Alright .. I expected the Chiefs to be bad, I'm sure we all did, but
I saw something yesterday that I never thought I would see. Not even
under Herm!!! It is the third game of the season and it looked like to
me that this team, especially defensively, has quit...... Offensively
they scored only because the Falcons were in cruise control. The O is
bad, the D is bad, Special teams is below average, the Kicker sucks...
While the Chiefs were looking like a high school team dressed as
professionals, they were making Matt Ryan look like the best QB in the
league!!! Their team mindset bothers me now. Game 3 and they looked
like they were playing game 16 after playing the Dallas Cowbows for 15
straight weeks!!!! They looked like a truly beaten team... This
doesn't bode well for the rest of the season and they WILL go winless
if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be bad
from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance to
squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in my
entire life!!! The 76' Bucs looked more alive than this team.. Even
rebuilding teams show some pride and heart while learning the
ropes..Not the Chiefs though..They don't look like they're building
anything and what's most disconcerting is that, save for a few
individuals, they don't look like they even want to play!!!!! That
bothers me the most. There were no playoff expectations this year, no
pressure, but damn, they should be expected to be as competetive
against teams that they match up pretty close with such as the
Falcons!!!! Now I'm starting to believe they could be the first team
ever to go winless in a 16 game season....Somewhere John McKay is
smiling... Maybe Herm can quote him at some point this season in one
of his post game interviews...

Reporter: Coach, how do you feel about your teams execution?

John McKay: I'm all for it....... ;-)

Jeff Foglietta

> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be bad
> from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance to
> squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in my
> entire life!!!

This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.
Each year you are expected to be better than the last and you go out
and get the players you need to make that happen. This is an
unacceptable situation and the guys closest to it, the players,
obviously know it. It's going to get ugly folks.

ef

EF wrote:
>> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be bad
>> from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance to
>> squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
>> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in my
>> entire life!!!
>
> This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.

Actually, with no salary cap to worry about, MLB is built more for your
no rebuilding years theory.

The Chiefs got old fast, and the only way to fix that is to rebuild.
There was not enough salary cap space to fix all the holes created by
their old philosophy of screw the future, let's win now theory.

On Sep 23, 3:30 am, Tarkus <karnev...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
> EF wrote:
> >> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be bad
> >> from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance to
> >> squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
> >> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in my
> >> entire life!!!
>
> > This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.
>
> Actually, with no salary cap to worry about, MLB is built more for your
> no rebuilding years theory.
>
> The Chiefs got old fast, and the only way to fix that is to rebuild.
> There was not enough salary cap space to fix all the holes created by
> their old philosophy of screw the future, let's win now theory.


Losing our 2 best O-lineman to retirement was big, I'll give you
that..But they did NOT get old fast... They were unprepared to replace
these guys..Hell did Peterson think they would play forever!!!!!! A$
$hole.... and then Herm came in, cleaned house and started from a
blank slate...Bad move in this league if you're trying to fill
seats..Good move if you're still filling those seats while you're
losing horribly every week...That being said I can't imagine that
there will be more than 17 people at the game on Sunday against the
Broncos but I could be wrong.. I'll tell you this, I wouldn't spend
money to see the game...television is fine...

Jeff

"Tarkus" <karnevil9@atlantabraves.net> wrote in message
news:6jrk97F4o34rU1@mid.individual.net...
> EF wrote:
>>> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be bad
>>> from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance to
>>> squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
>>> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in my
>>> entire life!!!
>>
>> This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.
>
> Actually, with no salary cap to worry about, MLB is built more for your no
> rebuilding years theory.
>
> The Chiefs got old fast, and the only way to fix that is to rebuild. There
> was not enough salary cap space to fix all the holes created by their old
> philosophy of screw the future, let's win now theory.


Just a quick question......you say there wasn't enough room under the salary
cap to fix all the holes.......

I have read in the KC Star that the Chiefs are 32 million under cap this
year.....

If that is actually true....then I would say if Mr Hunt and company would be
willing to part with some of that....

WE COULD FILL SOME HOLES!!!!

