PDA

View Full Version : What we should do before the beginning of the 2009 season?



jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 02:24 PM
Well, it's post-draft. While we could all argue for the next few years whether the Chiefs draft was bad or good (and I thought it was great), I think everyone agree we have work still to do to present a competitive team on the field in 2009. Here are my suggestions:

1. Trade our 2nd rounder to the Cards for Anquan Boldin.

The Boldin/Haley spat last season has been massively overrported. Boldin has already said that he would play for Haley again. Trade our second rounder and immediately upgrade our WR spot. Bowe/Boldin/Bradley/Engram would be the best WR corps in the AFC West. And it would be fairly young. This seems like a no-brainer.

BTW, I said our 2nd rounder, not the 2nd rounder for TG, because that it the pick I think Arizona would want.

2. Sign Travis LaBoy to a two-year $3M contract.

A no-brainer. He would be a cheap reserve at OLB (in the 3-4) and DE (in the 4-3). He's familiar with the 3-4. He averages 13 games a season, which isn't great, but he isn't as fragile as people think either.

3. Sign Larry Foote to a two-year $8M contract.

Another no-brainer. He would be starting for us from Game 1 at ILB. Foote is a fantastic ILB who's started for two SB Pittsburgh teams. He hasn't missed a game since his rookie year.

This would give us a LB corps of DJ/Foote/Thomas/Vrabel. Beisel and Laboy would be our main reserves. Hali would be our project at the position. Our LB corps, which was so putrid in 2008, would actually be the strength of the defense.

4. Sign Mark Tauscher or Levi Jones to a one-year contract

Both are coming off injuries. Both are also better than any player we currently have at RT. A one-year contract will be insurance if they get injured again. It will also give the Chiefs time to bring Richardson and/or Brown along.

5. Entertain trade offers for Thigpen and Hali

I like Thigpen. I don't think any player in the NFL could have done much better than he did last season given our OL. He is a good backup. But as we get closer to the beginning of the season, teams like Seattle, Carolina, Tennesse, and Jacksonville with old starting QBs, no legitimate backups, and playoff aspirations might look at Thigpen as an excellent insurance policy. If we get offered a 3rd rounder or above, it might be in our best interest to take it.

As for Hali, he no longer fits our defense. He's a project to be a 3-4 OLB, and he won't even start at DE if we're in a 4-3. If we can get any value for him, let's do so.

6. Get our picks signed and in camp on time

I don't think anyone disagrees.

7. Don't trade LJ or Dorsey

Not only for the cap hit, but because their changed circumstances (LJ's no longer guarenteed and Dorsey's moving to DE) gives them more value than we'd ever get back in a trade.

8. Sign Cassel to a long term contract.

Just do it. Having your potential QBOTF spend a whole year auditioning is only going to lead to holdouts and hurt feelings. We don't need a Cutler situation here.

9. Don't sign Jason Taylor.

Not because he's too old, but because I don't see him having a great place in our defense, and because he doesn't play well in the cold.

Well, those are nine things I think could help the Chiefs in 2009 and beyond. The signings I listed (LaBoy, Foote, and a RT) would total about $9M, Boldin would be about $9M, so we would still have tons of cap room to sign our rookies, even before signing Cassel long term.

Feel free to agree/disagree, or to add your own.

honda522
04-30-2009, 02:38 PM
The only suggestion I have is to get another soild OL in there.

dbolan
04-30-2009, 02:39 PM
The bottom line is that there is money and we definitely have needs at multiple positions...RT, WR and DL included. What they are waiting for, I have no clue.

KottkeKU
04-30-2009, 03:11 PM
The only suggestion I have is to get another soild OL in there.

yes. we still need some starting OL material....and you could throw in LB while your at it...then we should be ok....Bowe + Engram will be the key...and if our TE, Brad Cottam doesnt blow it (like i always said he would...i never liked that pick..) then we will have a good offense... Bowe really needs to step it up though, and emerge as a prime time go to receiver, and take over Tony G's role as the outlet for the QB...Him and Engram will hopefully really open up the offense...

I like the Terrence Copper pick up too, he gives us a blazing fast target down the field on 4 wideout sets...

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 03:18 PM
yes. we still need some starting OL material....and you could throw in LB while your at it...then we should be ok....Bowe + Engram will be the key...and if our TE, Brad Cottam doesnt blow it (like i always said he would...i never liked that pick..) then we will have a good offense... Bowe really needs to step it up though, and emerge as a prime time go to receiver, and take over Tony G's role as the outlet for the QB...Him and Engram will hopefully really open up the offense...

I like the Terrence Copper pick up too, he gives us a blazing fast target down the field on 4 wideout sets...

I never liked the Cottam pick either. One, we didn't need a TE in the 3rd round nearly as badly as we needed OL or LB last year. Second, he's a decent blocker and a decent receiver - but he excels at neither.

My gut says we go with Ryan as our blocker and O'Connell as our receiver. Cottam is reserve/special teams.

Yeah, Copper was a great pickup. He'll be a special teams ace and a burner on those 4WR sets.

tornadospotter
04-30-2009, 03:34 PM
I never liked the Cottam pick either. One, we didn't need a TE in the 3rd round nearly as badly as we needed OL or LB last year. Second, he's a decent blocker and a decent receiver - but he excels at neither.
(you know this how?)
My gut says we go with Ryan as our blocker and O'Connell as our receiver. Cottam is reserve/special teams.

