Gretz thinks we should sacrifice the cap in 06 and 07 and go all out in FA... - Page 2

Chiefs Pantalones · 01-29-2005, 01:58 PM

GRETZ: Bubbling Mailbag
Jan 28, 2005, 5:41:51 AM by Bob Gretz

This week’s epistles on the conference championship games and Ty Law have drawn plenty of reaction from the readers. So, let’s hit the mail bag.

From Steve: “How was Bill Cowher able to rebuild the Steelers so quickly, going from 6-10 to 15-1? I know they didn’t win the AFC Championship Game, but they were there. How did they do it, and why can’t the Chiefs do the same thing?”

Good question, Steve. However, remember this, there have been plenty of examples in recent seasons of teams that have gone from outhouse to penthouse in one season. Don’t forget, Dick Vermeil’s Rams did just that in 1999 and won the Super Bowl. Those stories do not guarantee long-term success. Let’s see what the Steelers are able to do in 2005 before we say Cowher has built a contender that will last.

But here’s how Cowher got this thing done: he went back to his roots. He had been trying to open up his offense with the passing game for the last few years and that produced mixed results at best. This year, he went back to the running game. He signed free agent Duce Staley for a contract that hardly broke the Pittsburgh bank. Jerome Bettis decided to stay around at a reduced price. Defensively, they got big seasons out of LB James Farrior and S Troy Polamalu, but the big addition was the return of coordinator Dick LeBeau, who brought back the Blitzburgh-style defense.

The Steelers are a very stable organization and that allows a coach to make decision based on what he believes, not what he needs to do to satisfy the owner. Now, on the situation with Ty Law; reaction ran 75-25 against the Chiefs going after the Patriots veteran cornerback. Here are just some of the reactions:

“Spend millions on an over 30-year old corner? That’s crazy … You pointed out many of the negatives involving Law; it’s not worth the risk … the Chiefs need to do something and stop sitting on their hands in free agency, so why not go after Law? Go after somebody? … Law would fill a hole in the Chiefs defense for 2005. What’s wrong with signing him?”

As I wrote earlier in the week, Law may not be a bad signee, if he’s healthy and his money demands are realistic. But we also must remember this: right now Law is not a free agent. He’s under contract to the Patriots, and yes his cap number means that deal will be re-negotiated. Until he becomes available, yapping about Law seems rather senseless.

Now, the question (If not Law, then who?) is legitimate. Unfortunately, right now it’s a waste of time trying to outline the possibilities. Free agency does not begin until March 2nd. In the time between now and then, there are a host of potential free agents who will re-sign with their teams and will not become available. There’s another handful of players that are under contract for next year, but they will become available because of salary cap concerns.

Rest assured the Chiefs know the potential free agents, and the other players who may become cap casualties. And also rest assured the Chiefs will go out and sign some free agents this year. I’m not sure why everyone assumes they will sit out the free agency season: Carl Peterson is on record saying the team will have money under the cap to go after several players.

Let’s wrap it up with this e-mail from ChiefsGiant: “Here’s what I want to know: are the Chiefs going to go for it in 2005, with it being Dick Vermeil’s last season, or are they going to approach the season as part of the so-called “big picture”? Personally, I want to go for it, but I also don’t know if I could take spending a couple years going 4-12 if we blow up the salary cap and end up having to dump players. What are the Chiefs going to do?”

Now, here’s the best question of the week. ChiefsGiant, you are right, it’s not who, it’s what are the Chiefs going to do? The last time the organization said collectively “Let’s Go For It” was 1998, when they took chances on players like Chester McGlockton and continued to roll the dice with guys like Andre Rison and Wayne Simmons. That blew up in the team’s face and ultimately drove Marty Schottenheimer into a short retirement.

