Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Laz

jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.

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.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by jspchief

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.

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.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by TEX

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 it added a player to the roster, who was not as good as the one we lost, then I see your point.

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.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

They stood pat because they kept the same scabs around.

They signed Lional Dalton.

This interior defense needs a lot more than Lional Dalton.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

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.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

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.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by RedBull

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 standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of 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 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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by TEX

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.

And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

[Chiefnj]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

[Mecca]

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.

[ct]

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by coryt

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.

I don't think any of the CB's on our current roster are capable of starting........Now if we draft Antonio Cromartie then that's fine.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

The Dolphins-ication of the Chiefs continues.