>
>
> Just a quick question......you say there wasn't enough room under the
> salary cap to fix all the holes.......
>
> I have read in the KC Star that the Chiefs are 32 million under cap this
> year.....
>
> If that is actually true....then I would say if Mr Hunt and company would
> be willing to part with some of that....
>
> WE COULD FILL SOME HOLES!!!!
>
>

I would really like to see King Carls contract, to see if he gets a salary
bonus
if he manages to keep the team under the salary cap. most big businesses use
that as
an incentive for management to cut costs and screw the regular employees in
the ass.
If he has such an incentive in his contract, that would explain a lot of
things.
Such as why he would hire an obviously incompetent coach who likes to get
rid of
veterans and use new players who don't get paid so much. that would increase
his bonus.
Just a thought

On Sep 23, 9:21 pm, "iceman" <rexgarn...@att.net> wrote:

> I would really like to see King Carls contract, to see if he gets a salary bonus
> if he manages to keep the team under the salary cap. most big businesses use
> that as an incentive for management to cut costs and screw the regular
> employees in the ass.

I doubt it. You wanna know why? Because the league REQUIRES Peterson
to keep the Chiefs under the salary cap. He (and every other NFL GM
who had such a bonus) would get it every season. Where's the
incentive in that?

> If he has such an incentive in his contract, that would explain a lot of things.
> Such as why he would hire an obviously incompetent coach who likes to getrid of
> veterans and use new players who don't get paid so much. that would increase
> his bonus.

That's simply ridiculous. Drafted rookies are the LEAST cost
efficient players on the field. They get paid huge salaries before
demonstrating ANY ability to be productive in the NFL.

On Sep 23, 10:58 pm, RDOGuy <rdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:21 pm, "iceman" <rexgarn...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > I would really like to see King Carls contract, to see if he gets a salary bonus
> > if he manages to keep the team under the salary cap. most big businesses use
> > that as an incentive for management to cut costs and screw the regular
> > employees in the ass.
>
> I doubt it.  You wanna know why?  Because the league REQUIRES Peterson
> to keep the Chiefs under the salary cap.  He (and every other NFL GM
> who had such a bonus) would get it every season.  Where's the
> incentive in that?
>
> > If he has such an incentive in his contract, that would explain a lot of things.
> > Such as why he would hire an obviously incompetent coach who likes to get rid of
> > veterans and use new players who don't get paid so much. that would increase
> > his bonus.
>
> That's simply ridiculous.   Drafted rookies are the LEAST cost
> efficient players on the field.  They get paid huge salaries before
> demonstrating ANY ability to be productive in the NFL.

To hell with wall street, we need the bailout ourselves.

Andre

Jeff wrote:
> On Sep 23, 3:30 am, Tarkus <karnev...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>> EF wrote:
>>>> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be
>>>> bad from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance
>>>> to squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
>>>> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in
>>>> my entire life!!!
>>
>>> This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.
>>
>> Actually, with no salary cap to worry about, MLB is built more for
>> your no rebuilding years theory.
>>
>> The Chiefs got old fast, and the only way to fix that is to rebuild.
>> There was not enough salary cap space to fix all the holes created by
>> their old philosophy of screw the future, let's win now theory.
>
>
> Losing our 2 best O-lineman to retirement was big, I'll give you
> that..But they did NOT get old fast... They were unprepared to replace
> these guys..Hell did Peterson think they would play forever!!!!!! A$
> $hole.... and then Herm came in, cleaned house and started from a
> blank slate...Bad move in this league if you're trying to fill
> seats..Good move if you're still filling those seats while you're
> losing horribly every week...That being said I can't imagine that
> there will be more than 17 people at the game on Sunday against the
> Broncos but I could be wrong.. I'll tell you this, I wouldn't spend
> money to see the game...television is fine...
>
> Jeff

You may not get to see it if its blacked out.

As far as aging, it is perhaps the most easily forseeable problem in human
existence... getting old and losing the edge. But Peterson and Vermiel were
hell bent on a title, and put everything into a high powered offense.
Stupidly, they treated the situation as though with enough offense, defense
would not matter, but nobody goes to the Superbowl allowing opponents 30
points a game. So not only did they choose not to allocate some of their
resources on keeping up with the fact of aging players and the opportunity
to develop younger ones while there were still veterans on board, they also
chose not to develop the defense significantly, and where they did, they
made some very bad choices.

