KCChiefs.com gets you ready for free agency!
 

DAWES: THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE A LAW
Mar 08, 2006, 5:12:14 AM by Rufus Dawes

The bill came due for the Chiefs past dalliances in free agency – the favorite feeding ground for media everywhere – and the first thing our scribes could resurrect were thoughts of Ty Law coming to town. I suppose we shouldn’t have been surprised. Free agency continues to be the football media world’s affaire d’etat this time of year and no one sparks the locals’ interest more than Law.

The date they all have been waiting for has yet to come due to the ongoing negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement between management and players. When it does finally arrive it will signal all NFL teams to get under the league mandated salary cap. But even before that date the Chiefs have jettisoned four players including one starter and two former starters and it’s likely more will follow. While all teams – the Chiefs weren’t alone, remember – look to get under the cap the eyes of media and fans everywhere have focused on who their favorite team might be looking to add.

Amazing, isn’t it given that 39 starters were already cut from NFL teams by March 6th. That’s more than one entire starting lineup. By the way, sports fans, Ty Law had the honor of being the first to be cut. What teams have learned – if some media haven’t – is you don’t get better holding onto 30 plus year old veterans with a decimal point in their contracts.

Matters won’t improve if there is no new collective bargaining agreement since there will be little salary cap room for teams to use on free agents. Furthermore, there will be less room for creativity since teams won’t be allowed to prorate signing bonuses over more than four years, thereby slashing the amount of upfront money teams are going to give free agents. Back-loaded deals to players will also be history. So will option bonuses, which at one time could be prorated over the remaining years of a players contract.

And our media are talking about signing players?

The problems Kansas City and the other 31 teams in the league face in free agency are complex, but the press and the public have little patience for complexity, particularly in the competitive marketplace of player procurement. Just as any story loses its subtlety when adapted by Hollywood, so the difficult issues in salary cap management are reduced to simple, easy to remedy matters when processed by news media and absorbed by fans. And one of the simplest ways of looking at free agency is to sort it out as who signed and who got away. As soon as free agency opens there suddenly appears an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside too many media word processors, so that they have only to touch the keyboard for one of them to spring abruptly onto the page. What they always seem to be saying is if you really wanted a player – or wanted to keep one – all you need to do is fuss around a little with the money and it’ll all work out.

Winners and Losers

This sorting is a familiar part of coverage in the early days of free agency. Such tallying promotes a culture of winners and losers and teams are constantly faced with playing up those players they sign and minimizing those that sign elsewhere.

In such an atmosphere and with their hopes riding on what they believe to be the benefits of free agency, the press and public are primed for disappointment when visits – or a lack of same – don’t turn into signings at a quickened pace. Only last year the Kansas City Star could write with less than a week gone into free agency: “The free-agency score – now reading Opponents 3, Kansas City 0. The Chiefs are no closer to filling their need for a starting corner than when free agency began last Wednesday.” (Kansas City Star, March 8, 2005) “Boy, were we wrong,” lamented a reporter at another local paper. “Are the Chiefs just offering us window dressing, and not making an attempt to bolster their defense?” (Independence Examiner, March 9, 2005)

Last Wednesday?

That this sort of rhetoric could exist only after a week of free agency is some indication of just how crucial media continue to believe free agent help to be.

Both national and local media heavily influence the way in which the public have come to understand free agency. They typically have functioned as rather harsh critics of the teams that do not actively participate in free agency, insisting that losing teams must engage in procuring players quickly, overstating the process’s impact, and placing too much emphasis on marquee names who become free agents each off-season. In effect runs a common argument, the work of these writers, talk show hosts and television commentators, extended and strengthened by player agent commentary, self-consciously have created an inaccurate version of free agency that has gained wide acceptance and remains remarkably durable.

Perpetuating the myth

Helping to perpetuate this myth is a fan base that is not the most rational of evaluators. They understandably want victories and as they see other teams adding players, seemingly at will with little regard for the restrictions of a salary cap, they quickly grow impatient when their team does not act in a similar manner. Forget, that upon closer inspection the Chiefs’ record in free agency is quite good. Indeed, the team would likely rank among the NFL’s top ten in successful free agent acquisitions. Marcus Allen, James Hasty, and Priest Holmes, for example, were Pro Bowlers after joining the Chiefs in unrestricted free agency.

Look at the composition of the Chiefs roster a decade removed (2003) from the first year of free agency (1993): more starters who were unrestricted free agents, off-the street free agents and trades than drafted players or signed right-out-of-college free agents. All totaled, six unrestricted free agents (or, as it was known in its earlier version: “Plan B”) the team has signed since 1989 have gone on to become all-pros while playing in Kansas City (a total of 11 if you include players who were all-pros after they re-signed with the team), six have become team MVPs and going into last season I quit counting at 39 major team records held by unrestricted free agents. Now, look at the Pittsburgh Steelers 2003 roster, and follow it up with a look at their Super Bowl roster.