Yeah, Copper was a great pickup. He'll be a special teams ace and a burner on those 4WR sets.
Cottam maybe just what we need.

yashi
04-30-2009, 03:36 PM
I agree with most of it, but strongly disagree about locking up Cassel already. I think it's going to happen, but I'm pretty unhappy about it. He is a risk, and if we end up giving him 30+ million guaranteed we could be set back for a long time if he doesn't pan out.

Can he thrive without the best slot receiver in the league? Without an offense that was the best in NFL history the season before he came along? Why not wait and find out before we make a long time decision? I don't worry about a Cutler situation because: a.) Cassel isn't thin-skinned like Cutler, and b.) His agent isn't Bus Cook.

That said, I also don't trade Thigpen because quite frankly if Cassel turns out to be a system QB who fails outside of New England we need an insurance policy. We at least know what we have with Thigpen: a young, inconsistent QB who has shown he can move the ball down the field and be productive in the right system.

yashi
04-30-2009, 03:43 PM
I never liked the Cottam pick either. One, we didn't need a TE in the 3rd round nearly as badly as we needed OL or LB last year. Second, he's a decent blocker and a decent receiver - but he excels at neither.

My gut says we go with Ryan as our blocker and O'Connell as our receiver. Cottam is reserve/special teams.

whoa, whoa, whoa........what?

Cottam is 6'8" 270 lbs, runs a 4.65 40 and would have been a sure 1st or 2nd round pick last season if he stayed healthy in college. O'Connell is a 7th round rookie and Ryan is a guy who has played on 6 teams in 6 years for a reason (he's not very good).

I get that you don't like Herm Edwards players lamerson, but Pioli would not have traded the best TE in NFL history if he didn't have any confidence in the guy that was drafted to be his successor. How many tight ends in the league have Cottam's size and speed, but also have good hands and blocking ability? Guy has a big ceiling, just needs to stay healthy. He was barely used last year.

Lazeye
04-30-2009, 03:45 PM
I agree with most of it, but strongly disagree about locking up Cassel already. I think it's going to happen, but I'm pretty unhappy about it. He is a risk, and if we end up giving him 30+ million guaranteed we could be set back for a long time if he doesn't pan out.

Can he thrive without the best slot receiver in the league? Without an offense that was the best in NFL history the season before he came along? Why not wait and find out before we make a long time decision? I don't worry about a Cutler situation because: a.) Cassel isn't thin-skinned like Cutler, and b.) His agent isn't Bus Cook.

That said, I also don't trade Thigpen because quite frankly if Cassel turns out to be a system QB who fails outside of New England we need an insurance policy. We at least know what we have with Thigpen: a young, inconsistent QB who has shown he can move the ball down the field and be productive in the right system.
I agree keep Thiggy

Chiefster
04-30-2009, 03:51 PM
What we should do before the beginning of the 2009 season?

...Poison all visiting opponents??? :D

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 03:52 PM
Cottam maybe just what we need.

You are right that I am only judging Cottam's rookie year and his college years. Last year he did not seem to be strong at either skill set, and he didn't exactly post good receiving numbers in college. He has an injury history, and I don't trust him as our primary blocking TE.

TG being in front of him on the depth chart is a big reason he showed nothing last year, I'll completely admit.

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 03:59 PM
whoa, whoa, whoa........what?

Cottam is 6'8" 270 lbs, runs a 4.65 40 and would have been a sure 1st or 2nd round pick last season if he stayed healthy in college. O'Connell is a 7th round rookie and Ryan is a guy who has played on 6 teams in 6 years for a reason (he's not very good).

I get that you don't like Herm Edwards players lamerson, but Pioli would not have traded the best TE in NFL history if he didn't have any confidence in the guy that was drafted to be his successor. How many tight ends in the league have Cottam's size and speed, but also have good hands and blocking ability? Guy has a big ceiling, just needs to stay healthy. He was barely used last year.

Couldn't you flip it around that we wouldn't have traded into the 7th round to get O'Connell or picked up Ryan as a FA if we did have faith in Cottom to be Tony's successor.

I didn't really want to fight about Cottam's abilities. He has every measurable in terms of size, strength and speed. He may turn out to be a terrific TE. If he turns out even to be half of TG, I will grudgingly admit that the 2008 draft wasn't nearly as bad as I think it is.

honda522
04-30-2009, 04:01 PM
yes. we still need some starting OL material....and you could throw in LB while your at it...then we should be ok....Bowe + Engram will be the key...and if our TE, Brad Cottam doesnt blow it (like i always said he would...i never liked that pick..) then we will have a good offense... Bowe really needs to step it up though, and emerge as a prime time go to receiver, and take over Tony G's role as the outlet for the QB...Him and Engram will hopefully really open up the offense...

I like the Terrence Copper pick up too, he gives us a blazing fast target down the field on 4 wideout sets...
Dude, Cottam is going to be special, maybe not as special as Gonzo, but I believe he has great hands.

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 04:13 PM
I agree with most of it, but strongly disagree about locking up Cassel already. I think it's going to happen, but I'm pretty unhappy about it. He is a risk, and if we end up giving him 30+ million guaranteed we could be set back for a long time if he doesn't pan out.

Can he thrive without the best slot receiver in the league? Without an offense that was the best in NFL history the season before he came along? Why not wait and find out before we make a long time decision? I don't worry about a Cutler situation because: a.) Cassel isn't thin-skinned like Cutler, and b.) His agent isn't Bus Cook.