Then Herm came in and shifted everything to the opposite extreme. Neither
situation will work, and neither will fill seats. We may end up with a
decent team down the road, but not, IMO, as long as Edwards is the coach.

MartyB in KC

Nick wrote:
> "Tarkus" <karnevil9@atlantabraves.net> wrote in message
> news:6jrk97F4o34rU1@mid.individual.net...
>> EF wrote:
>>>> if they continue to play uninspired football. I knew they would be
>>>> bad from the outset of the season but I thought they had a chance
>>>> to squeak out 2 or 3 wins. Now I'm not so sure.... this was to be a
>>>> rebuilding year but I have never seen a team rebuild like this in
>>>> my entire life!!!
>>>
>>> This is the NFL, you don't HAVE rebuilding years like you do in MLB.
>>
>> Actually, with no salary cap to worry about, MLB is built more for
>> your no rebuilding years theory.
>>
>> The Chiefs got old fast, and the only way to fix that is to rebuild.
>> There was not enough salary cap space to fix all the holes created
>> by their old philosophy of screw the future, let's win now theory.
>
>
> Just a quick question......you say there wasn't enough room under the
> salary cap to fix all the holes.......
>
> I have read in the KC Star that the Chiefs are 32 million under cap
> this year.....
>
> If that is actually true....then I would say if Mr Hunt and company
> would be willing to part with some of that....
>
> WE COULD FILL SOME HOLES!!!!

The good opportunities for this year are pretty much gone. I do think it was
stupid not to go for Elam, since they did not want Carney, since they made a
total mess of the place kicking game last year, and since there wasn't
really anybody else out there. So we end up with the more than mediocre
Novak instead, who misses a 31 yarder last Sunday.

The Chiefs aren't gonna be in the end zone very often, which means they need
a kicker who can put points on the board, and instead the best available
choice for that was putting points on the board against them last Sunday.
Place kickers live long in the NFL. Elam has enough left that the Chiefs
could have ridden on his back for several years.

As far as the excess cap... maybe we will get a new provision, roll over cap
like a cell phone. Eh?

MartyB in KC

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:21 pm, "iceman" <rexgarn...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I would really like to see King Carls contract, to see if he gets a
>> salary bonus if he manages to keep the team under the salary cap.
>> most big businesses use that as an incentive for management to cut
>> costs and screw the regular employees in the ass.
>
> I doubt it. You wanna know why? Because the league REQUIRES Peterson
> to keep the Chiefs under the salary cap. He (and every other NFL GM
> who had such a bonus) would get it every season. Where's the
> incentive in that?
>
>> If he has such an incentive in his contract, that would explain a
>> lot of things. Such as why he would hire an obviously incompetent
>> coach who likes to get rid of veterans and use new players who don't
>> get paid so much. that would increase his bonus.
>
> That's simply ridiculous. Drafted rookies are the LEAST cost
> efficient players on the field. They get paid huge salaries before
> demonstrating ANY ability to be productive in the NFL.

Agreed. The Peterson problem isn't a bonus problem, its a bonehead problem.

MBKC

On Sep 24, 10:21 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:

> The good opportunities for this year are pretty much gone. I do think it was
> stupid not to go for Elam, since they did not want Carney, since they made a
> total mess of the place kicking game last year, and since there wasn't
> really anybody else out there. So we end up with the more than mediocre
> Novak instead, who misses a 31 yarder last Sunday.

Marty, I'll agree with you that expending the draft choice for Medlock
was a risky move, and one that in hindsight was a complete disaster.
There are always plenty of free agent kickers available - as we saw
this off season with the 24 hour signing of what's-his-name - while
quality players at other positions are tougher to identify and
obtain. Speaking generally, it probably makes more sense to get free
agent kickers. But that said... if Medlock had worked out (as Crosby
did for the Packers out of the same draft) I doubt anybody (even you)
would have a problem with it now.

Given what's happened with other players since then, I am still
surprised that Medlock was given so little opportunity to develop, and
still wonder if he might have worked out all right if given the
chance. But remember... going into last season, the Chiefs clearly
thought they still had a good enough OL to be competitive. Obviously
they were wrong. That misjudgement led to the Medlock pick and several
other mistakes... another one being the decision to start the season
with Huard under center.