But like you ChiefsGiant, I think they should go for it. This offensive talent is not going to be around here forever. Sacrifice the cap in 2006 and 2007 and make a run for the title. If not, then 2005 becomes a lame duck season.

sorry if repost

Frazod · 01-30-2005, 12:26 PM

I'm fairly convinced that the current combo of owner/GM/HC won't win a goddamn thing. And since at least one of them will be gone after 2005, I'd rather not hamstring the replacments by immediately dumping them in cap hell.

Hoover · 01-30-2005, 12:33 PM

We have to do something? There are plenty of good LBs that will be FAs we shouldgrab at least one, and we must get a CB. Then draft a Corner and a DE

Chris Meck · 01-30-2005, 12:47 PM

The thing about free agency is that most of the time, it's not the big name guys that make the big impact.

Take the Patriots, for example. Now this year, they went out and got Corey Dillon, who was certainly a big name FA. However, that's not their usual M.O.

Ordinarily, they take small risks in the market; on guys like Harrison that maybe have a little left in the tank, but are no longer high salary guys.

It's NOT a team of stars. It's a TEAM of role players. That's how they dominate year in and year out. That, and of course, they draft well.

The Chiefs don't seem to draft all that well, although I don't think they're as bad as they are often made out to be. Year before last, we tried the FA market, but Barber and Holliday didn't have any impact.

All I'm saying is that I hope we're smart in our free agent signings and look to improve the team in several spots rather than just throw a ton of money at one or two guys.

Chris

WilliamTheIrish · 01-30-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

The thing about free agency is that most of the time, it's not the big name guys that make the big impact.

Take the Patriots, for example. Now this year, they went out and got Corey Dillon, who was certainly a big name FA. However, that's not their usual M.O.

Ordinarily, they take small risks in the market; on guys like Harrison that maybe have a little left in the tank, but are no longer high salary guys.

It's NOT a team of stars. It's a TEAM of role players. That's how they dominate year in and year out. That, and of course, they draft well.

The Chiefs don't seem to draft all that well, although I don't think they're as bad as they are often made out to be. Year before last, we tried the FA market, but Barber and Holliday didn't have any impact.

All I'm saying is that I hope we're smart in our free agent signings and look to improve the team in several spots rather than just throw a ton of money at one or two guys.

Chris

Chris, you make a pretty solid point. With exception of Richard Seymour, the Pat's D doesn't have many stars. McGinest? Eh, maybe. Bruschi is more a cult hero than a true star but still he's the next best thing to real star.

Harrison is a great example. Personally, I thought he was done. Another shining example of there FA signings is K. Traylor, who WE signed off the woodpile, and he made his way back to Denver when Carl lowballed him.
We shoulda signed him long term after the 96 season.

Dammit Carl.

Mr. Laz · 01-30-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69

I am convinced that going after the highest priced free agents makes a team worse

i disagree ... i think being wishy-washy in free agency makes you worse.

go cheap or go all out

screwing around in the middle and trying to hedge your bet just gets you nothing.

go bo · 01-30-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

Chris, you make a pretty solid point. With exception of Richard Seymour, the Pat's D doesn't have many stars. McGinest? Eh, maybe. Bruschi is more a cult hero than a true star but still he's the next best thing to real star.

Harrison is a great example. Personally, I thought he was done. Another shining example of there FA signings is K. Traylor, who WE signed off the woodpile, and he made his way back to Denver when Carl lowballed him.
We shoulda signed him long term after the 96 season.

Dammit Carl.

but i bet traylor is very happy that carl lowballed him, since he ended up on the super bowl champion pat's team...

Chiefs Pantalones · 01-30-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

Chris, you make a pretty solid point. With exception of Richard Seymour, the Pat's D doesn't have many stars. McGinest? Eh, maybe. Bruschi is more a cult hero than a true star but still he's the next best thing to real star.

Harrison is a great example. Personally, I thought he was done. Another shining example of there FA signings is K. Traylor, who WE signed off the woodpile, and he made his way back to Denver when Carl lowballed him.
We shoulda signed him long term after the 96 season.

Dammit Carl.