That said, I also don't trade Thigpen because quite frankly if Cassel turns out to be a system QB who fails outside of New England we need an insurance policy. We at least know what we have with Thigpen: a young, inconsistent QB who has shown he can move the ball down the field and be productive in the right system.

Sure it's a risk to sign Cassel long-term. Selecting a franchise QB, either by trade or through the draft and signing him to a contract is a boom-or-bust sort of thing. For every Matt Hasselbeck, there are three AJ Feeleys. For every Peyton Manning, there are three David Carrs.

But we are never going to win anything without a franchise QB. And we'll never get a franchise QB by paying him year to year.

Think about it this way, we're going to pay Cassel less than either the Jets will pay Sanchez or the Lions will pay Stafford. And I'd rather have him than either of them.

yashi
04-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Couldn't you flip it around that we wouldn't have traded into the 7th round to get O'Connell or picked up Ryan as a FA if we did have faith in Cottom to be Tony's successor.

I didn't really want to fight about Cottam's abilities. He has every measurable in terms of size, strength and speed. He may turn out to be a terrific TE. If he turns out even to be half of TG, I will grudgingly admit that the 2008 draft wasn't nearly as bad as I think it is.

Fair point, but to counter I would also wonder why we didn't take Cornelius Ingram in the 5th round, arguably the best pure pass catching TE in the draft if we didn't have faith in Cottam. It has to say something that we drafted for depth at DE, CB, and WR before taking a potential starting TE, and waited all the way until the 7th round to do so. 7th rounders are typically drafted for depth and nothing more, and I strongly feel that was the case here as well. I'd be shocked if Cottam isn't the starting TE every game next season (barring injury).

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 04:24 PM
Fair point, but to counter I would also wonder why we didn't take Cornelius Ingram in the 5th round, arguably the best pure pass catching TE in the draft if we didn't have faith in Cottam. It has to say something that we drafted for depth at DE, CB, and WR before taking a potential starting TE, and waited all the way until the 7th round to do so. 7th rounders are typically drafted for depth and nothing more, and I strongly feel that was the case here as well. I'd be shocked if Cottam isn't the starting TE every game next season (barring injury).

Fair enough. Time will tell.

yashi
04-30-2009, 04:38 PM
Sure it's a risk to sign Cassel long-term. Selecting a franchise QB, either by trade or through the draft and signing him to a contract is a boom-or-bust sort of thing. For every Matt Hasselbeck, there are three AJ Feeleys. For every Peyton Manning, there are three David Carrs.

But we are never going to win anything without a franchise QB. And we'll never get a franchise QB by paying him year to year.

Think about it this way, we're going to pay Cassel less than either the Jets will pay Sanchez or the Lions will pay Stafford. And I'd rather have him than either of them.

Those teams have no choice but to pay Stafford and Sanchez the big bucks, whereas we have options available.

I feel like the best and safest move is to wait until 6-7 games into the season, at which point Pioli can make a conscious decision whether or not to go after Cassel hard with a long-term deal.

I don't expect Cassel to come out and throw for 30 touchdowns next season being that he's going to be in a new system (though with many similarities), but I think we would at least have an idea of whether he has potential as a KC Chief.

He comes out guns ablazing and wows our pants off, cool. He gets his 35 million guaranteed.

He looks completely lost without Wes Welker to dump it off to for 10 easy yards every 3rd down, we wait and reevaluate at the end of the year. I'll take the risk.

Truth be told, there aren't a whole lot of teams who will be looking for a quarterback next season. Lions and Jets have their QBOTF. Rams reached on a guy they must like. Seahawks passed on Sanchez and seem to be confident in Hasselbeck's health and Seneca Wallace for the future. Dolphins appear to be ready to go full Wildcat with White. Vikings and Titans would probably only be interested if he had a good season.

Worst comes to worst, we somehow lose Cassel. I think Thigpen would be happy to resign knowing he'd once again be the starting QB, and because we apparently had a bad season, we'd likely get the first crack at a QB in the draft to groom while we ride the Thig-Train.

Don't get me wrong though. The best case scenario is if we lock Cassel up now and he rips it up. It's also the riskiest.

jmlamerson
04-30-2009, 05:03 PM
Those teams have no choice but to pay Stafford and Sanchez the big bucks, whereas we have options available.

I feel like the best and safest move is to wait until 6-7 games into the season, at which point Pioli can make a conscious decision whether or not to go after Cassel hard with a long-term deal.

I don't expect Cassel to come out and throw for 30 touchdowns next season being that he's going to be in a new system (though with many similarities), but I think we would at least have an idea of whether he has potential as a KC Chief.

He comes out guns ablazing and wows our pants off, cool. He gets his 35 million guaranteed.

He looks completely lost without Wes Welker to dump it off to for 10 easy yards every 3rd down, we wait and reevaluate at the end of the year. I'll take the risk.

Truth be told, there aren't a whole lot of teams who will be looking for a quarterback next season. Lions and Jets have their QBOTF. Rams reached on a guy they must like. Seahawks passed on Sanchez and seem to be confident in Hasselbeck's health and Seneca Wallace for the future. Dolphins appear to be ready to go full Wildcat with White. Vikings and Titans would probably only be interested if he had a good season.

Worst comes to worst, we somehow lose Cassel. I think Thigpen would be happy to resign knowing he'd once again be the starting QB, and because we apparently had a bad season, we'd likely get the first crack at a QB in the draft to groom while we ride the Thig-Train.

