Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542351)

Well, we don't need only a FS, that much is clear.

OTWP said it best when he noted that we let a lot of marginal players walk. Cool. The problem is that the Chiefs, seemingly, are expecting players who could not unseat said marginal talent last year to carry the water in 2014.

That's unsettling, assuming that logic is allowed in the room.

On the offensive side, with respect to free agency, you better damn well believe that I think the entire complexion of the offense changes if the organization signs D. Jackson.

Huge, huge, huge ****ing mistake not to have made that a reality. People who say otherwise are wrong. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542360)

I'll take his judgement there.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542351)

Well, we don't need only a FS, that much is clear.

OTWP said it best when he noted that we let a lot of marginal players walk. Cool. The problem is that the Chiefs, seemingly, are expecting players who could not unseat said marginal talent last year to carry the water in 2014.

That's unsettling, assuming that logic is allowed in the room.

On the offensive side, with respect to free agency, you better damn well believe that I think the entire complexion of the offense changes if the organization signs D. Jackson.

Huge, huge, huge ****ing mistake not to have made that a reality. People who say otherwise are wrong. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 10542390)

I think just the overall reduction in depth is the most concerning thing. I was never that concerned about losing out on DeSean Jackson. A lot of times people overrate FA WRs. A good GM can find productive WR's outside the 1st round of the draft. That should not be the end of the world.

It's kind of strange in a way. We've seen over and over again that good defenses win. We just watched a great defense dismantle the highest scoring offense ever to win a title. Meanwhile, our defense got completely gashed at Greg Robinson levels the entire second half of the season, then put forth one of the worst 2nd half defensive performances ever in the playoffs... but everyone's still obsessed with offense, and the thing people get most upset about is losing out on a WR. This board's obsession with offense is probably it's biggest downfall. This team needs more pass rushers. And a free safety that can actually cover deep.

Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 10542410)

I trust his judgement .

Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 10542410)

You don't really know how a free agent WR is going to do on a new team. That position more than almost any other can vary production with a change of scenery.

The most important thing is that Andy Reid worked with Jackson for his entire NFL career, and didn't sign him. Maybe there is a reason for that. I trust his judgement when it comes to a player he knows very well.

In any case, Jackson was going to be paid way over his value. I don't blame them for throwing their hat in the ring and then seeing the market price and saying "not worth it"

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 10542390)

I think just the overall reduction in depth is the most concerning thing. I was never that concerned about losing out on DeSean Jackson. A lot of times people overrate FA WRs. A good GM can find productive WR's outside the 1st round of the draft. That should not be the end of the world.

It's kind of strange in a way. We've seen over and over again that good defenses win. We just watched a great defense dismantle the highest scoring offense ever to win a title. Meanwhile, our defense got completely gashed at Greg Robinson levels the entire second half of the season, then put forth one of the worst 2nd half defensive performances ever in the playoffs... but everyone's still obsessed with offense, and the thing people get most upset about is losing out on a WR. This board's obsession with offense is probably it's biggest downfall. This team needs more pass rushers. And a free safety that can actually cover deep.

Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 10542410)

You don't really know how a free agent WR is going to do on a new team. That position more than almost any other can vary production with a change of scenery.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542365)

fallacious appeal to authority?

boy that's a new one!

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542425)

And if Reid and Dorsey looked at that price and said "not worth it," they're dumb as ****.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542487)

something had to be going on

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542487)

Seeing as how good of a player he is, and his previous connections to Reid if they balked at that price, something had to be going on

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542502)

Indeed. Executives are never just ****ing flat out, fall on their faces wrong. Shit, I've been following the Chiefs for years, so I know this is the truth.

No one knows Jackson/Cassel/Hill better than Reid/Pioli/Marty...

Nothing was "going on" except the fact that Hunt wouldn't write a ****ing check to work around the cap. If not this, then "what was going on" is that the leaders of this team are ****ing stupid.

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup (Post 10542234)

No that is just one example of how your opinion works.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542521)

They've overpaid for just about any one else they wanted last year (bowe, colquit, Daniel, devito).

Why would they have a problem paying Jackson if Reid really wanted him?

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542502)

Indeed. Executives are never just ****ing flat out, fall on their faces wrong. Shit, I've been following the Chiefs for years, so I know this is the truth.

No one knows Jackson/Cassel/Hill better than Reid/Pioli/Marty...

Nothing was "going on" except the fact that Hunt wouldn't write a ****ing check to work around the cap. If not this, then "what was going on" is that the leaders of this team are ****ing stupid.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542559)

Because they've reversed course. They got what they wanted out of last year.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542567)

Cmon man, you're better than that. This has nothing to do with hunt being cheap. This is about a philosophy of cap management. Disagree with that. But I know you know this has nothing to do with not wanting to open up a checkbook.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542576)

If Smith isn't on the roster for 2 second-rounders, I might agree. And there's no question that Hunt has spent a lot of money over the last couple of years.