With the benefit of hindsight, it clearly would have been smarter to
commit to rebuilding a season sooner. If Medlock had been picked
under those circumstances - rather than in the mistaken belief that
the Chiefs would need a reliable kicker to stay competitive - he might
never have been drafted in the first place. Even if he had, he very
well might still be wearing a Chiefs uniform... because he would have
had the benefit of the patience that the Chiefs are now showing
towards other young players.

As far as Novak is concerned... that miss was a real surprise. Let's
hope it turns out to be an isolated instance.

> As far as the excess cap... maybe we will get a new provision, roll over cap
> like a cell phone. Eh?

OK... that's funny. But WHAT excess cap? Sure... going into the
draft, the Chiefs had lots of cap space. Some sources were saying it
was more than any other team. But they also had to sign more draft
choices than anybody else, including TWO first round picks. I'd be
surprised if they have any cap space left... certainly not enough for
a top drawer kicker like Elam. That $32 million figure Nick quoted is
preposterous. If it's based on any facts at all, it must predate the
signing of the drafted players.

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:21 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:
>
>> The good opportunities for this year are pretty much gone. I do
>> think it was stupid not to go for Elam, since they did not want
>> Carney, since they made a total mess of the place kicking game last
>> year, and since there wasn't really anybody else out there. So we
>> end up with the more than mediocre Novak instead, who misses a 31
>> yarder last Sunday.
>
> Marty, I'll agree with you that expending the draft choice for Medlock
> was a risky move, and one that in hindsight was a complete disaster.
> There are always plenty of free agent kickers available - as we saw
> this off season with the 24 hour signing of what's-his-name - while
> quality players at other positions are tougher to identify and
> obtain. Speaking generally, it probably makes more sense to get free
> agent kickers. But that said... if Medlock had worked out (as Crosby
> did for the Packers out of the same draft) I doubt anybody (even you)
> would have a problem with it now.

Even me? lol.... What am I now, the resident curmudgeon? In any case, as few
points as the Chiefs can put up, Elam would have given them *something*...
and they sure do have the money left over that could have brought him in and
still left them with a hefty pile of change.
>
> Given what's happened with other players since then, I am still
> surprised that Medlock was given so little opportunity to develop, and
> still wonder if he might have worked out all right if given the
> chance. But remember... going into last season, the Chiefs clearly
> thought they still had a good enough OL to be competitive. Obviously
> they were wrong. That misjudgement led to the Medlock pick and several
> other mistakes... another one being the decision to start the season
> with Huard under center.

It was all Herminated.

>
> With the benefit of hindsight, it clearly would have been smarter to
> commit to rebuilding a season sooner. If Medlock had been picked
> under those circumstances - rather than in the mistaken belief that
> the Chiefs would need a reliable kicker to stay competitive - he might
> never have been drafted in the first place. Even if he had, he very
> well might still be wearing a Chiefs uniform... because he would have
> had the benefit of the patience that the Chiefs are now showing
> towards other young players.
>
> As far as Novak is concerned... that miss was a real surprise. Let's
> hope it turns out to be an isolated instance.

Its not as if he has a sterling record.

>
>> As far as the excess cap... maybe we will get a new provision, roll
>> over cap like a cell phone. Eh?
>
> OK... that's funny. But WHAT excess cap? Sure... going into the
> draft, the Chiefs had lots of cap space. Some sources were saying it
> was more than any other team. But they also had to sign more draft
> choices than anybody else, including TWO first round picks. I'd be
> surprised if they have any cap space left... certainly not enough for
> a top drawer kicker like Elam. That $32 million figure Nick quoted is
> preposterous. If it's based on any facts at all, it must predate the
> signing of the drafted players.

Well I didn't check his numbers, but I would like to know what it is that
they didn't spend. I for one don't believe that shutting the door on a
handful of vet FAs while rebuilding through youth, just to prevent a total
meltdown, is a bad idea. But now the Chiefs have the potential, if 0-16 and
losing 2 next season, of being the all time worst team ever in the NFL. Some
folks seem to think the youth movement is a make or break one year deal,
when its at least 2-3, and with that in mind hedging the bets a bit would
have been smart. Like with Elam, for example, instead of continuing to
spearmint.

MartyB in KC

On Sep 24, 2:35 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:

> Even me? lol.... What am I now, the resident curmudgeon?

