We based that trade not on what Green had done but DV's opinion on what he could be.

We took a risk on Kennison, who's our only deep threat now and developed into a decent no 2 guy. When we signed him he was nobody. He was a 3rd reciever who quit on his last team in the middle of the season right before a game.

All draft picks are risks. They've proven nothing in the NFL and are only potential. The list of QB's or WR's who were supposed to be locks but turned out busts are a mile long...

We took a risk on Trezelle Jenkins...How did that one pan out?
We took a risk on Carlton Gray...How did he do?
How about Mike Webster? We took a chance on him late in his career. How is he doing?
How about Percy Snow...yada, yada, yada....

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:48 PM

Come on Rausch, you're better than this.

You seem to say if any player has ever overcome any injury, than any player will always overcome any injury. Unsound logic.

No. I'm saying that all free agents are risks.

People are pretty much saying that Smoot is a no risk, high yeild player. Not true.

The risk of a Law is much higher than a Smoot, but in turn, they payoff is also much bigger. Law (pre-injury) is in a different league than Smoot.

Again, WTF is it with Ty Law? There are other CB's in free agency, you know. What is the preoccupation with the only one that can't walk?

Agreed. If we could land a guy like Sertain(sp?) for a 3rd or lower I'd be all over it. He's the 2nd best CB we have a legit shot of landing this offseason, and a lot less of a risk than Law.

But we're giving up more (big contract AND draft pick/s) to get a guy almost as good as Law. Again, a risk.

And please stop with the Willie Roaf thing. It wasn't that long ago I read an article about him that quoted a friend of his from childhood who said he walked around like that when he was 9 years old.

And all the Willie Roafs and all the Terrell Owens' in the world don't mean a ****ing thing anyway. It is about Ty Law and his particular injury, no one else's. How about listing some of the many, many players who lost their effectiveness, or even their career, due to injury?

And here's my point: all the guys listed above were willing to do whatever was necessary to be great. They put in 110% in rehab and in the gym. Their dedication was amazing. I think that's why they were able to come back.

And the main point I was trying to get across was how we should evaluate risk. People assume that there is no risk with a Smoot or another CB. There is.

My opinion is that a few good players won't be enough to help. We need a few GREAT players. Our whole defense is filled with players who are either good, decent, or outright $#it.

Not a single stud among them.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:51 PM

We took a risk on Trezelle Jenkins...How did that one pan out?
We took a risk on Carlton Gray...How did he do?
How about Mike Webster? We took a chance on him late in his career. How is he doing?
How about Percy Snow...yada, yada, yada....

And there's the point in a nutshell. You have to gamble to win big, but gambling means you will have loses.

We have to gain big (in talent and in numbers) on defense this year to have a legitimate shot at a superbowl. That also means we have to be willing to gamble...

unlurking

02-26-2005, 04:53 PM

The Chiefs took a risk with Priest Holmes. Two actually. First when he was a nobody. We took a risk going with a guy considered to be too small to be a full time back instead of going with a more established guy.

Our 2nd when we gave the guy a raise comming off his hip injury. And he came back in amazing shape.

Another risk was trading up to take Gonzo. Was he worth giving up those picks for?

Another was a risk with Roaf. Yes, he's a sure HOF'er, but he was comming off a very serious injury and he was already long in the tooth.

We took a risk on Trent Green, who really hadn't proved a damned thing. We based that trade not on what Green had done but DV's opinion on what he could be.

We took a risk on Kennison, who's our only deep threat now and developed into a decent no 2 guy. When we signed him he was nobody. He was a 3rd reciever who quit on his last team in the middle of the season right before a game.

All draft picks are risks. They've proven nothing in the NFL and are only potential. The list of QB's or WR's who were supposed to be locks but turned out busts are a mile long...
The Chiefs also drafted LJ for insurance in regards to Priest. RIght now, I don't think we have room for insurance (whether we did with LJ is a different topic).

We need to concentrate on the best talent with the least amount of risk (note not asking to eliminate risk).

the Talking Can

02-26-2005, 04:53 PM

We have to gain big (in talent and in numbers) on defense this year to have a legitimate shot at a superbowl. That also means we have to be willing to gamble...

no we don't...we simple execute another 15 year plan, that way there's no risk (that you might actually be successful...)

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:54 PM

The way you think, you definitely need to steer clear of Vegas forever....

I think it's pretty clear the difference between how I'd try and win a house advantage game and how I'd improve the Chiefs defense.

The biggest would be that with the Chiefs it's LAMAR'S money I'm gambling with, not mine... :thumb:

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 04:54 PM

You ignore the factor of age.