But I cannot reconcile the contradiction from what happened last year and what the team isn't doing this year.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542588)

That's fine. But it has nothing to do with spending money. They are going to be up against the cap this year and I bet next year too. So this has nothing to do with not wanting to spend money. It is a conversation about how they are choosing to manage their cap.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542587)

He was 29 last year, so you're claiming he was a stop gap? For 2 second-rounders?

If that's the case, since he's not a developmental guy, you think the FO is even dumber than I do.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542582)

I'm not so sure they viewed the Alex smith acquire meant as a win now move.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542602)

It's pretty obvious they viewed Alex Smith as having their cake and eating it too. Established enough to keep the butts in the seats while giving them 4-5 years to build around him.

Just like Pioli felt about Matt Cassel.

And Carl felt about Elvis Grbac.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542602)

It's pretty obvious they viewed Alex Smith as having their cake and eating it too. Established enough to keep the butts in the seats while giving them 4-5 years to build around him.

Just like Pioli felt about Matt Cassel.

And Carl felt about Elvis Grbac.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542604)

One of these isn't like the others though.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542604)

One of these isn't like the others though.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542598)

We're playing semantics now. Because the cap is almost always manageable if the owner is willing to cut checks up front.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542611)

No it isn't. You can't cheat the cap. You just defer the money to a different year. Cutting checks doesn't make money disappear. Again, if they bump up against the cap several years in a row, then they are spending as much money as they can. There's no sign that's not what they are trying to do.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542608)

I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the thought process. They're all 100% identical.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542611)

No it isn't. You can't cheat the cap. You just defer the money to a different year. Cutting checks doesn't make money disappear. Again, if they bump up against the cap several years in a row, then they are spending as much money as they can. There's no sign that's not what they are trying to do.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542618)

Maybe so. But again, it's really not black and white like that.


We're getting back into the x is doomed to fail because y failed.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542618)

Maybe so. But again, it's really not black and white like that.


We're getting back into the x is doomed to fail because y failed.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542615)

Have the Chiefs ever spent significant cash dollars in FA two years in a row?

After last offseason's spending spree we should have expected the Clarks to tighten up the 'ol coffers.

It's really not surprising.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542635)

That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542617)

Signing bonuses. Renegotiated deals.

No salary cap limit soldiers. /JWhit

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542631)

I never said that.

I made a comment about the thought process that went into acquiring Smith. I never said on word about whether or not I thought it would work.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542639)

The problem with talking about football and the sack of shit that is the Chiefs is that any specific mention of player/coach/executive immediately triggers so many different connotations for posters that they are often unable to focus upon the specific content of an individual post.

They see a name, and then all mental hell breaks loose.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542644)

I assumed based on previous conversations and such, that it was implied.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542623)

The most poorly-structured contract on the team, in terms of the cap, is Dwayne Bowe's.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542659)

It's a terrible contract. So was Fasano and Daniel. But that has nothing to do with the argument that the chiefs are being cheap. They negotiated bad contracts. If you want to argue that you think they should structure the cap to load up now pay later, fine. But it's flat out wrong to claim a team can somehow make money come up out of thin air that never counts against the cap.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542641)

That someone would question these guys? I agree. RIDICULOUS!

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542659)

It's a terrible contract. So was Fasano and Daniel. But that has nothing to do with the argument that the chiefs are being cheap. They negotiated bad contracts. If you want to argue that you think they should structure the cap to load up now pay later, fine. But it's flat out wrong to claim a team can somehow make money come up out of thin air that never counts against the cap.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542659)

It's a terrible contract. So was Fasano and Daniel. But that has nothing to do with the argument that the chiefs are being cheap. They negotiated bad contracts. If you want to argue that you think they should structure the cap to load up now pay later, fine. But it's flat out wrong to claim a team can somehow make money come up out of thin air that never counts against the cap.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542668)

Question these guys, fine. I've said before that I hated the Fisher pick and wasn't a fan of their big free agency signings last year. Have said that for a long time. What does that have to do with your claim that the chiefs or any team can cheat the cap, which is just plain false.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10542667)

You keep talking about cap management. So far, they don't appear to be very good at it.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542669)

If we're not trying to take a serious run at "the now," why is Smith, given his cost and age, on this roster?

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542687)

Maybe they don't feel they need any free agents to make a run at the now.

Between in house options an further player development in their system, perhaps they feel enough is there.