Nahhh. Just the guy who once again brought up the kicker who was
released after one regular season attempt. I thought then (and still
do) that they were too quick to release Medlock. We'll never know if
he could have shaken it off... and the way things played out, it
wouldn't have made that much difference if he hadn't.

> In any case, as few
> points as the Chiefs can put up, Elam would have given them *something*....
> and they sure do have the money left over that could have brought him in and
> still left them with a hefty pile of change.

Well, I think we're in agreement that in all probability, Elam would
NOT have missed a 32 yard field goal. If anybody has any hard
evidence showing the Chiefs had enough cap space to sign Elam AND
their draft choices, I'd love to see it. However... I don't think any
such evidence exists.

> Its not as if [Novak] has a sterling record.

Correct. But unlike Medlock, at least, his preseason record for the
Chiefs wouldn't have suggested a 32 yard miss was a big possibility.

> Well I didn't check his numbers, but I would like to know what it is that
> they didn't spend.

Me, too. Usually, though, there's only one team where that's even
possible: the publicly held Packers, who have to reveal that
information.

> I for one don't believe that shutting the door on a
> handful of vet FAs while rebuilding through youth, just to prevent a total
> meltdown, is a bad idea.

As long as the price is right and the players have a reasonable amount
of time left in their careers, I agree. I think the Chiefs agree,
too. It's just that there weren't any players like that available to
them in the off-season. Apparently there were a few in which the
Chiefs were interested, but the interest - for whatever reason -
wasn't mutual.

Some have suggested it was because the Chiefs are such a terrible team
(or have such a terrible HC) that no veteran would want to play here.
Perhaps there's something to that - certainly it was obvious the
Chiefs weren't going to be contenders this seaason, and that's often a
consideration to a free agent. On the other hand... I didn't see a
whole lot of free agents in the off season that I thought fit the
Chiefs needs OR their pocketbook... and the Chiefs hinted that some of
the ones THEY saw were signed quickly enough that tampering might have
been going on.

> But now the Chiefs have the potential, if 0-16 and
> losing 2 next season, of being the all time worst team ever in the NFL. Some
> folks seem to think the youth movement is a make or break one year deal,
> when its at least 2-3, and with that in mind hedging the bets a bit would
> have been smart.

Sure. I guess it's just a question of commitment, isn't it? It was
obvious (to me, at least) at the time of the Allen trade that the
Chiefs were fully invested in a complete rebuild. They certainly have
the potential to go 0-16 this season, too... as do five other teams
that are also winless to this point. I, however, am not so convinced
there won't be some wins before next season.

RDOGuy wrote:

---%<----

> Sure. I guess it's just a question of commitment, isn't it? It was
> obvious (to me, at least) at the time of the Allen trade that the
> Chiefs were fully invested in a complete rebuild. They certainly have
> the potential to go 0-16 this season, too... as do five other teams
> that are also winless to this point. I, however, am not so convinced
> there won't be some wins before next season.

I thought it was obvious too, that they were more interested in draft ammo
than a star, but then there is also this rock hanging over him, where one
more mistake negates his very existence in the NFL, and surely that was
considered too. I think MN paid him too much considering that liability.
Maybe it should have included a sobriety bonus. (only half joking, there.)

If it gets late in the season without a win, then after reading what Clark
Hunt had to say recently, I would guess heads will roll before the season is
even over. Which, given the classic Hermination of the current QB situation
and my resulting loss of patience with him, would probably be all right with
me.

"Herm, line one, its ESPN."

Take the friggin call, Herm!