This in my opinion, coupled with Law's injury, makes almost any other young, good CB out there a better "risk".

By a HUGE margin.

Maximum risk is not inexorably linked with maximum payoff.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 04:55 PM

We need to concentrate on the best talent with the least amount of risk (note not asking to eliminate risk).

In that we are in complete agreement.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 04:59 PM

I think it's pretty clear the difference between how I'd try and win a house advantage game and how I'd improve the Chiefs defense.

The biggest would be that with the Chiefs it's LAMAR'S money I'm gambling with, not mine... :thumb:

True....
:)

Hey, I guess we may have to just agree to disagree on this one.

unlurking

02-26-2005, 05:00 PM

And the main point I was trying to get across was how we should evaluate risk. People assume that there is no risk with a Smoot or another CB. There is.

My opinion is that a few good players won't be enough to help. We need a few GREAT players. Our whole defense is filled with players who are either good, decent, or outright $#it.

Not a single stud among them.

I agree with the evaluating risk thing completely, and think that several of us are just evaluating it differently. To be honest, I would be ELATED if we got Law, Smoot, Rolle, Surtain, etc. There are so many really good CBs out there that the BIGGER issue will be if/when we don't get any of them.

As far as the good vs. great players, I think I kind of disagree. In some instances, yes I think having a couple of legitimate studs is great for the team; however with how bad this D is, I really think we need an overhaul at several positions that we couldn't afford by signing 2 great players.

Rausch

02-26-2005, 05:01 PM

True....
:)

Hey, I guess we may have to just agree to disagree on this one.

There's no shame in that.

Hell, the way each franchise evaluates risk and reward is completely different. Just look at who signs who for an example.

cheeeefs

02-26-2005, 05:25 PM

I don't think we should break the bank on any CB. look at chump baily, how big of an impact did he have for Denver? and no one argued that he was the best out there, young and no injury. with the way the game is played today a CB is going to have a hard time being that impact player that turns a D From the pile of crap that we have into a respectable D. I'd like to pick up a good CB for sure. but I'd be more happy if we picked up a field general type MLB. I don't know if any of them are out there for us because I haven't done any research... but thats just my two cents.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 05:32 PM

I will say I feel an investment in the front 7 yields much larger returns than in the defensive backfield.

CanadaKC

02-26-2005, 06:28 PM

This kid is going to be an excellent CB in the NFL. He will help a team right away because of his quickness, speed and strength. He has the maturity to continue to learn his techniques and will become a core player for his team. When I look at Eric, he reminds me of Ty Law. Same body type, strength, quickness and brains. Eric has first round talent, but because everyone is so wild about the juniors who have come out, players like Eric are in stealth mode. You go ahead and pick your special junior CB in the top ten or top fifteen -- I will pick Eric in the 2nd and I bet he beats them all to the Super Bowl and the Pro Bowl.

From The Huddlereport...

Rausch

02-26-2005, 06:51 PM

From The Huddlereport...

Hmmm...

I'd like to get a MLB/OLB in the 1st anyway. Might be a nice round 2 selection... :hmmm:

htismaqe

02-26-2005, 07:40 PM

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 07:51 PM

Did anyone else hear the Ty Law interview Jason did at the Super Bowl?

Does anybody else read this and just think "bullshit"?

Ty Law DID NOT SAY he'd "love" to play in KC. He said he REALLY wants to stay in New England...

You mean that fat sack of animal renderings was just making up an inflammatory story?...

I simply don't believe you...

HolmeZz

02-26-2005, 08:18 PM

If we were real interested in Law, we would've heard something by now. Look how quickly Muhammad got signed when he was released.

That's because the Bears handed him a ridiculous 6 year contract that no one would've come close to matching. Plus Muhammad's coming off his best season while Law's coming off an injury. Two vastly different situations.

booger

02-26-2005, 08:19 PM

Did anyone else hear the Ty Law interview Jason did at the Super Bowl?

Does anybody else read this and just think "bullshit"?

Ty Law DID NOT SAY he'd "love" to play in KC. He said he REALLY wants to stay in New England...
No.

Heard about it but didn't hear the interview. I remember hearing him say the part about wanting to stay in NE. Who in their right mind wouldn't? I agree with you there.

I did hear the replay of yesterdays interview with Whitlock though. Law seemed ready to move forward. Seemed like resigning with NE at a new contract was not an option but he didn't seem bitter at all Twards NE or Bellichick.

I think the good part of the interview was showing Law the amount of interest and respect the fans have for him. Hearing them chear got me excited, I must admit. Heck, JW even had free ribs and BBQ and a radio deal waiting if he comes to KC.

