Surprise!! Rufus knocks free agency (again)

[shaneo69]

DAWES: THIS YEAR'S FREE AGENT DU JOUR
Jan 27, 2005, 1:46:52 AM by Media Watch by Rufus Dawes

The tired voices of past criticism are using another off-season to postulate another Chiefs predicament. Oddly, learning nothing from the immediate past, they are beginning again to advance another generation of tired prognostications. Bob Gretz calls this time of year the “Silly Season” and, indeed, it is. As I sit here in my room in Mobile at the Senior Bowl, I’ve been reading the latest remedy for what ails the Chiefs. From what I understand from the folks back home, names are being tossed around by anybody who’s been able to talk himself onto a radio shout-fest or needs to fill a space in the local newspaper.

Gretz goes on to list some of the familiar player names that have been put out there for the Chiefs to pursue. More column inches have been spent on the notion that unrestricted free agency is a ruse than on any that this writer has contributed to this site. You can search the archives and you’ll find a fairly convincing case that building through free agency doesn’t work. Yes, there are exceptions from time to time but to contend that by signing one or more your season can be turned around it pure nonsense.

One local columnist has never met a marquee free agent name that he didn’t like. Jeff George, Hugh Douglas (he, of “give him the money, Lamar” fame) and Troy Vincent are recent names that come to mind. His latest free-agent du jour, Patriots corner Ty Law, is perhaps his silliest. Should the Chiefs seek out Law if there is a mutual interest? Absolutely. But the cost could be prohibitive considering the player’s age and physical condition. (see more in Gretz) It’s more likely that the Patriots won’t even put up much of a fuss. That’s the Patriots way, and the Steelers way and the Eagles way. Everybody is expendable in their eyes and they quickly part company with starters, all-pros, and such and move to backups. It seems to have worked well, don’t you think?

Consider, if you will, the Patriots who on this year’s trip to the Super Bowl started someone named Randall Gay (undrafted rookie free agent) at left corner and someone named Asante Samuel from that NCAA powerhouse Central Florida at right corner. They finished the season as a top-ten defense and held the explosive Indianapolis Colts offense to no touchdowns in their playoff win. The Pats ranked second in the NFL in points surrendered without last year’s starting corners Ty Law and Tyrone Poole.

So, to run around claiming once again to “give (Law) the money” is to have learned nothing, even if you don’t consider that over the past season the rules affecting cornerback play have changed so significantly as to make the idea of a shut-down corner obsolete.

Champ Bailey’s acquisition by the Denver Broncos last offseason did not improve the team’s defense. The Denver defense was better statistically against the pass in 2003 with Kelly Herndon and Lenny Walls as starters than it was with Bailey as its key cover guy. Denver was a wild card team without him and it was a wild card team with him. Maybe Ty Law would improve the Chiefs defense – it wouldn’t take much – but to throw money at him and sit back and think you’ve cured all of the team’s ills is to have learned nothing about a game you’re charged to provide insight on.

Insight is a term that doesn’t get much traction these days, least of all among some columnists, who prefer to fashion themselves more as entertainers. Good journalism is about linking fact with opinion. Good journalism is about fine analysis and making distinctions and about making a case. Because too many columnists believe they can say whatever they want without having to prove it, we are left with a journalism whose narrative and analytical failings have become ever more glairing. When will they learn and when will we?

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

The Chiefs actually took this guy to the Senior Bowl? Good God, no wonder they've been so futile recently.

why wouldn't they take their General Manager?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by nmt1

Honestly, whether or not Carl sits on his hands is his business, though I don't think he did. For whatever reason, the front office and coaching staff chose to employ the strategy they employed with regard to last offseason and hindsight tells us the strategy wasn't successfull for this past season.

In the name of fairness, I don't think the "hindsight" argument holds weight here.

MANY people here, none of which work for an NFL franchise, said last offseason before any games were played that re-signing our own players would result in a poor season. And we were 100% correct.

[Otter]

I have opinions on the what the Chiefs should do this offseason but I'm not sure that there's neccessarily something wrong with the team in the sense your speaking of.

There is something wrong with the defense.

Since when was the defense not part of the team?

I'll take you as a boss anyday nmt1: low expectations and all-ecompassing excuses for lack of production over such a broad model of consistant end results, or lack there of in this case.

Just let me know where I should send my resume to, with the proper motivation I could be one hell of slacker.

[nmt1]

Originally Posted by Otter

Since when was the defense not part of the team?

I'll take you as a boss anyday nmt: low expectations and plent of hollow excuses for lack of production. Just let me know where I should send my resume to, with the proper motivation I could be one hell of slacker.

I guess I must've been reading more into your statement about something being wrong with the team than was really in it. When you said there's something wrong with the team, I thought you meant something other than a lack of talent or depth. Clearly, there's a lack of talent on the defense that should be addressed.