MartyB in KC

"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidnits@swbell.com> wrote in message
news:FzwCk.919$W06.211@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> RDOGuy wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 10:21 am, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The good opportunities for this year are pretty much gone. I do
>>> think it was stupid not to go for Elam, since they did not want
>>> Carney, since they made a total mess of the place kicking game last
>>> year, and since there wasn't really anybody else out there. So we
>>> end up with the more than mediocre Novak instead, who misses a 31
>>> yarder last Sunday.
>>
>> Marty, I'll agree with you that expending the draft choice for Medlock
>> was a risky move, and one that in hindsight was a complete disaster.
>> There are always plenty of free agent kickers available - as we saw
>> this off season with the 24 hour signing of what's-his-name - while
>> quality players at other positions are tougher to identify and
>> obtain. Speaking generally, it probably makes more sense to get free
>> agent kickers. But that said... if Medlock had worked out (as Crosby
>> did for the Packers out of the same draft) I doubt anybody (even you)
>> would have a problem with it now.
>
> Even me? lol.... What am I now, the resident curmudgeon? In any case, as
> few
> points as the Chiefs can put up, Elam would have given them *something*...
> and they sure do have the money left over that could have brought him in
> and
> still left them with a hefty pile of change.
>>
>> Given what's happened with other players since then, I am still
>> surprised that Medlock was given so little opportunity to develop, and
>> still wonder if he might have worked out all right if given the
>> chance. But remember... going into last season, the Chiefs clearly
>> thought they still had a good enough OL to be competitive. Obviously
>> they were wrong. That misjudgement led to the Medlock pick and several
>> other mistakes... another one being the decision to start the season
>> with Huard under center.
>
> It was all Herminated.
>
>>
>> With the benefit of hindsight, it clearly would have been smarter to
>> commit to rebuilding a season sooner. If Medlock had been picked
>> under those circumstances - rather than in the mistaken belief that
>> the Chiefs would need a reliable kicker to stay competitive - he might
>> never have been drafted in the first place. Even if he had, he very
>> well might still be wearing a Chiefs uniform... because he would have
>> had the benefit of the patience that the Chiefs are now showing
>> towards other young players.
>>
>> As far as Novak is concerned... that miss was a real surprise. Let's
>> hope it turns out to be an isolated instance.
>
> Its not as if he has a sterling record.
>
>>
>>> As far as the excess cap... maybe we will get a new provision, roll
>>> over cap like a cell phone. Eh?
>>
>> OK... that's funny. But WHAT excess cap? Sure... going into the
>> draft, the Chiefs had lots of cap space. Some sources were saying it
>> was more than any other team. But they also had to sign more draft
>> choices than anybody else, including TWO first round picks. I'd be
>> surprised if they have any cap space left... certainly not enough for
>> a top drawer kicker like Elam. That $32 million figure Nick quoted is
>> preposterous. If it's based on any facts at all, it must predate the
>> signing of the drafted players.
>
> Well I didn't check his numbers, but I would like to know what it is that
> they didn't spend. I for one don't believe that shutting the door on a
> handful of vet FAs while rebuilding through youth, just to prevent a total
> meltdown, is a bad idea. But now the Chiefs have the potential, if 0-16
> and
> losing 2 next season, of being the all time worst team ever in the NFL.
> Some
> folks seem to think the youth movement is a make or break one year deal,
> when its at least 2-3, and with that in mind hedging the bets a bit would
> have been smart. Like with Elam, for example, instead of continuing to
> spearmint.
>
> MartyB in KC

Ok, I don't believe I misquoted. I couldn't find exactly where in the Star
I read that. However,
in an AP article date July 31, 2008 addresses the salary cap of Green Bay,
and states their 30.5 million under the
salary cap is second only to Kansas City whit has 39 million under. So my
number is not preposterous, but even less than
the associated press reported in late July.
Here is the link -
http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8766422&nav=menu1360_4

So, I can only believe that Mr Hunt is saving money to help pay for the
Arrowhead Stadium upgrades.

Nick

On Sep 24, 7:33 pm, "Nick" <nw...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ok, I don't believe I misquoted.  I couldn't find exactly where in the Star
> I read that.  However,
> in an AP article date July 31, 2008 addresses the salary cap of Green Bay,
> and states their 30.5 million under the
> salary cap is second only to Kansas City whit has 39 million under.  Somy
> number is not preposterous, but even less than
> the associated press reported in late July.

It's not preposterous in the sense that you have a source for it...
only in how potentially accurate it is.

Nick, the Chiefs under Peterson have steadfastly and consistently
refused to publicize the specific terms of player contracts. Some
teams have an identical policy; others provide the rough outlines of
the agreements. Only one - Green Bay, as it happens - routinely
discloses the details of player contracts and other financial
information. But that's not necessarily because they WANT to... it's
because as a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL) they HAVE
to.

Understand... it's not that I disgaree that the Chiefs have a lot of
room under the salary cap. I simply don't KNOW if the Chiefs have a
lot of room under the salary cap. Anybody who says otherwise (even if
they work for the Star or the AP) is making nothing more than a
guess... and in the case of the Chiefs, it's a guess that's based on
very little hard information.