That wasn't Carl's fault. Marty said Traylor would never be a starter in the NFL, and that fueled Traylor from then on out.

go bo · 01-30-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Special Ed

That wasn't Carl's fault. Marty said Traylor would never be a starter in the NFL, and that fueled Traylor from then on out.

oh sure, blame it on poor marty...

WilliamTheIrish · 01-30-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go bo

but i bet traylor is very happy that carl lowballed him, since he ended up on the super bowl champion pat's team...

Prior to that he signed in Denver and came back here and kicked Grunhard and Co's ass in the 97 playoff game.

Not to mention he won two rings.

WilliamTheIrish · 01-30-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Special Ed

That wasn't Carl's fault. Marty said Traylor would never be a starter in the NFL, and that fueled Traylor from then on out.

I remember a specific quote from Carl, that when Traylor left for Denver, Carl mentioned that players should be grateful, (maybe he used 'loyal') when rescueing there careers. (Which Carl felt he did in Traylor's case.)

Chiefs Pantalones · 01-30-2005, 01:14 PM

Not everything the Pats do will work for everyone else. Teams have gotten to the Super Bowl in different ways of building their teams. There is no one right way, but just do it. You gotta have balance, and achieve that whichever way you can, whether it be through FA, or the draft, both, whatever. Just build one with balance the best way you can. That's why, IMO, the Pats are so impressive as a team and as an organization. They built their team with balance being the goal. Once again, their way won't work for everyone, but balance must be the goal. You can't win with a half of a team, like the Chiefs and Colts have. You can't put all the money on one side of the ball.

Chiefs Pantalones · 01-30-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

I remember a specific quote from Carl, that when Traylor left for Denver, Carl mentioned that players should be grateful, (maybe he used 'loyal') when rescueing there careers. (Which Carl felt he did in Traylor's case.)

Carl may have said that, but Marty did say that Traylor would never be a starter in the league. That pissed him off.

01-29-2005, 01:58 PM
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $7888717	Gretz thinks we should sacrifice the cap in 06 and 07 and go all out in FA... GRETZ: Bubbling Mailbag Jan 28, 2005, 5:41:51 AM by Bob Gretz This week’s epistles on the conference championship games and Ty Law have drawn plenty of reaction from the readers. So, let’s hit the mail bag. From Steve: “How was Bill Cowher able to rebuild the Steelers so quickly, going from 6-10 to 15-1? I know they didn’t win the AFC Championship Game, but they were there. How did they do it, and why can’t the Chiefs do the same thing?” Good question, Steve. However, remember this, there have been plenty of examples in recent seasons of teams that have gone from outhouse to penthouse in one season. Don’t forget, Dick Vermeil’s Rams did just that in 1999 and won the Super Bowl. Those stories do not guarantee long-term success. Let’s see what the Steelers are able to do in 2005 before we say Cowher has built a contender that will last. But here’s how Cowher got this thing done: he went back to his roots. He had been trying to open up his offense with the passing game for the last few years and that produced mixed results at best. This year, he went back to the running game. He signed free agent Duce Staley for a contract that hardly broke the Pittsburgh bank. Jerome Bettis decided to stay around at a reduced price. Defensively, they got big seasons out of LB James Farrior and S Troy Polamalu, but the big addition was the return of coordinator Dick LeBeau, who brought back the Blitzburgh-style defense. The Steelers are a very stable organization and that allows a coach to make decision based on what he believes, not what he needs to do to satisfy the owner. Now, on the situation with Ty Law; reaction ran 75-25 against the Chiefs going after the Patriots veteran cornerback. Here are just some of the reactions: “Spend millions on an over 30-year old corner? That’s crazy … You pointed out many of the negatives involving Law; it’s not worth the risk … the Chiefs need to do something and stop sitting on their hands in free agency, so why not go after Law? Go after somebody? … Law would fill a hole in the Chiefs defense for 2005. What’s wrong with signing him?” As I wrote earlier in the week, Law may not be a bad signee, if he’s healthy and his money demands are realistic. But we also must remember this: right now Law is not a free agent. He’s under contract to the Patriots, and yes his cap number means that deal will be re-negotiated. Until he becomes available, yapping about Law seems rather senseless. Now, the question (If not Law, then who?) is legitimate. Unfortunately, right now it’s a waste of time trying to outline the possibilities. Free agency does not begin until March 2nd. In the time between now and then, there are a host of potential free agents who will re-sign with their teams and will not become available. There’s another handful of players that are under contract for next year, but they will become available because of salary cap concerns. Rest assured the Chiefs know the potential free agents, and the other players who may become cap casualties. And also rest assured the Chiefs will go out and sign some free agents this year. I’m not sure why everyone assumes they will sit out the free agency season: Carl Peterson is on record saying the team will have money under the cap to go after several players. Let’s wrap it up with this e-mail from ChiefsGiant: “Here’s what I want to know: are the Chiefs going to go for it in 2005, with it being Dick Vermeil’s last season, or are they going to approach the season as part of the so-called “big picture”? Personally, I want to go for it, but I also don’t know if I could take spending a couple years going 4-12 if we blow up the salary cap and end up having to dump players. What are the Chiefs going to do?” Now, here’s the best question of the week. ChiefsGiant, you are right, it’s not who, it’s what are the Chiefs going to do? The last time the organization said collectively “Let’s Go For It” was 1998, when they took chances on players like Chester McGlockton and continued to roll the dice with guys like Andre Rison and Wayne Simmons. That blew up in the team’s face and ultimately drove Marty Schottenheimer into a short retirement. But like you ChiefsGiant, I think they should go for it. This offensive talent is not going to be around here forever. Sacrifice the cap in 2006 and 2007 and make a run for the title. If not, then 2005 becomes a lame duck season. sorry if repost
Posts: 26,630

