You spelled guard wrong. Get with the program, it is spelled g a u r d. Don't believe me? Look it up in the Lexicon.....:)

A healthy Law added to Surtain and our new LB's is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much for a Chief fan that lived through the last 35 years to hope for.

An incentive laden contract would be ideal and it just might be plausible with Law's attitude. Challenge him to live up to his statement that he will be the best CB in the NFL next season.

After that it is real simple, if he is then pay him like he is!! If not then he is paid commensurate with his performance.

Either way he is motivated and seems like someone who would like the challenge of backing up their words while playing for a contender.

Could you imagine if our defense was good enough to give our offense one or two more opportunities to score per game than the last couple of seasons. What a sight that would be!!!

I'm really kind of ambivalent about Law right now.
I have difficulty believing that the Chiefs will sign him.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Carl does bring Law in, I just don't think that putting Warfield at nickel is a very good idea.

He struggled for 3 years in Spinner's scheme because he wasn't able to line up at the LOS and man up on the receivers.

I was one of the few that defended him in those years, because I recognized that Spinner didn't utilize his strengths.

Putting him at nickel will put him in a position that again exposes his weakness, and he'll revert back to the "Toast" that everyone labeled him.

On the other hand, McPassOn played well in Spinner's scheme, and is much better suited for the nickel than Warfield.

IMO, if Law were brought in, Warfield becomes an expensive benchwarmer by midseason.
That, or he is really crisp by seasons end.

Nice analysis. I'd bet $10 if they sign Law AND he's healthy enough to start opposite Surtain that Ambrose takes that nickle spot. I won't even be the least bit suprised if Ambrose takes Warfield's job if we don't get Law.

Law is Good, but...
 

I think the Chiefs secondary is fine. Patrick Surtain should be decent, and Ashley Ambrose will do OK. I think Warfield will come back a new man and record 14 INT's in 12 games. He will have 70 tackles and a couple of sacks too. You heard it here first.

Considering Warfield makes over 3 million in salary, that's not a bad scenario at all. :hmmm:

ROFL

That's making a splash with your first post.
Talk about unrealistic hopes!

Welcome aboard.

Don't take the soon to come bashing too hard.

I don't know.
From what I've seen of Ambrose, he, like Warfield, struggles when he lines up off the line.
Despite his size, he's much better in physical man up coverage.

And because he has lost a step, I don't think he can take Warfield's job as the #2 corner, and I also see McPassOn as a better nickel than him.

Bull Crap

What about Warfield, he's going to be a Pro-Bowler.

Who do you guys think are the best Chiefs defensive backs?

1. Warfield
2. McCleon
3. Wesley
4. Surtain
5. Woods
6. battle

bull ... you just making crap up


he never said he wouldn't play here

he never said we wouldn't pay him


HE SAID that he turned down our original contract offer because it wasn't structured the way he wanted it.... nothing more, nothing less.

since when? :shrug:

Since this year.

14 INT's in 12 games, watch.

Joke account. You had us fooled for a couple of posts; good job.

hopefully ...

maybe more work and less partying will help him improve

I'm still wondering about the suspension.

Ok, lets say he misses the 4 games most suspect, that's 1/4th the season.

Does that 1/4th have to be paid to him? He just lose the game checks? And does the team get to take that off the cap and spend it or does it still count?

Something I hadn't thought of earlier.

Again, only for the sake of argument, if Law joins our secondary, he is more versatile than Warfield.
He excels in any scheme.
He can man up and punch the receiver in the mouth off the line, or give the receiver space and still make a play on the ball.

In a base defense, Surtain and Law are your 2 corners.

In nickel packages, you could line up Warfield on the receiver at the line with Law playing the slot.

McPassOn would be the dime.

We would have the best secondary in the league, hands down.

But it's all only a pipe dream.

...and I want pancakes, but we can't have everything we want.

Ok when you said Patrick Surtain should be decent I had to laugh. You just think he is decent that is too funny. Someone needs to wake you up noob and make you realize Patrick Surtain is a stud. And he is going to kick ass. He is a top 5 corner that is a hell of alot better than decent. Just my 2 cents. And if we can get Ty Law still and we dont break the bank. You do it. Damn i am pumped up for football. Start already damnit

Oh and whatever you are smokin give me some because Warfield is not going to get 14 ints ROFL

I wonder if he/she realizes that 14 is the record for a season?