Pittsburgh had 37 players on their roster who were drafted players or college free agents, (63%) in 2003, a marked contrast from Kansas City that year. Of that group 13 were starters. Staying true to form, the Steelers’ roster of their Super Bowl champion team this year again had 37 players acquired the same way. But this time, the champs had 19 starters who came from the draft or were college free agents! More than 77% of Pittsburgh’s starting lineup was comprised of drafted players. Go back a season to the champion New England Patriots and look at their roster. Same story: 55% of the roster came via the draft or were college free agents and 14 of the 22 starters were drafted by the Pats.

Most of these facts have gone unnoticed or ignored. Truly, the media’s lack of history and their evocation of the process has become unintended parody. But if you still remain the most rabid promoter of free agency, you can easily make the point that Kansas City has perhaps been too active in free agency, even with good results. The money spent can be said to have been well spent on most occasions and yet the public perception continues. More perplexing, there is very little carry-over. The enthusiasm for free agents signed one year does not diminish the public’s or media’s enthusiasm the next. Washington routinely draws kudos from its fan base as it reloads year after year, even as it is dumping former signees from its midst a year later. There is always, or seems to be, a new excitement, but at least Washington Post columnist Tony Kornheieser, for one, has found occasion to sarcastically note: “Oh, free agency has really worked out so far for the Redskins, hasn’t it?”

But if you still don’t have a sense of how a winning roster is built, you should at least have a sense of history. The media too often has neither. Hey, wasn’t that Ty Law I saw out at KCI today?

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2006/03...t_to_be_a_law/

Oh boy, he said Ty Law, again .:shake:

Agree with what most of what Rufus says.

Don't agree with this team's apparent need to engage in a pissing match with local media.

Also don't like that every year the Chiefs put out this article, citing successful teams that buld through the draft, without ever addressing how horrible the Chiefs are at drafting.

You want to convince us that champions are built throught the draft? Start drafting better. In the meantime, we need a DT because Downing, Sims, and Siavii didn't pan out, we need a CB because Bartee didn't pan out, we need a WR because Minnis and Morris didn't pan out, etc. etc. etc.

That's the point of the article, IMO.

I'm just glad Herm has made changes in the scouting department.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

The point of the article is to convince us that we don't need free agents because good teams build via the draft.

What Rufus doesn't understand is that a lot of Chiefs fans want to fill holes through FA because they know we're unlikely to succeed doing it through the draft.

I think you read too much into it. Rufus thinks that drafting well is the way to build a team and that free agency isn't the panacea everyone(the media and fans) makes it out to be.
I don't see "The Chiefs don't need free agents" anywhere in the article.

Im disappointed in Rufus, he mailed this one in. He wrote the same one last year.

Bob Dole hopes that brings about some positive change.

It's an article on the Chiefs website by a writer on the Chiefs payroll, who's sole purpose seems to be making excuses for the Chiefs.

I can connect the dots easily enough.

Right...see the 2005 offseason, when KC didnt do a damn thing in FA.

Look at the title of the article. It's an article about why the Chiefs don't need Ty Law. Dawes is a PR vehicle for the Chiefs. You'll never convince me otherwise. Where else is he published besides kcchiefs.com?

I'm not commenting on what the team should or should not do in regards to FA.

But if the organization wants to keep telling fans that we don't need FA player X, because good teams build through the draft, then the organization is going to have to actually build through the draft. They are trying to tell Joe Chiefs fan that we don't need Law because NE and PIT built championship teams with good drafting. But Joe Chiefs fan looks at our drafts, and questions whether the Chiefs can succeed on the same path as NE or PIT.

I don't give a shit about Law. I can give 100 reasons why I don't want him and the team shouldn't draft him. But I'm tired of the KC mouthpiece telling me that a team should succeed using a particular model, when they are clearly incapable of replicating that model.

Nice take you yes man.

When was the last time we developed a QB out of the draft? Can anyone say never.

When's the last time we really tried?

KC hasn't used a high draft pick on a QB since Matt Blundin in '92.

There's this attitude that KC can't develop a QB, but we haven't made a serious effort in 13 years.

Alfonzo Hodge is a perfect example of this. As weak as our CB's were last year, Hodge should've played a lot of downs in our nickel packages (and if we did a good job of drafting, he would've played well). Then when Warfield was cut, instead of clamoring for Ty Law, the fans would see the natural progression of Hodge moving into the starting position.

Same with Siavii at DT. Our DT's were horrible. Sims was hurt most of the year. Siavii should've played a lot in his 2nd year (and if we did a good job of drafting, he would've played well). He should've been pushing Dalton to the point where it's an easy decision to let Dalton walk because Siavii is ready to step in.