Don't get me wrong though. The best case scenario is if we lock Cassel up now and he rips it up. It's also the riskiest.

Let me put it another way. Can you think of any team in NFL history that played around with its QB like that and had it turn out well? You can't, because it always turns out badly.

Your arguments are valid pre-trade arguments. But just as it would be laughable for the Jets to draft Sanchez and try to get him to sign a one-year deal, it's laughable for us to trade a high second rounder for a young QB for one $14M year. If we were a QB away from contention (like the Vikes), I might understand. But we didn't trade for Cassel to contend for a playoff spot in 2009. We did to contend in 2010 and beyond.

In 2010, the Seahawks (they passed on Sanchez because they're smart enough to know Sanchez stinks), Titans, Panthers, and Rams (they didn't draft Keith Null to be a starter) will be looking to draft a QBOTF. The Broncos or Vikings will snatch him up if we're dumb enough to let him go. The 49ers, Browns, Redskins, Panthers, Jaguars, and Bills may be interested as well.

And although I like Thigpen, you are vastly, vastly overestimating his abilities. He's an undersized pistol QB who doesn't break when he gets knocked down and can scamble. That made him better than our other QBs last season. But it was only good enough to win one game out of ten. He isn't a franchise guy.

DT14PRIEST
04-30-2009, 07:18 PM
I agree with most of it, but strongly disagree about locking up Cassel already. I think it's going to happen, but I'm pretty unhappy about it. He is a risk, and if we end up giving him 30+ million guaranteed we could be set back for a long time if he doesn't pan out.

Can he thrive without the best slot receiver in the league? Without an offense that was the best in NFL history the season before he came along? Why not wait and find out before we make a long time decision? I don't worry about a Cutler situation because: a.) Cassel isn't thin-skinned like Cutler, and b.) His agent isn't Bus Cook.

That said, I also don't trade Thigpen because quite frankly if Cassel turns out to be a system QB who fails outside of New England we need an insurance policy. We at least know what we have with Thigpen: a young, inconsistent QB who has shown he can move the ball down the field and be productive in the right system.

Both QBs have a big 'risk' factor.

Now that Tony G. isn't here you have to apply your same logic to Thigpen that you do to Cassel. Does Thigpen even look like a legit QB last season without the best TE in NFL history? Does Thigpen thrive if he's not in the 'Pistol Whip Gun Spread etc' offense that was tailored for him?

We're never going to get a 'no risk' QB unless we continually want hte Chiefs to pull in last leg vets and journeyman forever.

Sign Cassel he has all the upside in the world and we really have nothing better unless you covet grooming a QB in next seasons draft class and hoping for a Matt Ryan-esque type stroke of luck, which doesn't happen often.

yashi
04-30-2009, 07:56 PM
Both QBs have a big 'risk' factor.

Thigpen is not going to command anywhere near 30 million guaranteed.

And to answer your question, no. I don't think Thigpen can do it without Gonzalez. But I also don't think Cassel will be as good without Wes Welker and the best head coach + QB coach in the NFL.

DT14PRIEST
05-01-2009, 12:56 AM
Thigpen is not going to command anywhere near 30 million guaranteed.

And to answer your question, no. I don't think Thigpen can do it without Gonzalez. But I also don't think Cassel will be as good without Wes Welker and the best head coach + QB coach in the NFL.

Your QB is always going to demand a higher price tag especially if you consider him QBOTF. We're already footing the bill for his 15 million dollar franchise tag for one year. If we can sign him to a 30 million garaunteed over the long haul (6-years) that is still a very good investment considering it'll be ~12 million less then what Stafford will be making and Stafford doesn't even have a single NFL game of exp yet.

NWA Chief
05-01-2009, 12:58 AM
There is no way that Cottam could ever be comparable to TG, but the system Haley runs does not fit a pass catching TE very well either. If TG was still here I'm pretty sure they would change the offense to keep him involved but I think Cottom will be very serviceable as a blocking TE. He also did learn from TG for the last year so maybe this year when he has more opportunities he will show us why we went for a TE instead of a OT in his draft.

pbatrucker
05-01-2009, 01:56 AM
Good post lamerson. I agree with most of what you say. I'm not for trading Tiggy yet. This is the first time in a long while that we/ve had two promising QB's, let's enjoy for awhile. The aqusitions you recomend are excellent, Pioli needs to get moving, the market will dry up real fast.
With those pick ups , forseeing injury, we would be a very competitive team.
Everyone better hope Cottam does well. The other TE's on our roster are roster fodder/special teams.
:11:

texaschief
05-01-2009, 02:57 AM
I never liked the Cottam pick either. One, we didn't need a TE in the 3rd round nearly as badly as we needed OL or LB last year. Second, he's a decent blocker and a decent receiver - but he excels at neither.

My gut says we go with Ryan as our blocker and O'Connell as our receiver. Cottam is reserve/special teams.

Yeah, Copper was a great pickup. He'll be a special teams ace and a burner on those 4WR sets.

:iamwithstupid:

You're ok with drafting DE's in the first and third THIS season instead of drafting an O-lineman when we have PLENTY of 3-4 DE's on this team already, but drafting a guy like Cottam just before TG starts talking about retirement is a BETTER move?