It's a joke account! Don't be fooled! It was created today.

If he signs he signs, i personally will chalk this one up as
our insertion as the favorite fo the the 'ship.
thats my opinion.
but i will still push the positive energy Law's way in hopes of signing him.
in my friend and mine's case, it worked for the drafting of DERRICK JOHNSON.
he was a long shot to be drafted by us and we kept our hopes up and fingers crossed up until the 15th pick and it happened.
so ive got to keep my hope alive

with Jake Plummer & Kerry Collins for four games there would be no INT bonus in Law's contract

I think that's a great idea, but what would the incentives be? If he plays lights out there won't be many balls thrown his way. Not much chance for picks or pass break ups and tackle opportunities only in the running game. Judgement of his performance would surely be subjective and unquantifiable.

Games started and played would have to be the primary incentive.

You could base some incentives on that I suppose. But I don't think you have to be the best CB in the league and command top dollar just to start on the Chiefs defense.

intercepting or tackling Plummer is gong to be available for stat building

No, but you have to be heathy enough to play.

Giving him top dollar only to have him injured and not playing is throwing money away.

That's not even fair to use as a stat. If picking of The Fake and tackling him were a sport, it would comparable clubbing a baby seal.

bootlegging Plummer meets long arms of Law...yes like baby seal clubbing :)

That'd be nice, but I'm really looking for a Plummer Bell ringing!

How about making the Pro Bowl?

Hall, Allen, Johnson, Surtain, SCANLON



just no Hicks :(

That would be the most obvious way, IMO.

If he's all he says he is then you would think he believes he'd have an impact on the defense as a whole. Maybe we could tie some of the incentives to the overall performance of the secondary or the overall performance of the defense. Any significant improvement on defense would have to consist of improved play by both our corners. Pay him big if our pass defense improves big. After all that's what we're after. He'd get what he wants and we'd get what we need.

If the incentives were to be based on individual stats, maybe it would make sense to base it on a statistical improvement of his position compared to last year. Fewer completions, fewer yards, fewer first downs, fewer TD's, etc. Maybe the size of the bonus could be tied directly to the percentage decrease of those negative stats.

Lamar never held a gun to your head to make you spend a dime, you reerun. When someone thinking that because they spent a dollar at Walmart it makes them a member of the board of directors, they need some serious mental help.

If you don't like the fortune he's already spent this offseason, become a ****ing hockey fan.

On the first part, I'm just telling ya what Gonzo said. All those guys may be here, but they ARE all starting to get up there. Look at what one extra year did for Gannon. From Super Bowl QB to Grandpa in 6 short months.

As far as the second part, I do think he is worth the money. Especially if the bonus can be structured to be on next years. We shouldn't need as many FA's then. Just a shift in power from the offense to the defense.

I watched the story on sportcenter last night. It showed Law training. I know it's not pads, but he was working hard. Planting, cutting, running up and down stairs. To me that foot looks like it is doing fine. Someone will pay good jack for him. I'd wouldn't mind taking the gamble from what I saw of him.

FWIW Hunt was born rich. When he bought the Texans of the AFL a reporter ask his dad what he thought about his son buying a football team that could lose a million dollars a year his dad replied "if he loses a million a year for a 144 years in a row he will be broke"

That said I have always wondered why Chief fans get pissed at Peterson or Steadman before that but always give Hunt a pass. I don't blame you for having a case of the ass. Hunt has always stopped just short of what the team needed to win it all.

I will say this, even as a rival I will admit this season it looks as if Hunt is trying to put a championship level team on the field. I hope this team breaks your heart, but he has opened the billfold this offseason and brought in alot of talent.

First.....Go **** yourself!!!