JW'S article has hints of BS though. Nobody can nor should go out and throw big money his way until his foot shows signs of improvement. Most of the sports world has seen this kind of thing with Grant Hill and Orlando. He is just now healthy enough to play what 4 years later and all. Not the same injury but teams can't just go signing injured players either.

The best way to approach Law now IMO is to at least get some dialogue going and possible bring him in for a visit. Get some of the early recruiting stuff out of the way and approach the visit on terms of his eventual ability to be healthy. Kind of a get to know each other type of meeting. Once he is healthy enough they can start talking serious depending on if they have filled that spot yet.

mikey23545

02-26-2005, 08:25 PM

No.

Heard about it but didn't hear the interview. I remember hearing him say the part about wanting to stay in NE. Who in their right mind wouldn't? I agree with you there.

I did hear the replay of yesterdays interview with Whitlock though. Law seemed ready to move forward. Seemed like resigning with NE at a new contract was not an option but he didn't seem bitter at all Twards NE or Bellichick.

I think the good part of the interview was showing Law the amount of interest and respect the fans have for him. Hearing them chear got me excited, I must admit. Heck, JW even had free ribs and BBQ and a radio deal waiting if he comes to KC.

JW'S article has hints of BS though. Nobody can nor should go out and throw big money his way until his foot shows signs of improvement. Most of the sports world has seen this kind of thing with Grant Hill and Orlando. He is just now healthy enough to play what 4 years later and all. Not the same injury but teams can't just go signing injured players either.

The best way to approach Law now IMO is to at least get some dialogue going and possible bring him in for a visit. Get some of the early recruiting stuff out of the way and approach the visit on terms of his eventual ability to be healthy. Kind of a get to know each other type of meeting. Once he is healthy enough they can start talking serious depending on if they have filled that spot yet.

You're insane!

Every player gets over every injury every time.

Now shut up.

booger

02-26-2005, 08:29 PM

You're insane!

Every player gets over every injury every time.

Now shut up.
If only they had a pill for that.

ChiefsFanatik88

02-26-2005, 08:31 PM

If Carl is sincere about getting some impact free agents, then he will be signing some of them right now.
Law is available
Mason is available
Rolle is available
Jeff Zgonina is available
Gerald Warren is available
Jeremiah Trotter might be available
If Carl doesn't get off his ass, We are gonna have the same type of season as last year.

FloridaChief

02-26-2005, 08:33 PM

If Carl is sincere about getting some impact free agents, then he will be signing some of them right now.

Or on March 2, when the FA signing period begins...

Dr. Johnny Fever

02-26-2005, 08:46 PM

I will say I feel an investment in the front 7 yields much larger returns than in the defensive backfield.
Except when your achilles heel and most glaring area of need is the defensive backfield. That's where we lost most of our games last year.

Dr. Johnny Fever

02-26-2005, 08:48 PM

That's because the Bears handed him a ridiculous 6 year contract that no one would've come close to matching.
Such a surprise considering the Bears history of overpaying for players who aren't great.................. Tait.......

Rausch

02-26-2005, 09:22 PM

Or on March 2, when the FA signing period begins...

Semantics...

Rausch

02-26-2005, 09:23 PM

You're insane!

Every player gets over every injury every time.

Now shut up.

I should have tried that earlier...

FloridaChief

02-26-2005, 09:28 PM

Semantics...

Yeah, and violation of the CBA leading to fines and loss of draft picks...

Rausch

02-26-2005, 09:30 PM

Yeah, and violation of the CBA leading to fines and loss of draft picks...

Much like Mike earlier, that was sarcasm...

FloridaChief

02-26-2005, 09:40 PM

Much like Mike earlier, that was sarcasm...

Who's Mike?...and so was mine.

milkman

02-26-2005, 10:18 PM

1) The balance hasn't shifted towards the AFC, it has completely tilted. The Steelers, Colts, and Chargers (they need to improve their line) are all legit SB contenders. The Pats have just won their 3rd in 4 years. The Jets, Chiefs, Donks, and Bills are 2 or 3 players away from contenders.

The Chargers also need a playoff competent HC.
With Marty they are legitimate SB pretenders.

milkman

02-26-2005, 10:27 PM

Except when your achilles heel and most glaring area of need is the defensive backfield. That's where we lost most of our games last year.

The achilles heal of our defense extends all the way up to the freakin' knees.

In other words, while our secondary is pathetic, our LB corps is equally as pathetic, if not worse.

Unfortunately, the strongest part of our D, the D-Line, isn't actually a whole hell of a lot better than the rest of the shit we have.

