Is there a correlation between being active in FA and having success?
 

Frankie's thread got me thinking...as well as when a CP member actually said (Pre Jones signing) that this felt like Christmas Day...but going downstairs and finding no presents.

I thought the Christmas day \ FA comparison was silly.

But the truth is out there I suppose?

Is there really a correlation between being active in Free Agency and success in the legaue?

No it's not about being active it's about making the right move when the opportunity presents itself.

Agreed. But people seem to be really frustrated literally because we are not active.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=224607

When was the last time we were really active in the fa market?
Posted via Mobile Device

I am a bit frusrated with all that money the Chiefs have really they could afford to sign a guy like Dansby which would go along way to fixing the defense. We already should have made an offer to Atogwae.

It was.....No .........uh.....Fugg if I know.

Who is consistently the most active team in Free Agency?

This isn't a trap I am not trying to prove a point. I really am interested to see if there is much a connection. My gut says there is not.

Gun's shopping list? :)

Define active? Signing the top tier free agents or just guys in general? It seems the Patriots sign guys every year, Washington, Denver.

Yea I guess it is tough to define isn't it?

People on here are often frustrated with our activity in FA but when I look at Denver? They seem to be very very active and they seem to get a whole lot of shit performances from players they were counting on.

The Chiefs sign free agents every year but they don't sign 1st or even 2nd tier guys so I haven't considered them active in free agency for 3 years now. The draft is the most important part but the reason why some people want the Chiefs to be more active is because there are so many holes on this team theres no way you can fill them all in 1 or 2 drafts.

I think it pisses fans off when the organization will say we will be active, and then we go out and do shit like re-signing Vrabel. Moves like that make people think that the Chiefs view on FA and the fans view's are 2 entirely different things. This team hasn't gone out and signed a big name 1-tier FA in God knows how long. It makes sense to do sometimes when you think you need that 1-2 players to get the team over the hump. At times when this team has been in that position, the front office fails to capitalize.

Ray Crocket, Neil Smith, Keith Traylor, Romo, Alfred Williams, Darrien Gordon, Ed McCaffery, Gary Zimmerman, Mark Schlereth, Tony Jones... I know there were more, but if Shanny doesn't bring those guys in no way does Denver win back to back SB's.

I have no doubt they are. Is that bad?

Without those signings you're probably cheering for another team. Douche.

sure there is, there are also one's who are active every year and never see success. It just depends on what you need and who you get.

ROFL

So your answer is "No"

yup

2003

being smart about evaluating talent leads to success regardless of the avenue you take

I don't think there's a guarantee no matter what you do. See the Redskins.

Most ways it's not. Obviously they're the pros, but in some ways its bad. Esp now when they're trying desperately to sell season tickets. I'm not saying that this team should sign as many big FA's as they can and use all the cap room (if there is a cap). But then again you can't do everything via the draft, and the 3rd tier FA's I wouldn't even call stop gaps. I understand that you don't want to bomb on a FA signing. then again a lot of times you get what you pay for. I mean is Vrabel really helping this team become a better defense?

The draft and FA aren't mutually exclusive.

Are we losing a lot by signing him? I don't think there is anything we can't do because we signed Vrabel.

Dallas and Washington come to mind.

We wouldn't lose a thing by signing me, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be ****ing stupid.

Without a consistently applied, proven program that doesnt change primary coaches & philosophies every year or two... without a real foundation, ie; Skins, Fade etc... No. It usually smells of desperation & nets few lasting results.

'A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week' - George Patton.

That sounds like a reasonable comparison.

Before Thomas it seemed the sentiment was sign people with big dollars. The whole Chicago 40 million in one day matches Chiefs payroll logic was making my brain bleed. It's not the amount of money spent it's the quality bought.

I dunno. Signing people off a message board could lead to big revenues.

Not really.

I'm not an over-the-hill broke dick.

IMO the majority of the frustration is that the Chiefs have alot of holes that need to be filled and they have the lowest payroll in the NFL and aren't spending any money to acquire better talent. So basically they look cheap.

The drama.

Which?

I love plays.