There's literally a line to play at DE and you think Magee was a better pick this year than Cottam was last year. If we didn't need a TE, who was going to take Dunn's spot? Oh, that's right. We had.... NOBODY. Yeah. We didn't need a TE AT ALL. We had ZERO players who could've played TE last season. We NEEDED a TE last year whether you think so or not. There was a MUCH bigger need at TE last year than there was at DE this year. If you think the Cottam pick was bad because there was "no need," you should be LIVID about the Magee pick.

I've said this before about Peterson, and now it applies to you: don't wait until Pro Bowlers retire to replace them. Have you not been paying ANY attention to the last 6 years?

TE's who come in at 6'8, 271 while running a 4.6 with even AVERAGE hands or AVERAGE blocking skills, don't grow on trees. He's a HUGE target and was a standout basketball player in high school.

What type of TE would you rather have starting? We've been spoiled by a great TE, just like we were spoiled with a great Oline for the first part of the decade. NOBODY is going to live up to TG just like no one is going to live up to Roaf/Shields. But Cottam is more than capable of being a starting TE in this league and has the potential to be a Pro Bowler.

I can't believe you think a journey man and a 7th round pick will start over Cottam. Guess it's just those "FANTASTIC" evaluation skills coming out.

texaschief
05-01-2009, 03:10 AM
btw... which OLineman taken in the third round would you rather have than the "special teams fodder" that is Brad Cottam? (taken #76)

You've got TWO choices:

#83 C-Jeremy Zuttah (started 5 games)

or

#96 OT - Chad Rinehart (who didn't even play in a game last year?)

chief31
05-01-2009, 03:17 AM
Sure it's a risk to sign Cassel long-term. Selecting a franchise QB, either by trade or through the draft and signing him to a contract is a boom-or-bust sort of thing. For every Matt Hasselbeck, there are three AJ Feeleys. For every Peyton Manning, there are three David Carrs.

But we are never going to win anything without a franchise QB. And we'll never get a franchise QB by paying him year to year.

Think about it this way, we're going to pay Cassel less than either the Jets will pay Sanchez or the Lions will pay Stafford. And I'd rather have him than either of them.

I wouldn't trade LJ, as noone will give anything for that contract. I would cut him though.

As for Cassel, no way. Wait until you get a peak.

Teams that attempt to sign a high draft pick QB for one season never get that done. It doesn't happen.

We have the luxury of already having this one signed for one season. They can't get that luxury.

We have the luxury of having Cassel feeling very good about his GM making the deal to bring him along to a new team. That already shows alot of loyalty to the player.

Then we have the luxury of Cassel knowing that he must play well, or be nothing to the entire league, with the end of his contract coming up.

All of those luxuries are ours, rather he can play here, or not.

If we give him the money now, then all of those luxuries are diminished.

And we have to consider the huge risk that will be added if he can't play.

If he can't play, then we have thrown away the luxury of signing him as a back-up, or being rid of a bad player.

If he can play here, then we will know what we are paying for, instead of guessing.

If he has a big year for us, then he will re-sign. Pioli showed faith in him by trading more for him than anyone else offered. And he will be happy to stay with the team that already took a chance on him.

This isn't "playing around" with him. It's giving him an opportunity.

Take a look at what he looks like during camp and pre-season, at the very least, before committing to him as the QBOTF.

If it's me, I set a date right after the fourth game of the season to make an offer, unless he does extremely well.

I think I agreed with about everything else you listed, to one degree, or another.

If we run the Haley offense, then the TE and the HB are useless anyway.

texaschief
05-01-2009, 03:26 AM
We can always slap Cassel with the franchise tag again next year and then work out a deal if he is indeed that QBOTF. We protect ourselves by letting him play without guaranteed years. If he has a horrible year and turns out to be a product of the system and the personnel around him in NE, then we'll probably go into the next draft with QB on the brain. If he's everything we hoped for, then we negotiate a long-term deal after the season.

I honestly hope we don't sign him yet. It's not like we need the cap room.

chief31
05-01-2009, 03:32 AM
btw... which OLineman taken in the third round would you rather have than the "special teams fodder" that is Brad Cottam? (taken #76)

You've got TWO choices:

#83 C-Jeremy Zuttah (started 5 games)

or

#96 OT - Chad Rinehart (who didn't even play in a game last year?)


Either of them, or Oniel Cousins; Anthony Collins or Tony Hills.

texaschief
05-01-2009, 03:46 AM
Either of them, or Oniel Cousins; Anthony Collins or Tony Hills.

Really? Over Cottam?

It's funny. Where's the outcry for OL NOT taken in this draft? Not hypocritical AT ALL. Was there just not a starting OL to be had with the 3rd pick in the third round this year?

I guess Magee was better than Caldwell, Urbik, Brewster, Vasquez?

...or, since we needed a TE so bad, was it not worth trading up to take Coffman?

Literally, Jackson, Dorsey, Edwards, T.J. Jackson, and Turk McBride were already here before the Magee pick. Did we REALLY need more depth at that spot? Is he REALLY going to be THAT big of a difference maker that you pass on any of the 4 or 5 I listed above?

Guess I just need to re-evaluate what the word "need" means. If a player leaves the team with ABSOLUTELY NOBODY behind him, that to me constitutes as a "need." Taking a player who will "provide competition" at the DE spot where there are already at least 5 guys competing, (including 2 top 5 picks and a 2nd rd pick) just doesn't seem like a "need" to me.

But hey. Maybe that's just me.