But no Chief fan in their right mind will say that Hodge and Siavii should be penciled in as starters next season. How can Rufus blame the fans and media for wanting FA's to come in and start at those positions? And should we really expect rookies from this year's draft to come in and start at those positions?

Sure, Rufus will blame media/fans for not being patient enough to let players like Siavii and Hodge develop, but he doesn't say a word about the coaches who didn't give them any playing time for experience and to see if they are worthy of future starting positions. Instead, we just get the B.S. from Rand about how the Chiefs were patient with Warfield and gave him enough time (8 years) to fulfill his Pro Bowl (7th round) skills. Sorry, for most teams, NFL means Not For Long if you don't show anything in the first season or two.

yep


pimping the draft doesn't do any good if the chiefs suck at drafting.


look ... the main idea of this article and virtually every Dawes article is to perform some kind of PR spin for the chiefs.

if the the chiefs aren't going to spend much in free agency then by golly, along comes a Dawes story that says free agency is over-rated.

if someone in the media points out something done wrong by the chiefs ........... along comes a Dawes article talking about how stupid the media is.


it's like asking the salesman whether you should buy something from his store ............ of course he's gonna say yes.

Dawes is a worthless shill

Right...which is why I said it appears to be the same anti FA rant that Dawes did last year when Jason was on the "Sign Ty Law or we'll burn Arrowhead Down Tour".

Same article as last year...last year KC goes FA crazy, this year, they likely dont. It still doesnt change the fact that Dawes had a similar article like last year.

I understand your bias.

:clap:

Maybe Hermie can change this.

you can almost predict the subject of the next Dawes article by what is happening to the chiefs.

i imagine the next article will be about how the voters were smart or stupid depending on how they vote on the tax for the upgrades to the chiefs.

then of course we'll get an article about how you can't tell how successful a draft is until 3 years down the road to cover any possible chief blunders in the draft.

then we will get another free agency article about how the best free agents are the cheap ones leftover at the end.

blah,blah,blah ... someone should stab Dawes in the face with a fork.

I'd say that's pretty astute, Laz...the articles definately follow a pattern.

He's right, the media is wrong. **** the media and I'm glad someone said it.

What are you going to tell us next, "Rufus", that we're not true fans unless we're season ticket holders. As a collective fan base, we know the Chiefs are in the bottom 5 of the league in evaluating, drafting, and developing 1st day talent. That's why so much emphasis and hope is placed in free agency. Without our success at it, we'd be the Arizona Cardinals. Come to think of it, they've played in the same number of playoff games as we have since '98.

Ok, so what's the beef? If it doesnt matter what the team does, why the whining?

Ouch! That freakin' hurts.....

And nothing will ever change until empty seats show on game days at Arrowhead....because we all know it's all about making money

Dammit Carl!

The only way I can look at the draft positive is maybe Herm has a better idea for players than our previous coaches. Most of our early picks, it was pretty apparent Carl let Dick take who he wanted, other than LJ who was the best pick of the Vermeil era.

Yeah, I'm not sure our scouts are that bad... Dick/Gunther and Carl and the coaches usually eat up the first day picks... we've actually had some good 2nd day picks over the years.

Actually the last 3 years or so I think we've drafted better, hopefully we keep moving in that direction. Especially on defense, we've drafted the pieces for a nucleus... Allen, Mitchell, DJ, plus having Surtain in there. I don't think we have to sign a superstar player to make this team better.

Connecting the dots is something children do in coloring books. You see it as excuses. I see it as his opinion. Neither of us can prove the other wrong so there's no use arguing over it.
Bottom line, the Chiefs aren't going to be very active in free agency this offseason. The media and many fans will be pissed off and accuse the Chiefs of not caring about improving the team...it's as predictable as the sun's rising and setting.

I heard on Chiefsplanet that Kawika Mitchell sucked and that we'd be better off with Rich Scanlon playing because he played so much better in preseason.

Actually in retrospect, you don't even have to connect the dots. The article is clearly about not signing high dollar free agents (in this case Law).

Like I said in my other post, this isn't about what I think they should do in FA. I've already accepted that this organization has down FA years, and 2006 is going to be one of them.

My problem is that the KC mouthpiece is trying to tell us they aren't doing it because they want to build their team like NE and PIT. This isn't about whether or not they will spend this year. It's about the ridiculous ruse they are trying to pull to excuse it.

I'm just hoping that Herm can change our fortunes with the draft.

They did a pretty good job with defensive players in NY.

Agreed. My take on the problem is that the decision makers reach for picks rather than go by the board drawn up by the scouts.

Adding a few solid, reasonable priced vets would have more impact on this team, IMO, than just one superstar. More realistic too, given that Lamar probably won't/doesn't want to write big signing bonus checks.

Yeah, Herm can slap Gunther's hand away from the next Siavii.

Carl has stated we want to get younger at the corner spot-Ty is out.