01-30-2005, 12:26 PM	#16
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $2585085	I'm fairly convinced that the current combo of owner/GM/HC won't win a goddamn thing. And since at least one of them will be gone after 2005, I'd rather not hamstring the replacments by immediately dumping them in cap hell.
Posts: 119,583

01-30-2005, 12:33 PM	#17
Hoover Rufus Dawes Jr. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $1178179	We have to do something? There are plenty of good LBs that will be FAs we shouldgrab at least one, and we must get a CB. Then draft a Corner and a DE
Posts: 17,400

01-30-2005, 12:47 PM	#18
Chris Meck MVP Join Date: May 2001 Location: midtown KC Casino cash: $1554910	The thing about free agency is that most of the time, it's not the big name guys that make the big impact. Take the Patriots, for example. Now this year, they went out and got Corey Dillon, who was certainly a big name FA. However, that's not their usual M.O. Ordinarily, they take small risks in the market; on guys like Harrison that maybe have a little left in the tank, but are no longer high salary guys. It's NOT a team of stars. It's a TEAM of role players. That's how they dominate year in and year out. That, and of course, they draft well. The Chiefs don't seem to draft all that well, although I don't think they're as bad as they are often made out to be. Year before last, we tried the FA market, but Barber and Holliday didn't have any impact. All I'm saying is that I hope we're smart in our free agent signings and look to improve the team in several spots rather than just throw a ton of money at one or two guys. Chris
Posts: 17,575

01-30-2005, 01:14 PM	#26
Chiefs Pantalones GO CHIEFS!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $7888717	Not everything the Pats do will work for everyone else. Teams have gotten to the Super Bowl in different ways of building their teams. There is no one right way, but just do it. You gotta have balance, and achieve that whichever way you can, whether it be through FA, or the draft, both, whatever. Just build one with balance the best way you can. That's why, IMO, the Pats are so impressive as a team and as an organization. They built their team with balance being the goal. Once again, their way won't work for everyone, but balance must be the goal. You can't win with a half of a team, like the Chiefs and Colts have. You can't put all the money on one side of the ball. __________________ Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white.
Posts: 26,630