WE ARE GOING TO GET TY LAW!!!!!!! - Page 6

SLAG · 10:38 PM

Per
Jack Harry on 10PM News

Willie Roaf has Now Restructured his contract...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild Eyed Jack Harry

..THIS MEANS WE ARE GOING TO FREE CAP SPACE.... THE CHIEFS CAN GO GET TY LAW... THE CHIEFS ARE GOING TO GET TY LAW...

Mr. Laz · 07-12-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aarowheadnation

Won't the front office have to be thinking about stowing away some extra funds to pay LJ once his contract is up?

his contract has 3 more years

hypersensitiveZO6 · 07-12-2006, 12:02 PM

If Ty Law did sign, Surtain moves to the 2 spot and basically covers the same guy he covered last year-- the 2 receiver.

King_Chief_Fan · 07-12-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I highly doubt Law would have single-handedly held Tiki Barber under 200 yards, and that game really broke the season for us.

He wouldn't have helped the offense score against Bufalo either.
Wouldn't have changed the Cowboys game
wouldn't have etc. etc.

Bootlegged · 07-12-2006, 12:04 PM

YAY!!!!!!

Brock · 07-12-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

his contract has 3 more years

At least 2 of which will never see the light of day.

bobbything · 07-12-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

I highly doubt Law would have single-handedly held Tiki Barber under 200 yards, and that game really broke the season for us.

Hmmm, I personally think blowing an 18 point lead, at home, to the eventual 6-10 Phillidelphia Eagles is what broke the season. Win that game, and we're in the playoffs.

NY was on the road against a playoff team. I think the Buffalo game was more so of a season-breaker than the Giants game. JMO.

htismaqe · 07-12-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbything

Hmmm, I personally think blowing an 18 point lead, at home, to the eventual 6-10 Phillidelphia Eagles is what broke the season. Win that game, and we're in the playoffs.

NY was on the road against a playoff team. I think the Buffalo game was more so of a season-breaker than the Giants game. JMO.

Would Law have made a difference in the Philly game?

He wouldn't have been playing in place of Kendrell Bell, nor would he have prevented LJ's fumble or Trent's pick six.

Chiefnj · 07-12-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Would Law have made a difference in the Philly game?

He wouldn't have been playing in place of Kendrell Bell, nor would he have prevented LJ's fumble or Trent's pick six.

IF one of his 10 picks came in that game, he might of.

**DaKCMan AP** · 07-12-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperliteZO6

If Ty Law did sign, Surtain moves to the 2 spot and basically covers the same guy he covered last year-- the 2 receiver.

Or would Surtain move to the 2 spot and cover the #1 receiver while Law takes the 1 spot and covers the #2 receiver.

OR...would we keep the RCB, LCB and not 1,2 and have Surtain take the LCB spot and Law the RCB (or vice-versa) and then cover the #1 or #2 depending on which side of the field the receivers line up on. Therefore, each would cover the 1.5 receiver.

milkman · 07-12-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Or would Surtain move to the 2 spot and cover the #1 receiver while Law takes the 1 spot and covers the #2 receiver.

OR...would we keep the RCB, LCB and not 1,2 and have Surtain take the LCB spot and Law the RCB (or vice-versa) and then cover the #1 or #2 depending on which side of the field the receivers line up on. Therefore, each would cover the 1.5 receiver.

Ok, now you're just trying to hurt my head!

htismaqe · 07-12-2006, 12:45 PM

I guarantee you Law would be matched up with whoever lined up on his side of the field.

We don't have #1 and #2, only right and left.

**DaKCMan AP** · 07-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I guarantee you Law would be matched up with whoever lined up on his side of the field.

We don't have #1 and #2, only right and left.

So the 1.5 it is!

Chiefnj · 07-12-2006, 01:13 PM

My final thoughts on Law.

Law would be the best CB on the Chiefs. He excelled in a cover 2 last year and is in all likelihood better in zone coverage than Surtain is. He would provide additional flexibility to run plays where there is a cover 2 look, but the safeties and/or LB's blitz. One may be put off by his "business first" approach to the game, but when he's on the field on Sunday he gives it his all.

I would have no problem spending Lamar's money on the guy. Give him a modest signing bonus and a very high first year base salary.

He's not single handidly going to propel the Chiefs into the playoffs, but he is a major improvement in talent and would provide for some latitude in the defensive scheme if the pure cover 2 isn't generating enough of a pass rush.

**DaKCMan AP** · 07-12-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

My final thoughts on Law.

Law would be the best TE on the Chiefs. He excelled in a cover 2 last year and is in all likelihood better in zone coverage than Surtain is. He would provide additional flexibility to run plays where there is a cover 2 look, but the safeties and/or LB's blitz. One may be put off by his "business first" approach to the game, but when he's on the field on Sunday he gives it his all.

I would have no problem spending Lamar's money on the guy. Give him a modest signing bonus and a very high first year base salary.

He's not single handidly going to propel the Chiefs into the playoffs, but he is a major improvement in talent and would provide for some latitude in the defensive scheme if the pure cover 2 isn't generating enough of a pass rush.

Even better than Tony Gonzalez???

**Gonzo** · 07-12-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

My final thoughts on Law.

Law would be the best TE on the Chiefs. He excelled in a cover 2 last year and is in all likelihood better in zone coverage than Surtain is. He would provide additional flexibility to run plays where there is a cover 2 look, but the safeties and/or LB's blitz. One may be put off by his "business first" approach to the game, but when he's on the field on Sunday he gives it his all.

I would have no problem spending Lamar's money on the guy. Give him a modest signing bonus and a very high first year base salary.

He's not single handidly going to propel the Chiefs into the playoffs, but he is a major improvement in talent and would provide for some latitude in the defensive scheme if the pure cover 2 isn't generating enough of a pass rush.

TE???????? I think not.

07-12-2006, 12:02 PM	#77
hypersensitiveZO6 EK Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: KCMO Casino cash: $10004900	If Ty Law did sign, Surtain moves to the 2 spot and basically covers the same guy he covered last year-- the 2 receiver.
Posts: 2,394

07-12-2006, 12:04 PM	#79
Bootlegged One4Mahomes Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: f Casino cash: $9955545	YAY!!!!!!
Posts: 5,234

07-12-2006, 12:45 PM	#86
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $8139900	I guarantee you Law would be matched up with whoever lined up on his side of the field. We don't have #1 and #2, only right and left.
Posts: 104,350

07-12-2006, 01:13 PM	#88
Chiefnj MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Willis, Harris and Davis. Casino cash: $10004900	My final thoughts on Law. Law would be the best CB on the Chiefs. He excelled in a cover 2 last year and is in all likelihood better in zone coverage than Surtain is. He would provide additional flexibility to run plays where there is a cover 2 look, but the safeties and/or LB's blitz. One may be put off by his "business first" approach to the game, but when he's on the field on Sunday he gives it his all. I would have no problem spending Lamar's money on the guy. Give him a modest signing bonus and a very high first year base salary. He's not single handidly going to propel the Chiefs into the playoffs, but he is a major improvement in talent and would provide for some latitude in the defensive scheme if the pure cover 2 isn't generating enough of a pass rush. __________________ "I always tell (the assistant coaches), 'Make it simple, 'cause I'm stupid,'" Edwards said. "This ain't computer football." Herm Edwards, 3-20-07 Q: Herm, back on December 25th you were asked if Trent Green was your starter going into next season and you said, ‘yeah, why wouldn’t he be?’ Have you changed your mind on that? EDWARDS: No, I have not.” (1-11-07) Last edited by Chiefnj; 07-12-2006 at 01:21 PM..
Posts: 6,811