And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

Because Carl said they haven't been sent to the league.

I absolutely agree.

Well, if he wasn't such an idiot...

:D

Very True. BTW Congrats on 11,000 posts. :)

:harumph:

if HE wasn't such a stubborn bastige









:moon:

and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

It is believed, according to Adam Schefter, that the New Giants are expected to be serious contenders in the Sam Madison sweepstakes. I do agree, CB is a priority.

Carl Delano Peterson.

And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

cb does seem to be a bit of a weakness on the defense right now, unless surtain can play both cb positions at the same time (then we could add an extra safety to help out wesley, or better yet another de to help hicks)...

is carl related to franklin?

and all three would look a lot better if we had an effective pass rush that forced the qb to get rid of the ball just a little sooner, say like 5 seconds sooner... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Agree with all that. You could also add in there, another defensive tackle too. But all this doesn't matter anyway. According to both our GM and owner, we are not going to be active in FA as in years past. Glad to see you recognize all the holes on defense, but thats ok, this team will stand pat anyway. It's not as important to them because of all the signing bonuses they gave out in years past, plus the cap, they a bit tight there, and the fact they were active in free agency last year. They need to take a break.

The possibility of Shields getting cut was mentioned all over ESPN, and it was in every AP article that's come out the last few day about the CBA situation. Shields, Derrick Brooks, and Pennington were repeatedly listed as high-priced veterans who might get cut if no deal was reached. It was hardly just a fabrication from the local KC media.

A bunch of media hacks took guesses at who was going to get cut. Carl Peterson told them that they were wrong in regards to Shields. How is that spin?

The Fox news report that Shields had been cut came from KC media. WPI was Jay Glazer's source.

All the reports about Shields and Holmes were speculation. Now Peterson sets the record straight and it's spin?

They're all FOUR still around. Probably should have been expected when Carl hired yet another coach from his "network".

It's spin because it's not true. Even if you want to discount ESPN, the Associated Press, the Kansas City Star, etc. etc. etc., Will Shields himself talked about it last week. He sounded, according to this same Star article, "pessimistic about playing in 2006 in Kansas City". I think Will Shields was close enough to the situation to know if the story was just BS from media hacks or not.

When did Shields say that?

His agent said that he would play next year even if it wasn't in KC. And all he said himself was that he hadn't been cut...

The quote about Shields being pessimistic was a quote from the KC Star article at the beginning of this thread, not a direct quote out of Will's mouth. But the Star did an article on him a few days ago where he seemed to openly question whether or not he'd be a Chief in '06, which is what the "pessimistic" quote was referring to.

Here's a fact I find hard to ignore. The Pats and Steelers built their championships through the draft, not free agency. I'm not a fan of signing every big-name free agent on the market. I think we have to draft better to win championships. I like the youth movement that's been talked about at different times. That's the direction this team needs to go in. Young always beats old in a foot race, and in this league, SPEED KILLS. One more thing...am I the only one that wishes we kept Fujita???