RDOGuy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:33 pm, "Nick" <nw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I don't believe I misquoted. I couldn't find exactly where in
>> the Star I read that. However,
>> in an AP article date July 31, 2008 addresses the salary cap of
>> Green Bay, and states their 30.5 million under the
>> salary cap is second only to Kansas City whit has 39 million under.
>> So my number is not preposterous, but even less than
>> the associated press reported in late July.
>
> It's not preposterous in the sense that you have a source for it...
> only in how potentially accurate it is.
>
> Nick, the Chiefs under Peterson have steadfastly and consistently
> refused to publicize the specific terms of player contracts. Some
> teams have an identical policy; others provide the rough outlines of
> the agreements. Only one - Green Bay, as it happens - routinely
> discloses the details of player contracts and other financial
> information. But that's not necessarily because they WANT to... it's
> because as a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL) they HAVE
> to.
>
> Understand... it's not that I disgaree that the Chiefs have a lot of
> room under the salary cap. I simply don't KNOW if the Chiefs have a
> lot of room under the salary cap. Anybody who says otherwise (even if
> they work for the Star or the AP) is making nothing more than a
> guess... and in the case of the Chiefs, it's a guess that's based on
> very little hard information.

But when I asked how people knew about the results of some Chiefs contract
negotiations in the last year, the answer was always the same, it gets
leaked out. It's not official, but the information is pretty much there
anyway. It was no secret what they gave Dorsey, it just wasn't "official".
So given the leakiness of the situation it should be possible to make an
approximation and I think that is probably where the figures came from. You
will never know for sure, but given that Dorsey ended up exactly between the
compensation for the 4 and 6 picks, it seems pretty realistic.

In any case its been common knowledge they had the most available money
under the cap going into the draft, and while they spent big money for
Dorsey they didn't for Allen, and so my hunch is that they could have easily
afforded Ela. They just didn't.

Makes me wonder how many games Edwards has lost by a missed FG.

MartyB in KC

"RDOGuy" <rdoguy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:25f3da08-c191-4a03-a30c-aebd1bd7d4c6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 7:33 pm, "Nick" <nw...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ok, I don't believe I misquoted. I couldn't find exactly where in the Star
> I read that. However,
> in an AP article date July 31, 2008 addresses the salary cap of Green Bay,
> and states their 30.5 million under the
> salary cap is second only to Kansas City whit has 39 million under. So my
> number is not preposterous, but even less than
> the associated press reported in late July.

>>It's not preposterous in the sense that you have a source for it...
>>only in how potentially accurate it is.

>>Nick, the Chiefs under Peterson have steadfastly and consistently
>>refused to publicize the specific terms of player contracts. Some
>>teams have an identical policy; others provide the rough outlines of
>>the agreements. Only one - Green Bay, as it happens - routinely
>>discloses the details of player contracts and other financial
>>information. But that's not necessarily because they WANT to... it's
>>because as a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL) they HAVE
>>to.

>>Understand... it's not that I disgaree that the Chiefs have a lot of
>>room under the salary cap. I simply don't KNOW if the Chiefs have a
>>lot of room under the salary cap. Anybody who says otherwise (even if
>>they work for the Star or the AP) is making nothing more than a
>>guess... and in the case of the Chiefs, it's a guess that's based on
>>very little hard information.


Ok, I agree the Chiefs are very closed mouth about specific contracts - but
even in the Officail KC Chiefs website -
it is hinted very strongly that the Chiefs do not have to worry about the
salary cap - even when - in future years have to
re-negotiate our current rookies contracts. So, in my opinion - the Hunts
are spending it elsewhere.

As a future discussion - I hope - we could discuss the "no cap"
possibilities of 2010.

