Surprise!! Rufus knocks free agency (again)

shaneo69 · 01-27-2005, 09:02 AM

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?

shaneo69 · 01-27-2005, 09:09 AM

One more nice thing about Carl Peterson leaving after the 2005 season.....we won't have to read Rufus' propaganda crap anymore.

jspchief · 01-27-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaneo69

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

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?

Until we start evaluating talent like those teams, it does us no good to follow their formula. The key ingredient in doing it the way "those guys" do is drafting Willie Mcginests instead of Ryan Sims. The Chiefs payrolled excuse-makers seem to be oblivious to that.

Besides, the Eagles spent money on two of the biggest FAs to come out last year.

Otter · 01-27-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

You can search the archives and you’ll find a fairly convincing case that building through free agency doesn’t work.

If this guy wants to preach "learn from history" he needs to look at what standing pat has done for the Chiefs in the past.

Rufus is an idiot, I can't make it more than 3 paragraphs into his articles anymore.

HC_Chief · 01-27-2005, 09:16 AM

fuck Rufus.

Eleazar · 01-27-2005, 09:18 AM

Not one of your best columns, Titus

nmt1 · 01-27-2005, 09:19 AM

Can you guys actually refute anything he says?

nmt1 · 01-27-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

If this guy wants to preach "learn from history" he needs to look at what standing pat has done for the Chiefs in the past.

Rufus is an idiot, I can't make it more than 3 paragraphs into his articles anymore.

Standing pat by trading for Trent Green and signing Priest Holmes or standing pat by signing Holiday, Barber, and McLeon?

Eleazar · 01-27-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

If this guy wants to preach "learn from history" he needs to look at what standing pat has done for the Chiefs in the past.

Rufus is an idiot, I can't make it more than 3 paragraphs into his articles anymore.

No kidding. If we had drafted anyone who panned out on defense then we might be able to follow the Patriots' model. But I guess they aren't interested in competing now, just waiting who knows how long until they figure out how to choose talent in the draft.

HC_Chief · 01-27-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmt1

Can you guys actually refute anything he says?

What's to refute? All he does is refute Fatlock's article re: Law. He's a boring blowhard. I just wish our front office and coaching staff didn't think like him: no guts, no glory... play it safe, settle for mediocrity.

Gaz · 01-27-2005, 09:26 AM

I read the article and missed the part where he “knocks free agency (again).”

Can someone help me out?

xoxo~
Gaz
Not as sharp as he used to be.

Otter · 01-27-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmt1

Standing pat by trading for Trent Green and signing Priest Holmes or standing pat by signing Holiday, Barber, and McLeon?

Standing Pat last season last season and 1997 to "retain our own players" is what I had in mind.

Fat Elvis · 01-27-2005, 09:29 AM

Rufus-

Here is a clue: We aren't the Pats, Eagles, or Steelers. They have personel departments that can judge talent. We don't.

nmt1 · 01-27-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

What's to refute? All he does is refute Fatlock's article re: Law. He's a boring blowhard. I just wish our front office and coaching staff didn't think like him: no guts, no glory... play it safe, settle for mediocrity.

I'd encourage you to read the article again but this time put aside your frustration with the team, read it slowly, and make an effort to understand it. If you don't agree with it and can make a poignant argument against what he writes then I'll listen to your arguements.

nmt1 · 01-27-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Standing Pat last season last season and 1997 to "retain our own players" is what I had in mind.

Technically, we didn't stand pat last season. The players we retained were free agents. Our front office, whether it be a good or bad decision, decided they wanted to stay with what they knew and stuck to that strategy. Also, we hired a new defensive coordinator, signed an interior defensive lineman who played halfway decent this season, and tried to address the defense through the draft with Siavii, Allen and others.
I don't agree at all the we stood pat or didn't try to improve. Whether the strategy worked is the debatable point.

01-27-2005, 09:02 AM
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	Surprise!! Rufus knocks free agency (again) 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?
Posts: 4,910

01-27-2005, 09:09 AM	#2
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	One more nice thing about Carl Peterson leaving after the 2005 season.....we won't have to read Rufus' propaganda crap anymore.
Posts: 4,910

01-27-2005, 09:16 AM	#5
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	fuck Rufus. __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

01-27-2005, 09:18 AM	#6
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	Not one of your best columns, Titus
Posts: 80,659

01-27-2005, 09:19 AM	#7
nmt1 Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	Can you guys actually refute anything he says?
Posts: 1,735

01-27-2005, 09:26 AM	#11
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	Knee-jerk anti-Rufus (again)... I read the article and missed the part where he “knocks free agency (again).” Can someone help me out? xoxo~ Gaz Not as sharp as he used to be.
Posts: 5,911

01-27-2005, 09:29 AM	#13
Fat Elvis Sexiest Athlete Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $-2058075	Rufus- Here is a clue: We aren't the Pats, Eagles, or Steelers. They have personel departments that can judge talent. We don't.
Posts: 12,703