DT14PRIEST
05-01-2009, 03:58 AM
Literally, Jackson, Dorsey, Edwards, T.J. Jackson, and Turk McBride were already here before the Magee pick. Did we REALLY need more depth at that spot? Is he REALLY going to be THAT big of a difference maker that you pass on any of the 4 or 5 I listed above?


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Turk not being groomed as a 34 DE this year, TJ Jackson a small DT and Ron Edwards a projected NT along with Tank?

So by my count we'd only have 1 'true' 34 end in Tyson Jackson and 1 'question' mark end in Dorsey. Still need some depth and Magee went at the pre draft round projected (top of the 3rd).

chief31
05-01-2009, 04:01 AM
Really? Over Cottam?

It's funny. Where's the outcry for OL NOT taken in this draft? Not hypocritical AT ALL. Was there just not a starting OL to be had with the 3rd pick in the third round this year?

I guess Magee was better than Caldwell, Urbik, Brewster, Vasquez?

...or, since we needed a TE so bad, was it not worth trading up to take Coffman?

Literally, Jackson, Dorsey, Edwards, T.J. Jackson, and Turk McBride were already here before the Magee pick. Did we REALLY need more depth at that spot? Is he REALLY going to be THAT big of a difference maker that you pass on any of the 4 or 5 I listed above?

Guess I just need to re-evaluate what the word "need" means. If a player leaves the team with ABSOLUTELY NOBODY behind him, that to me constitutes as a "need." Taking a player who will "provide competition" at the DE spot where there are already at least 5 guys competing, (including 2 top 5 picks and a 2nd rd pick) just doesn't seem like a "need" to me.

But hey. Maybe that's just me.

The sentiment is still there. The cry is slightly contained by the fact that we did get Mike Goff as a FA.

But I am extremely disappointed that we passed on Eugene Monroe for a reach.

Even more disappointed that we took another DE with our second pick, and waited until thew fifth round to get an O-lineman.

But, with the addition of Goff, the pain is a little less than it would have been.

Now, if you read around some, I think you'll see that I am far from thrilled about this draft too.

But the rest of the off-season makes it far better than what I have been seeing in the past few seasons.

texaschief
05-01-2009, 04:08 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Turk not being groomed as a 34 DE this year, TJ Jackson a small DT and Ron Edwards a projected NT along with Tank?

So by my count we'd only have 1 'true' 34 end in Tyson Jackson and 1 'question' mark end in Dorsey. Still need some depth and Magee went at the pre draft round projected (top of the 3rd).

Didn't I say Turk would be a 3-4 DE? Maybe i have Boone and Edwards switched in my mind, but either way, that's still at least 4. Jackson is 6'0, 304. If Jackson is a small DT, why in the hell was Dorsey so highly thought of at 5'11, 295? If Dorsey is being considered, so is the bigger T.J. Jackson.

MaGee is in the same boat as Dorsey. He's great inside, but after being moved to DE against COLLEGE LEVEL talent, he was able to net a whopping 28 tkls, only 6 of which were for a loss to go with 3.5 sacks. Granted, we're not necessarily looking for a sack leader at that spot, but SOME penetration would've been nice against college level talent.

texaschief
05-01-2009, 04:14 AM
The sentiment is still there. The cry is slightly contained by the fact that we did get Mike Goff as a FA.

But I am extremely disappointed that we passed on Eugene Monroe for a reach.

Even more disappointed that we took another DE with our second pick, and waited until thew fifth round to get an O-lineman.

But, with the addition of Goff, the pain is a little less than it would have been.

Now, if you read around some, I think you'll see that I am far from thrilled about this draft too.

But the rest of the off-season makes it far better than what I have been seeing in the past few seasons.

I agree. It's nice to see some free agents coming in this season. If Goff can stay healthy at 33 yo, the line SHOULD be upgraded at the OG spot for sure.

That doesn't nullify the fact that TE was a need last year and Cottam is as good of a TE as we could've wanted that late. It's not like we're talking about the Cowboys spending a 2nd round pick on a "depth" guy with Bennett. We NEEDED that TE just to complete the double TE sets the Chiefs loved to run.

jmlamerson
05-01-2009, 11:24 AM
I agree. It's nice to see some free agents coming in this season. If Goff can stay healthy at 33 yo, the line SHOULD be upgraded at the OG spot for sure.

That doesn't nullify the fact that TE was a need last year and Cottam is as good of a TE as we could've wanted that late. It's not like we're talking about the Cowboys spending a 2nd round pick on a "depth" guy with Bennett. We NEEDED that TE just to complete the double TE sets the Chiefs loved to run.

1. I've never posted anything but disappointment that we didn't draft OG/OT in the later rounds. Spending the 4th on Washington instead of Herman Johnson or Duke Robinson was crazy.

2. Cottam has every measurable off the field. He has not impressed me on the field. At all. Any one of the folks chief31 mentioned would have been the better pick. A 2TE is a very nice thing to have. But folks like a RT are more important. Much more important.

Cottam (except for the Jets game) was a non-factor for most of last year, both as a blocker and as a pass-catcher. Could he be more involved this year? Sure. But I'll believe it when I see it.

3. We didn't draft Jackson and Magee to be pass rushers. We dedicated this draft to getting some legitimate big men on the DL so that we could stop the run. We've finished 32nd and 30th the last couple years against the run. We're never going win anything until we fix that particular sieve. Herm Edwards decimated our DL with bad picks and bad FA. Pioli is fixing it the best he can.

jmlamerson
05-01-2009, 11:35 AM
As for Cassel, no way. Wait until you get a peak.