Regarding my low expectations for the Chiefs, I believe one sets themselves up for disappointment when they expect results out of something they don't control. Why should I have high expectations for the Chiefs? They are a sports team based 1000 miles away from where I live. For me the Chiefs have no deadlines or projects to complete because I'm always going to be a fan win or lose. I'd like to see them win the Superbowl but I have no control over whether or not they do and no control over what they do to try to win the Superbowl. I don't look at the Chiefs as an employee, a friend, or something to prop up my psyche. It doesn't make sense to invest so much of myself in something that's going to end up causing me nothing but heartache particularly now that parity has been the rule. If that makes me less of a fan, then I guess I'm less of a fan. I can tell you this much, I don't lose any sleep over who the Chiefs drafted in the 4th round of the 1986 draft.

Don't try to extrapolate my Chiefs fandom to the rest of my life. It's an innacurate gauge at best.

[nmt1]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

In the name of fairness, I don't think the "hindsight" argument holds weight here.

MANY people here, none of which work for an NFL franchise, said last offseason before any games were played that re-signing our own players would result in a poor season. And we were 100% correct.

I don't deny that many here said that the strategy employed last offseason wouldn't work and were right about it. There were also some here who threw fits when we traded for Trent Green and signed Preist Holmes. For every person around here who's been right about something there's been at least one other who's been totally wrong about something.
IMO, some around here are more interested in proving their football acumen than seeing the Chiefs win, present company excluded.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by nmt1

Don't try to extrapolate my Chiefs fandom to the rest of my life. It's an innacurate gauge at best.

Fair enough on that note.

Why should I have high expectations for the Chiefs? They are a sports team based 1000 miles away from where I live. For me the Chiefs have no deadlines or projects to complete because I'm always going to be a fan win or lose.

Sixteen years ago GM Carl Peterson promised the fans a Super Bowl Appearence in his "five year plan" that came from HIS OWN MOUTH. This statement was a large reason he received his position and was widely accepted.

When is it fair to expect him to live up to his end of the bargin? 5 years later? 10 years later? 16 years later?

Or am I mislead? Are there are no expectations to be taken from that statement and his "we're here to win" speeches every year?

It doesn't make sense to invest so much of myself in something that's going to end up causing me nothing but heartache particularly now that parity has been the rule.

You seem to be investing a good deal of energy trying to contradict our views on the organization.

I don't think anyone is getting ready to throw themself off a bridge or is crying themselves to sleep at night because of this team.

[nmt1]

Originally Posted by Otter

Fair enough on that note.



Sixteen years ago GM Carl Peterson promised the fans a Super Bowl Appearence in his "five year plan" that came from HIS OWN MOUTH. This statement was a large reason he received his position and was widely accepted.

When is it fair to expect him to live up to his end of the bargin? 5 years later? 10 years later? 16 years later?

Or am I mislead? Are there are no expectations to be taken from that statement and his "we're here to win" speeches every year?



You seem to be investing a good deal of energy trying to contradict our views on the organization.

I don't think anyone is getting ready to throw themself off a bridge or is crying themselves to sleep at night because of this team.

I would hope no one is throwing themselves off a bridge just because the Chiefs drafted Kris Wilson last year though judging from some of the reactions you'd have thought someone had killed their dog or worse.

I have about as much of a chance to change your mind about the Chiefs as you do mine so I'm not trying to do that. I do find it interesting that some are quick to write off Rufus Dawes' columns as brown nosing garbage but they treat what's on the radio or in the newspaper as gospel. Guess it's kind of like politics. You listen to and believe in whoever you agree with.

I'm dubious about the 5 year plan thing. I didn't hear the press conference so I don't know exactly what was said. Carl probably did say something like they had a five year plan to get to the Superbowl which I'm sure was blown out of proportion by the media much like what happens currently. His five year plan didn't work. Big deal. Being upset about that is like being upset the Chiefs lost Superbowl I.

[shakesthecat]

Originally Posted by nmt1

Being upset about that is like being upset the Chiefs lost Superbowl I.

Thanks for opening up the wound again, ya bastard.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by nmt1

I have about as much of a chance to change your mind about the Chiefs as you do mine

Fair enough, agree to disagree or whatever is the appropriate decree is in this case.

I'm already over my 'arguing without being paid for it' quota for the next three months.

[nmt1]

Originally Posted by Otter

Fair enough, agree to disagree or whatever is the appropriate decree is in this case.

I'm already over my 'arguing without being paid for it' quota for the next three months.

LOL.

I appreciate your candor.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by nmt1

I do find it interesting that some are quick to write off Rufus Dawes' columns as brown nosing garbage but they treat what's on the radio or in the newspaper as gospel. .

Nobody treats anything like the gospel, but it's amazing that someone defends somebody who is bought and sold by the Chiefs and won't even use his REAL NAME to bag on those that actually support his organization. Get real.