Second, I'm just as big of a hockey fan as I am a Chief fan. If you don't think Lamar is obligated to spend some of the cash the fans made him, then perhaps you should be looking in the mirror when you refer to somebody as a reerun. He owes it to the fans of KC that filled his stadium for years and years of mediocracy. On top of that, if he'de give the team a Superbowl defense to go along with the Superbowl offense, then perhaps he'de have an easier time getting the money he's begging from the taxpayers to refurbish his stadium.

I can see one scenario where Law may consider playing for the Chiefs at a reduced price.
What better way to showcase ones talents than on a contending team.
If Law truly believes that he one of the top talents, he signs with the Chiefs for a one year deal, proves himself on the field to be in top form and then goes for the big contract the following year.

I think most here are thrilled with the upgrades. There is also a very high profile CB sitting out there available for some team. Some posters here, including myself, would like to see him here. I want nothing left to chance in this potential SB season. There are some high quality teams in the AFC. Several of those have high octane passing games. I could care less about his health the first four games. It's the last four that really count.

And another note I heard on teh radio yesterday that I found a bit interesting. They were saying Manning had like 30 of his TD throws last season against teams with sub-par CB's. They said going against the teams in the playoffs that have top notch CB's has been a lot tougher for Manning, sans the no SB appearance for the Colts.

"Ty Law's saying he wants a deal in the $40 million range, claiming he turned his back on one offer that he felt would "only" guarantee him $10 million before that new team was likely to cut him. I don't think $10 million is a bad deal for a guy who's career is clearly in question and who is only reportedly at 85% speed with less than a month until training camp. But what do I know? It will be interesting to see how high the bidding goes from the 4-5 teams that appear to be interested in his services at this late date. So far, most appear interested in a high-dollar one-year deal or a more modest long-term proposal than Law desires."

Who ever it was that said this about Manning has no freakin' clue what the hell they are talking about.

The Patriots secondary was made up of rookies and scrubs when the Colts lost to them.

Manning struggles mightily against teams that play a physical D.

Even though the Pats secondary wasn't the most talented, they did what they needed to, i.e., hitting the receivers at the line, disrupting their routes, while the front 7 put consistent pressure on Manning.

If the timing in their offense is disrupted, and Manning starts to take a couple hits, he gets rattled and starts just making bad throws and bad decisions, which is why I refer to him as a pussy, and call his MVP award the Most Vaginal Player.

I've decided I need to expand on this a bit.

All QBs make mistakes when they get pressured.

However, using Green to illustrate the difference, or at least my perception of the difference, what Manning does is he gets gets rid of the early, so as not to take the hits.

Green, on the other hand, will hold on to the ball as long as he can, slide around in the pocket, and make his throw at the very last minute in an attempt to make a play.

Let's stand you in a field and let some 280lb guy running a 4.5 40 blindside you. I'll bet you start getting rid of it sooner, too.

Of course you discount entirely that Manning may be getting rid of it sooner because he knows the rush is going to get there sooner and he doesn't want to take the loss of yardage that comes with the sack. I've seen him wait until the last second plenty of times and still take the pop. Of course if you're Tony Dungy you would rather he throw it into the stands than take that injury. You need Manning on the field. Period.

As for Trent (remember the TrINT days?) holding it forever, let's recall the times that "holding it forever" got him sacked and pushed the Chiefs out of field goal range, into 3rd and long, etc.

As for the Pats beating the Colts, the Pats do that just like you say. They hit the receivers all over the field, including past 5 yards. The Pats are masterful at understanding the flags come out less in the post season and, to their credit, they play that for all it's worth. That's why a punch-you-in-the-face team beats a dancing-fineses team nearly every time in the playoffs.

If Law wants to showcase his talents on a contending team, He'd probably look to Jacksonville before KC.

I've seen him take some hits also, but as the game progresses, he becomes more and more gunshy.

And yes, Trent takes some bad sacks, but at least he remains tall in the pocket throughout the entire game.

It is, as I stated, about perception.
And my perception is that Manning doesn't have the courage in the pocket that Trent does.

Getting hit by bigger stronger guys is nothing new to me.

When I was a kid, I didn't grow over 5' until I was in my soph year in high school, and then I only weighed a hundred pounds.

I was a hothead (more closely related to stupidity than courage, I admit), but I got my ass kicked by all the big boys because of my temper and lack of fear.

your forgetting a few things here?