Teams that attempt to sign a high draft pick QB for one season never get that done. It doesn't happen.

We have the luxury of already having this one signed for one season. They can't get that luxury.

We have the luxury of having Cassel feeling very good about his GM making the deal to bring him along to a new team. That already shows alot of loyalty to the player.

Then we have the luxury of Cassel knowing that he must play well, or be nothing to the entire league, with the end of his contract coming up.

All of those luxuries are ours, rather he can play here, or not.

If we give him the money now, then all of those luxuries are diminished.

And we have to consider the huge risk that will be added if he can't play.

If he can't play, then we have thrown away the luxury of signing him as a back-up, or being rid of a bad player.

If he can play here, then we will know what we are paying for, instead of guessing.

If he has a big year for us, then he will re-sign. Pioli showed faith in him by trading more for him than anyone else offered. And he will be happy to stay with the team that already took a chance on him.

This isn't "playing around" with him. It's giving him an opportunity.

Take a look at what he looks like during camp and pre-season, at the very least, before committing to him as the QBOTF.

If it's me, I set a date right after the fourth game of the season to make an offer, unless he does extremely well.

I think what you're writing is true from a theoretical perspective. I just don't think it takes into account the realities of the game.

It would be ideal to pay each player year to year, with nothing guarenteed except to those players deemed elite. And once we become a powerhouse franchise again, we'll have that luxury. But I don't think we do right now.

If Cassel comes out in training camp and tears his ACL and is done playing, then it was a good idea not to sign him long term. Or if he tosses 30 INTs and is benched for Thigpen, then it was a bad idea.

If Cassel comes out and throws for 4,000 yards and goes to the Pro Bowl, then he'll be easy to resign to a long-term deal as an elite QB.

If the most likely thing happens, and it is between those two poles, then what have we gained? If Cassel throws for 3,000 yards, 25 TDs, 15 INTs and 60% accuracy, what do you do? You don't want to let him go. You'd still be afraid to pay him like an elite QB. You don't want to pay him $15M in 2010 through a franchise tag. And you've angered your QBOTF by refusing to commit to him long term.

I just don't see how, barring Cassel's either complete collapse or success (neither of which are likely), this works out well.

yashi
05-01-2009, 12:09 PM
I think what you're writing is true from a theoretical perspective. I just don't think it takes into account the realities of the game.

It would be ideal to pay each player year to year, with nothing guarenteed except to those players deemed elite. And once we become a powerhouse franchise again, we'll have that luxury. But I don't think we do right now.

If Cassel comes out in training camp and tears his ACL and is done playing, then it was a good idea not to sign him long term. Or if he tosses 30 INTs and is benched for Thigpen, then it was a bad idea.

If Cassel comes out and throws for 4,000 yards and goes to the Pro Bowl, then he'll be easy to resign to a long-term deal as an elite QB.

If the most likely thing happens, and it is between those two poles, then what have we gained? If Cassel throws for 3,000 yards, 25 TDs, 15 INTs and 60% accuracy, what do you do? You don't want to let him go. You'd still be afraid to pay him like an elite QB. You don't want to pay him $15M in 2010 through a franchise tag. And you've angered your QBOTF by refusing to commit to him long term.

I just don't see how, barring Cassel's either complete collapse or success (neither of which are likely), this works out well.

If he throws 25 TDs 15 INTs and 60% on a new team in a new system, I'd unload the boat on him in an instant... but I know what you're saying.

I don't think anyone wants to reach the end of the season before we make a decision and/or negotiate a new deal. chief31 says 4 games into the season. I said 6-7. Either way, I just want to see him on a football field against competition in a Chiefs jersey before we commit long term.

I don't see why he would be so upset about that. It's basically just "try before you buy". Cassel should understand that he needs to prove himself outside of New England. There's also 14 million reasons why he would probably be OK with not negotiating a new contract immediately.

chief31
05-02-2009, 04:15 AM
I think what you're writing is true from a theoretical perspective. I just don't think it takes into account the realities of the game.

It would be ideal to pay each player year to year, with nothing guarenteed except to those players deemed elite. And once we become a powerhouse franchise again, we'll have that luxury. But I don't think we do right now.

If Cassel comes out in training camp and tears his ACL and is done playing, then it was a good idea not to sign him long term. Or if he tosses 30 INTs and is benched for Thigpen, then it was a bad idea.

If Cassel comes out and throws for 4,000 yards and goes to the Pro Bowl, then he'll be easy to resign to a long-term deal as an elite QB.

If the most likely thing happens, and it is between those two poles, then what have we gained? If Cassel throws for 3,000 yards, 25 TDs, 15 INTs and 60% accuracy, what do you do? You don't want to let him go. You'd still be afraid to pay him like an elite QB. You don't want to pay him $15M in 2010 through a franchise tag. And you've angered your QBOTF by refusing to commit to him long term.

I just don't see how, barring Cassel's either complete collapse or success (neither of which are likely), this works out well.

Back up the truck if he can do that this season.:D

But, aside from any numbers that come up, Just get an idea of rather or not he is even capable of handling an offense that doesn't include the Pats' O-line and WR corps.

With four preseason games and four regular season games, you at least get a look at what he is/can be.

If, at that point, he is looking very average, then that's what kind of contract you offer him.

If he is looking like he can really do it, then offer a better contract.

If he looks like there is no way he is going to be able to handle it, then offer backup pay, or nothing at all.

