Wesley was signed in '03

They signed several starters. Woods coming off a Pro Bowl year. Hicks was a starter, and it's not like they signed him just because he was cheap, because he didn't come all that cheap. They traded for Welbourn, which considering the new contract, was the equivalent of a FA.


Was it a big spending year like '05? No. But it's not like they didn't sign anyone.

People just pretend those signings didn't happen because the players all ended up sucking.

It all depends on one's defination of "standing pat." Mine is whan you keep the same players, you stand pat. I know others, includong yourself, have a different oponion that I can respect, but do not agree with. :rolleyes:

I am guessing because restructuring contracts for all these vets means more trouble down the road when they are no longer playing at a high level or maybe not even playing at all.

I think the assumption is that the restructures were done anticipating the CBA not getting done. If the CBA does get done, then either the team will choose to not keep the restructures due to future impact on the cap, or the players that agreed to them will no longer agree due to the team no longer having a "no CBA" leverage.

And remember, this is all speculation. We don't know that the team won't use extra cap space if the CBA gets done.

I know what your saying, but still, it's frustrating to see this team reward the same players that were unsuccessful on porous defense.

Why give the same junks on defense "new" contracts? I know what you mean that they didn't stand pat. I understand you. If re-signing your own players is your definition of not standing pat, then I could accept that.

But, it still goes to show that this team was not susceptible to change. And it showed terribly. My definition of NOT standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of NOT standing pat, is a different approach. Like going out and signing new players that are better than the current ones you had, and improving your team from there. We didn't do that in 2004. We kept this team the same, without failing to change direction, and the price was paid.

I view a trade as way different from signing your own free agents, especially when said trade cost you a first -day draft pick and then an other early-mid-rounder. But, if you mean that the Chiefs did make an attempt to upgrade the team by adding a player who was not on the roster the year before, then I see your point. But IMHO, Welbourn is not near as good as Tait was.

Nor do we know what the longer term impact is from these restructured contracts, or if it has any impact whatso-freaking-ever on our FA activity. This has just turned into yet another Laz vs. htis cock fight. again...

I definately agree with you here as I'v e been making this case for 2 years now, but I believe the "different approach" the team took was hiring Gun.

So if we traded for TO tommorrow, it would fall under the category of "standing pat"?

Or were we supposed to make John Tait the highest paid left tackle in the game, while playing him on the right side?

We went out ond filled our need for a right tackle via trade, but that trade meant signing a player to a new contract, just like is he was a free agent.

It goes back to what I've said before about '04. It's not that the team "didn't sign anyone". It's that the team didn't sign the guys you wanted.

Exactly. None of us know shit about this situation.

It's an argument based on what we speculate the team will do with the contracts that we're guessing we know the structure of.

No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.

I disagree with ya. I fully expect we'll pick up a CB on Day1 this year, and have Battle, Sapp, Hodge and rookie fight it out. All part of the youth movement.

The Dolphins-ication of the Chiefs continues.

Exactly. We havent had any good drafts for defensive players in quite some time. Jared Allen is the only late round gem. Thats why it was so huge that DJ fell to us. I would have ran out in 3 seconds after it was our pick to draft him. I dont know why Carl Peterson took the entire 15 minutes of clock time.

Eddie Freeman - 2nd round draft pick to practice squad
Ryan Sims - 6th overall pick - hasnt lived up to potential by any means and can never stay healthy.
Junior Siavii - Why in the bloody hell would ANYONE waste a 2nd round pick on a "project" DT?!?! We even traded down for that pick did we not?
Kawika Mitchell - I would use him as an example but he finally produced last season.

All of these shitty draft picks along with unproven veteran bum players, I can totally see how this defense sucks year in and year out. No wonder we cant have any Dline penetration. These guys along with Hicks and Dalton get as much penetration as a 3 inch penis. You build a team through the draft. This is something we have not been able to do in the last decade. Hopefully Herm being a former scout, we can start drafting some players that can actually play football.

you sure don't mind telling everyone how wrong they are on such a speculative matter.