Sign an impact type MLB, a second tier CB or 2, draft an impact type DE, and a solid OLB.

That plan will pay off far more than dumping a buttload of money into a top CB and a LB.

Get a front 7 that can hit, and get after the QB, you can win with 2nd tier corners.

Th Pats won the SB with that formula.

FRCDFED

02-26-2005, 11:23 PM

I didn't read all of the postings (about 5 pages) but I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that the Patriots (although they won the SB) is also in dire need of a CB. After all, they had Troy Brown playing the position. You also need to keep in mind BB's ability to evaluate talent. He has managed to put together a team that plays well together due to the great chemistry they have developed.

With that being said, why would a team that has a need for a talented corner and has the opportunity to resign one (arguably one of, if not the best CB in the NFL for the past 4-5 years) and chose not to?

It just doesn't make sense unless Law is severly damaged goods. I am a huge fan of Law but I would be questioning NE's lack of interest in retaining one of the best CB's in the league when they need one just as bad.

My vote would be to pursue Smoot and also try to sign Bell. Despite Bell being injured he is still young and both players would be around for the next 5-6 years to play out the contracts. Those two players combined would make a bigger impact on our defense than spending all of our cap money on Law.

philfree

02-26-2005, 11:58 PM

The Chargers also need a playoff competent HC.
With Marty they are legitimate SB pretenders.

Yeah Marty drafted the kicker that seemed to be very high on Chiefs fans list for last years draft and he missed the game winner.. well two game winners :) Fuggin Marty sucks :rolleyes: I'm suprised that this fact hasn't come up around here but......that would be to confusing for the geniouses........

PhilFree :arrow:

tk13

02-27-2005, 12:02 AM

Wallcrawler

02-27-2005, 11:58 AM

The Chiefs took a risk with Priest Holmes. Two actually. First when he was a nobody. We took a risk going with a guy considered to be too small to be a full time back instead of going with a more established guy.

Heh. Like who, exactly. I dont really remember too many backs in free agency that year, and we had already given the rams picks for Trent Green and Dick Vermiel, so drafting one was out of the question.

Our 2nd when we gave the guy a raise comming off his hip injury. And he came back in amazing shape.

*Buzz!!*

Sorry, try again.

Priest Holmes' contract was NOT restructured to his liking until nearly the end of the pre-season, after Holmes had demonstrated on the field that he could perform at the level we needed him to.

Another risk was trading up to take Gonzo. Was he worth giving up those picks for?

Apparently. But for every home run "risk" the Chiefs have taken, there are about 4 or 5 that Chiefs fans would just love to wipe from their memories.

Another was a risk with Roaf. Yes, he's a sure HOF'er, but he was comming off a very serious injury and he was already long in the tooth.

Ha!! You think trading away "Smack mah bitch up" Victor Riley and a 3rd rounder for Willie Roaf was a risk?

Alrighty then.

You know, there is always the "risk" you could get hit by lightning next time you step out your front door. Might want to consider that one before you leave the house next.....

We took a risk on Trent Green, who really hadn't proved a damned thing. We based that trade not on what Green had done but DV's opinion on what he could be.

I dont buy it. Why not take the word of Dick Vermiel? He SAW Trent Green perform in that offense, and knew that he had the capability to run that offense.

How you think that actually coaching a guy who was going to be the starter in that offense before getting injured, and then requesting that the team go for him to be your starter in the offense that he already knows is a risk is beyond my comprehension.

Dick knows offense. If he says that a guy that he coached previously can perform in his offense, then Im inclined to take his word for it and not consider it a risk.

We took a risk on Kennison, who's our only deep threat now and developed into a decent no 2 guy. When we signed him he was nobody. He was a 3rd reciever who quit on his last team in the middle of the season right before a game.

But another guy who Vermiel had coached with the Rams., played in that offense, and could contribute. And eh, Its common knowledge that Mike Shanahan treated Kennison like shit. Kennison's wife has some sort of disability, and when she was very sick, Kennison went to be with his wife, and Shanahan basicly said that the team should be his priority, not his family. So Kennison set Shanahan straight on where his priorities lie, retired, and supported his wife.

All Kennison wanted was a little time to get his wife through her rough time and get her back to health, and that was too much to ask from Shanarat. It might have only been a couple weeks, it might have been a month, but he would have returned to the team. But Shanahan did not think that Kennison's wife was something that he needed to be worrying about, and that the Broncos were supposed to be his number one focus.

F Mike Shanahan dude, I would have done the same thing.