Nick

Nick wrote:
> "RDOGuy" <rdoguy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:25f3da08-c191-4a03-a30c-aebd1bd7d4c6@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 7:33 pm, "Nick" <nw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I don't believe I misquoted. I couldn't find exactly where in
>> the Star I read that. However,
>> in an AP article date July 31, 2008 addresses the salary cap of
>> Green Bay, and states their 30.5 million under the
>> salary cap is second only to Kansas City whit has 39 million under.
>> So my number is not preposterous, but even less than
>> the associated press reported in late July.
>
>>> It's not preposterous in the sense that you have a source for it...
>>> only in how potentially accurate it is.
>
>>> Nick, the Chiefs under Peterson have steadfastly and consistently
>>> refused to publicize the specific terms of player contracts. Some
>>> teams have an identical policy; others provide the rough outlines of
>>> the agreements. Only one - Green Bay, as it happens - routinely
>>> discloses the details of player contracts and other financial
>>> information. But that's not necessarily because they WANT to...
>>> it's because as a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL)
>>> they HAVE to.
>
>>> Understand... it's not that I disgaree that the Chiefs have a lot of
>>> room under the salary cap. I simply don't KNOW if the Chiefs have a
>>> lot of room under the salary cap. Anybody who says otherwise (even
>>> if they work for the Star or the AP) is making nothing more than a
>>> guess... and in the case of the Chiefs, it's a guess that's based on
>>> very little hard information.
>
>
> Ok, I agree the Chiefs are very closed mouth about specific contracts
> - but even in the Officail KC Chiefs website -
> it is hinted very strongly that the Chiefs do not have to worry about
> the salary cap - even when - in future years have to
> re-negotiate our current rookies contracts. So, in my opinion - the
> Hunts are spending it elsewhere.
>
> As a future discussion - I hope - we could discuss the "no cap"
> possibilities of 2010.
>
> Nick

I don't agree that its because Clark Hunt is trying to run the team on the
cheap.

I also don't think we are going to see the no cap come to pass, nor a season
without a collective bargaining agreement in place. I also think that if
there is an attempt by the owners to make this happen we will see another
strike.

MartyB in KC

On Sep 24, 9:12 pm, "Nick" <nw...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Ok, I agree the Chiefs are very closed mouth about specific contracts - but
> even in the Officail KC Chiefs website -
> it is hinted very strongly that the Chiefs do not have to worry about the
> salary cap - even when - in future years have to
> re-negotiate our current rookies contracts.  So, in my opinion - the Hunts
> are spending it elsewhere.

That's exactly the point, Nick. The Chiefs - because of the situation
in which they find themselves - must be further under the cap than
some other teams. They not only signed a lot of rookies (some of them
undrafted players who are making close to the league minumum) but they
are giving them playing time, too. After this season, it will ne
necessary to renegotiate the contracts for some of these players in
order to keep them around - otherwise, this rebuilding program makes
no sense at all.

Further, anybody can see that it's a lot more likely the Chiefs will
be drafting earlier instead of later in 2009... yet another reason to
be holding some cap space in reserve. In other words... just because
they have (or had) cap space doesn't necessarily mean they were (or
are) in a position they could afford to spend a big chunk of it on a
marquee player.

Marty, for example, is quite right that according to published
reports, Dorsey's salary came in right between the #4 and #6 picks. I
imagine Albert's salary is right in line with other players drafted
around him, too. Despite the fact that the Chiefs don't release the
information officially, it's true that for the big marquee players,
reporters are able to get some information. But they know little ot
nothing about the contracts for players drafted after the first or
second rounds (they don't find out because nobody cares) and for all
those UFAs. In the end - especially because the Chiefs have so many
of these players compared to other teams - this makes any calculation
about the total cap space a pretty shaky guess.

Again, I don't disagree that the Chiefs are substantially under the
cap. What I question are these big numbers being thrown out there for
which there is little factual basis, and assumptions about the
motivation Peterson (of Hunt) may have for doing it that way. Iceman
was quite right that there are many big businesses that have
incentives for management to "cut costs and screw the regular
employees in the ass." I'm sorry to say that I've seen examples of
this myself. But no NFL players are getting screwed in the ass.
There simply aren't too many comparisons that can be reasonably made
between the business style of... say... Iceman's employer... and an
NFL GM.

On Sep 24, 10:53 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidn...@swbell.com> wrote:

> I don't agree that its because Clark Hunt is trying to run the team on the
> cheap.

There we are in complete agreement, Marty.

> I also don't think we are going to see the no cap come to pass, nor a season
> without a collective bargaining agreement in place. I also think that if
> there is an attempt by the owners to make this happen we will see another
> strike.

Agreed again. The owners may be dumb, but they aren't stupid. The
cap is one of the main reasons the league is so healthy right now.