BAD WEATHER, and MISFORTUNE

Think about it?

Manning has never won a game in Foxboro. Foxboro for Manning is like what Arrowhead was for Elway. Both parks we're like doom dungeons for those QB's.

And, bad weather(snow) makes a big difference. Play'n in those kinda conditions is a huge disadvantage to a passing game. Don't get me wrong, the Pats I'm sure knew how to play him, but, everything else they needed like fortune all went their way as well.

WOW!!!! You'de think a player the caliber of Law would drool at the thought of playing defense opposite Surtain. Imagine the numbwer of balls that'll come his way in comparison to previous seasons. The two of them could practically shut down the passing game. Thus, allowing D. Johnson and Bell to make the QB's head ring. On top of that, our offense is loaded with talent to make up for an occasional mistake or two.

If the Chiefs sign Law, I'de have to say the Chiefs are a favorite to win it all this season.

Look at the game that the Chiefs played against the Colts last season.

We played aggressive, in your face defense, applying pressure on Manning and the receivers.
Disrupted their timing, and watched as Manning began to wilt under the constant pressure.

All of that in the first half.

In the second half, Gun started to back off, utilizing more of a prevent mode, which, of course gave Manning the chance to nearly lead the Colts back to victory.

The point is, in the first half, when the Chiefs were playing aggressive, physical D, Manning's effectiveness was neutralized to some extent, much the same as it is when he plays the Pats.

And the weather wasn't a factor.

And he usually struggles against Jax for exactly the same reasons.

Maybe he would like the chance to play opposite Surtain. But maybe he'd be concerned about the rest of the defense.

Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, I'd say Jax might be more likely to be the "contender" from his point of view. For a number of reasons.

1. They were better than us last year, and have done nothing to get worse. There's no reason to think they can't repeat what they did last year.

2. They have a better defense. KC has added a lot of pieces, but we still don't know what the puzzle will look like. Meanwhile, Jax had a very good, aggressive D, and their only weak spot was CB.

3. They play in a weaker conference. The only real competition is Indy, and they can beat Indy.

I think KC has a very good chance at being a very good team, but we need the defense to come together. Jacksonville is already a very good team, where Law could be the final tweak that makes them a great team. I just think if "I want to play for a winner" is really a factor, Jacksonville looks more like a winner than KC at this point.

But honestly, I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think it's all about the money. I also think we won't get him because of that. Personally, I won't be happy if we spend a lot of money on him unless it's a one year deal.

If true, we already have enough to sign rookies with. Getting Law would be a matter of dropping some dead weight like McCleon and Woods.

I also like to add, we would have to restructure several contracts to clear room for him. Guys like Warfield, Green, Holmes, Shields, Roaf would all have to take pay cuts.

Cutting Mccleon would free up anout 300k. It's hard to say what cutting Woods would do (because he has a multi tiered bonus) but chances are this early in his contract, we would lose money.

There are very few players that the Chiefs could cut and save money (out of the ones worthy of cutting). Most of the real bums are too early in their contracts, so with accelerated bonuses, they would hurt the cap.

One guy that probably could free up some money is Barber. If we can sign an injury settlement with him, it would only hit our cap for 250k this year (I think).

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...on.aspx?pos=13

Jerome Woods:
$3,500,000 signing bonus in 2004
xx$660,000 base salary in 2004

There is no way I would cut McCleon to save 300k. McCleon was our most consistent CB in 2003, and he gives us great insurance.

I'm not sure that 3.5 was all paid out in 2004. It was reported as a "multi-tiered" signing bonus, which leads me to believe it wasn't.

But for arguments sake, we'll say it was. That means if we cut him this year his remaining signing bonus will be accelerated to this year's cap. That adds up to almost 3 million. So we'll save the 865,000 in base, but owe the 2.9 mil in pro rated cap, costing us a cap hit of roughly 2 million. So instead of Woods hitting the cap for the 1.5 million that would consist of his base plus pro rated bonus, he'll hit for 2 million.

In effect, cutting Woods will consume 500k more than carrying him on the roster would.