As a fan, I don't, but I don't know their thinking

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542674)

No one is sayin that. What they're saying, is hunt could have written a big signing bonus, and knocked said cap hit down to be able to fit it this year.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 10540656)

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542690)

I don't know how they could possibly think that, but this is the only reasonable assumption that one can draw, assuming the team aspires to compete for the playoffs in 2014.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542676)

I didn't say anything about the cap.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542635)

That's ridiculous. They were up against the cap last year, are up against the cap this year, and will probably end up against the cap next year too. The claim that they are cheap is ridiculous. You really think that teams are magically spending money that never counts against the cap? The only true measure of how much a team is actually spending is their yearly cap number.

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup (Post 10542786)

I thought we rolled over about 14 mill in unused cap space from 2012 on to the 2013 salary cap?????

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10542788)

And despite the rollover, we are near our cap limit. Therefore, between the two years, we were basically at the cap both years on average.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 10542687)

Maybe they don't feel they need any free agents to make a run at the now.

Originally Posted by salame (Post 10542801)

Denver did an awful lot with 7.5 mil

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542824)

That's because people still don't understand the difference (or perhaps don't care to because it shits on the Chiefs) between cap and cash.

You don't attract free agents by having a bunch of cap space. You attract them with upfront cash money. That doesn't always necessarily hit the cap in the first year of the contract.

The Chiefs have always been one of those teams reluctant to spend the cash. Considering the amount the Hunts spent last offseason, this year isn't surprising.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 10542669)

If we're not trying to take a serious run at "the now," why is Smith, given his cost and age, on this roster?

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10542852)

I think too many people place far too much blame on Bob Sutton for the collapse in the second half of the season, while also failing to recognize the talent that is already in place, and failing to recognize how much the glaring weakness at FS impacted that talent's ability to perform, as well as Sutton's ability to make adjustment's.

Flowers and Sean Smith, both are guys that are far better in coverage when lining up tight and playing physical man at the snap.

Neither are that competent in off coverage.

Marcus Cooper is just learning, but showed he can play physical man, a


s well.
He didn't work at playing in off coverage, but with practice might grow into that role as well.

that being the case, early in the season, this defense thrived playing physical man from the snap, but over the course of the first half, teams began to see the glaring weakness that Kendrick Lewis was.

This secondary didn't get exposed because the Chiefs played better QBs.
It got exposed because teams adjusted and game planned to attack that weakness.

Guys like (what his name?) Jeff Tuel and Case Keenum took advantage of it.
Sutton adjusted by backing Flowers, Smith and Cooper off the line, essentially playing their weakness to take the big plays away.

It didn't work.

We have a talented core on the defense, and a competent free safety, not a great one you, but a competent one, would have a huge impact on this defense.

I have no issue with not persuing DeSean Jackson.

My issue is failing to persue a FS in free agency.

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup (Post 10542789)

7.5 mil sure isn't a lot by any means but it sure beats that 4.5 mil number that we supposedly have right now.

Originally Posted by scott free (Post 10542816)

Just a crazy amount of pre-exisiting holes, turnovers and unknowns this year, anyone who's apprehensive right now is WELL within their rights.

Originally Posted by dannybcaitlyn (Post 10542875)

I put all the blame of the 2nd half of the season on sutton. He did everthing wrong, from not rotating players on the line to not benching lewis. Flowers must be playing with injury most of the season because it was a down year for him. If anyone should be able to play off a receiver it should have been him, with the tampa 2 scheme he was brought into by Herm. Now th FO doesn't address the need for FS, but elect to resign abbdulah who they thought wasnt good enough to take lewis spot after lewis is exposed. Sutton just sat idle with him week after week. **** him! At least we would have thrown abbdulah in there we would know if the guy is actually capable of playing FS.

Originally Posted by dannybcaitlyn (Post 10542875)

I put all the blame of the 2nd half of the season on sutton. He did everthing wrong, from not rotating players on the line to not benching lewis. Flowers must be playing with injury most of the season because it was a down year for him. If anyone should be able to play off a receiver it should have been him, with the tampa 2 scheme he was brought into by Herm. Now th FO doesn't address the need for FS, but elect to resign abbdulah who they thought wasnt good enough to take lewis spot after lewis is exposed. Sutton just sat idle with him week after week. **** him! At least we would have thrown abbdulah in there we would know if the guy is actually capable of playing FS.

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins (Post 10542824)

That's because people still don't understand the difference (or perhaps don't care to because it shits on the Chiefs) between cap and cash.

You don't attract free agents by having a bunch of cap space. You attract them with upfront cash money. That doesn't always necessarily hit the cap in the first year of the contract.

The Chiefs have always been one of those teams reluctant to spend the cash. Considering the amount the Hunts spent last offseason, this year isn't surprising.