Gaz

02-27-2005, 12:05 PM

...Sign an impact type MLB, a second tier CB or 2, draft an impact type DE, and a solid OLB...

Personally, I doubt that a draft DE would oust Hicks from his position, so I might substitute another CB for the DE. However, that is a minor quibble.

milkman has the correct plan to improve our Defense. First-tier LBs, second-tier CBs.

xoxo~
Gaz
Riding shotgun on this bandwagon.

WilliamTheIrish

02-27-2005, 12:49 PM

Wallcrawler

02-27-2005, 01:32 PM

Let's just say that Law's injury is a complicated mofo. His injury is at the focal point that supports the entire foot. Even after surgery Compartment Syndrome can set in and cut off blood supply and cause necrosis. (bad, very bad.)

I'm going back a ways, but for those of you that remember Bill Walton as a basketball player, this was his injury. After college he played a lotta years. But he spent a large portion of the time on the injured list, nad missed several seasons.

As Can suggested (that most folks seemed to ignore) due diligence by the Chiefs medical guys is a must before throwing a plugged nickel at Law.

heh. Can also suggests that just because there may be someone else on the planet that made a full recovery from this injury, Ty Law will do the same. He seems to think that questioning the injury that Law has, and his ability to recover from it is simply Law's detractors making "excuses" not to sign (in his own opinion) the best CB in the league. In his mind, it is already settled that Ty Law will make a full recovery and that anyone who thinks the Chiefs should not sign him now, needs their head examined.

Due dilligence by the Chiefs training staff regarding the injury would be to wait until Law is up and running full speed, and passes a physical. Doing that will cost the Chiefs any shot at signing anyone else, as by the time Ty Law is able to even walk to the bathroom to take a piss, the other FA's will be signed to other teams.

Hence, due dilligence by the Chiefs in regard to his injury is impossible. The injury he has can be a career ender, or career changer, or have no negative effect at all. Its a huge gamble to offer him money when his future is so uncertain, when there are plenty of other capable cornerbacks out there on the market who arent injured and can help this team.

In a recent article, Carl Peterson spoke with Law's agent and found that Law is not walking, doesnt have a walking boot on, and that they werent ready for Law to come in and have a physical. I get from that article that Carl was less than impressed by that news, and I was very happy to hear that he was talking to Rolle and Dyson from Tennesee, as well as reading in another article that he is in the thick of negotiations for a trade involving Patrick Surtain.

I think the Chiefs front office is just as unsure about signing a guy like Law with that injury as many of us here are also. Its good to see them pursuing other guys, and not just gambling on the fact that Ty Law has a chance to return to top form. He has an equal chance to not return to top form. With the signing bonus he will command, its too big of a gamble to take.

redbrian

02-27-2005, 02:04 PM

heh. Can also suggests that just because there may be someone else on the planet that made a full recovery from this injury, Ty Law will do the same. He seems to think that questioning the injury that Law has, and his ability to recover from it is simply Law's detractors making "excuses" not to sign (in his own opinion) the best CB in the league. In his mind, it is already settled that Ty Law will make a full recovery and that anyone who thinks the Chiefs should not sign him now, needs their head examined.

Due dilligence by the Chiefs training staff regarding the injury would be to wait until Law is up and running full speed, and passes a physical. Doing that will cost the Chiefs any shot at signing anyone else, as by the time Ty Law is able to even walk to the bathroom to take a piss, the other FA's will be signed to other teams.

Hence, due dilligence by the Chiefs in regard to his injury is impossible. The injury he has can be a career ender, or career changer, or have no negative effect at all. Its a huge gamble to offer him money when his future is so uncertain, when there are plenty of other capable cornerbacks out there on the market who arent injured and can help this team.

In a recent article, Carl Peterson spoke with Law's agent and found that Law is not walking, doesnt have a walking boot on, and that they werent ready for Law to come in and have a physical. I get from that article that Carl was less than impressed by that news, and I was very happy to hear that he was talking to Rolle and Dyson from Tennesee, as well as reading in another article that he is in the thick of negotiations for a trade involving Patrick Surtain.

I think the Chiefs front office is just as unsure about signing a guy like Law with that injury as many of us here are also. Its good to see them pursuing other guys, and not just gambling on the fact that Ty Law has a chance to return to top form. He has an equal chance to not return to top form. With the signing bonus he will command, its too big of a gamble to take.

I read that this morning, and also found it interesting that Law is still in a wheel chair.

Wonder what ole Whitless has to say about that, did he know this when he claimed that the Chiefs must get Law.

Personally it sounds like damaged goods which is very questionable if he will play this season or any season.