Take a look at him, so you know what to offer him. Don't pay him based on what he did in one season with the best offense around.

I felt the same way about LJ. We had seen him play the previous two seasons with Shields, one of which was with Roaf and T-Rich.

Paying him as if he were going to be able to do that without those guys was a bad idea.

pbatrucker
05-02-2009, 04:53 AM
Personally I think we should get Jared Allen back to play the attack LB. Damn that would be assume, he might end up with 20 sacks.
:yahoo: :11:

SDChief09
05-02-2009, 04:16 PM
People miss that turk was quoted saying "if it comes down to it, I will play LB" at the first non manditory mini camp.

Cottam as the reserve/3rd TE? cmon, his issue is not TALENT, its staying healthy, if he had been healthy in college, he has first round athletic ability, just was made of glass as a Vol.

To me, this team is further along than people give them credit for, I also like the signings of Beisel/Copper in their respective positions.

If Boldin keeps playing it the way he is, maybe a 2nd and 5th can get it done....and if you added Boldin, Cassel and this offense is at least a mid pack offense, and the D is a mid pack defense.

It bothers me that people overlook how many turnovers were forced by the defense last year even with the low amount of sacks and pressures.

Also, ill say it only one time, Lawrence Jackson is not a reach, plain and simple, I liked Curry, but drafting him third overall to play LB, is nuts, when a guy like Jackson is there to anchor at DE, he and Magee make the 3/4 switch possible, otherwise you are relying on Dorsey and Boone. Tank is the NT, get over it.

Also, jackson had 18 sacks in Three years, 8 coming as a DT inside, Pioli is not kidding about potentially in the 4-3, using Jackson inside next to tank for matchup problems, Jackson has that kind of versatility.

Magee stepped in when his team needed him to move to DE, and he did this unselfishly in his senior year, sure he needs lower body strength, but hes the 2nd best 5 tech in the draft...those who said you build from inside to out, are right....Pioli is just at an advantage, adding these lineman to Dorsey, teaming Jackson with dorsey, mcgee with pollard, and Flowers/Carr continuing their ball hawk ways...this is a much better d than advertised.

This is also a MUCH MUCH better special teams unit.

jmlamerson
05-02-2009, 04:30 PM
People miss that turk was quoted saying "if it comes down to it, I will play LB" at the first non manditory mini camp.

Cottam as the reserve/3rd TE? cmon, his issue is not TALENT, its staying healthy, if he had been healthy in college, he has first round athletic ability, just was made of glass as a Vol.

To me, this team is further along than people give them credit for, I also like the signings of Beisel/Copper in their respective positions.

If Boldin keeps playing it the way he is, maybe a 2nd and 5th can get it done....and if you added Boldin, Cassel and this offense is at least a mid pack offense, and the D is a mid pack defense.

It bothers me that people overlook how many turnovers were forced by the defense last year even with the low amount of sacks and pressures.

Also, ill say it only one time, Lawrence Jackson is not a reach, plain and simple, I liked Curry, but drafting him third overall to play LB, is nuts, when a guy like Jackson is there to anchor at DE, he and Magee make the 3/4 switch possible, otherwise you are relying on Dorsey and Boone. Tank is the NT, get over it.

Also, jackson had 18 sacks in Three years, 8 coming as a DT inside, Pioli is not kidding about potentially in the 4-3, using Jackson inside next to tank for matchup problems, Jackson has that kind of versatility.

Magee stepped in when his team needed him to move to DE, and he did this unselfishly in his senior year, sure he needs lower body strength, but hes the 2nd best 5 tech in the draft...those who said you build from inside to out, are right....Pioli is just at an advantage, adding these lineman to Dorsey, teaming Jackson with dorsey, mcgee with pollard, and Flowers/Carr continuing their ball hawk ways...this is a much better d than advertised.

This is also a MUCH MUCH better special teams unit.

If Brodie Croyle was able to stay healthy, he'd have been our QBOTF. I'd love to be wrong about Cottam, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think Herm drafted a bunch of fragile guys with great measurables - i.e. the greatest flag football team in the history of the league. But I'm wary of how they perform when actually getting hit.

I get why people wanted Curry, but I agree that Jackson is the immensely better pick. Teams that don't stop the run (except the inexplicable 2006 Colts team) don't do very well, especially in the playoffs. Curry couldn't do anything on this team with the DL being pushed five yards back every play, the way they have for the past couple years.

We're a better team than we were in 2008. But that isn't saying a lot. If we get 6 or more wins, this season should be considered a success.

DT14PRIEST
05-02-2009, 05:15 PM
Also, ill say it only one time, Lawrence Jackson

Tyson!

pbatrucker
05-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Tyson!
OH!!!! I was was wondering who Lawrence was. Thought I'd missed someone.
:11:

NWA Chief
05-03-2009, 01:30 PM
Yes sdchief, we did force turnovers without clearly any pass rush but think of how our D could be now since we are moving to the 3-4? think of the turnovers now that we should generate a rush, if anything at least better than last year. Nobody knows Cottam's future yet but to see Haley run the offense last year, i would say he will be a blocker. Maybe one of the other TE's have great hands but it clearly was the 3 WR's gettin the rock when the ball was in the air. I can still see him as a redzone threat though. I'm gonna start a thread for all the ppl that wanted curry and it will be called...."Curry is a Seahawk, get over it! Jackson is OUR DE, learn to love it"