Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Free Agency- Denver yes. Oakland yes?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Kansas City Chiefs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kw_215


Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Location: Northwest PA
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:13 pm    Post subject: Free Agency- Denver yes. Oakland yes? Reply with quote

As we all watch Denver get stronger, picking up pro-bowl caliber players, who has noticed what Oakland has done in free agency?
Resigning their own RB Mcfadden and OT Khalif Barnes, but also adding OT Austin Howard, CB Tarell Brown, OLB Lamarr Woodley, DE Justin Tuck, and DE Antonio Smith....And are they done? Front seven definately has a better pass rushing attack which is needed against division rivals Manning and River. Couple big names, will these moves work well for them? Opinions???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chiefs82


Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 4506
Location: Your Mom's House.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here
_________________

________________
ryknowssd on the sig
2014 Adopt-A-Chief: #50 Justin Houston, OLB
Tackles:32/Sacks:12/FF:1/FR:0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Morkim


Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Posts: 815
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chiefs82 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here


Denver>Oakland>KC?

lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
kw_215


Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Location: Northwest PA
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Morkim wrote:
chiefs82 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here


Denver>Oakland>KC?

lol


Exactly...and just added WR James Jones. I would have to say that Oakland is trying to be competitive..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cutler06


Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 10224
Location: Westminster
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kw_215 wrote:
Morkim wrote:
chiefs82 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here


Denver>Oakland>KC?

lol


Exactly...and just added WR James Jones. I would have to say that Oakland is trying to be competitive..


What a poor attempt at trolling...especially given the average quality of OAK's acquisitions
_________________


Jakuvious wrote:
KC's pass rush is fast. Manning's decision making is faster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Piquel


Joined: 19 Mar 2009
Posts: 568
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cutler06 wrote:
kw_215 wrote:
Morkim wrote:
chiefs82 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here


Denver>Oakland>KC?

lol


Exactly...and just added WR James Jones. I would have to say that Oakland is trying to be competitive..


What a poor attempt at trolling...especially given the average quality of OAK's acquisitions


I like the approach McKenzie is taking, other then the fact I hate Oakland. As a Chiefs fan, I really wish Al Davis was spending the 60M.
_________________
Troy Brown wrote:
It's NFL general. I said something so that means everything I didn't include in my post is 100 percent true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DT58_lives_on


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 5791
Location: St. Cloud, MN
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So your ranking is this

Den>Oak>KC

Wonder if this impacts it? Here is the cap space of those teams

Den (17.9m) Oak (66.3m) KC (9.7m)

Simply put, we didn't have the money to compete with those teams. Oakland NEEDED to be active in free agency as they were well below the minimum cap number. Now have they over-paid for some guys, yes I think so, not to mention the Saffold fiasco.

Denver has a pretty strong draw, and had a good cap number. But it's going to make things tight down the road when it comes time to re-sign guys like Bebe, Julius and Von.

KC, honestly is a loser in free agency in my opinion. We had a number of quality free agents (as seen by how quickly they signed elsewhere) and in reality had little hope of keeping more than a couple at best. We've made a few moves, but certainly nothing with a WOW factor, but honestly we can't afford most of those players and still have money going forward. It's tough to lose guys, and I think this year could be a struggle as we rely on some of the young guys to step up.

To assume we aren't trying to better our team however I think is a stretch, we simply cannot compete with some of these other teams Cap wise, and were caught in the losing end of a bad situation with the Sanders thing, which would have been our biggest "instant improvement" player.
_________________
[image]http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg481/jesse_fritsch1/DEEFORD2_zpsef1ad50c.jpg[image]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dawsonleery


Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 760
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reggie McKenzie is clearly signing players to win more games and be more competitive right now. Building through the draft is unrealistic when you are on the hot seat. I fully expect Matt Schaub to land in Oakland too. Its risky but he could rebound, if not... Reggie is most likely out of a job.

Raiders are kind of doing with the Chiefs did last year. KC was very aggressive in free agency a year ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OILCHIEFS


Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 1473
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know how you can applaud a GM for letting a quality LT in veldheer go and then trying to sign Saffold as his replacement for even more money. Saffold can't play LT or stay healthy. That move was laughable.

Not a single player he signed was better than Veldheer or Houston. Which he let both walk without getting anything. Talk about terrible asset management. He had the cap space to at least tag and trade 1 of them. The only reason Oakland is closer to being competitive is because we were too close to the cap to retain our best free agents. Mind you the only contract I would have matched was Schwartz or asamoah.

Oakland is still the worst in the division.
_________________
Adopt-a-Chief: Beast from the East

Tamba Hali
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 24995
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OILCHIEFS wrote:
I don't know how you can applaud a GM for letting a quality LT in veldheer go and then trying to sign Saffold as his replacement for even more money. Saffold can't play LT or stay healthy. That move was laughable.

Not a single player he signed was better than Veldheer or Houston. Which he let both walk without getting anything. Talk about terrible asset management. He had the cap space to at least tag and trade 1 of them. The only reason Oakland is closer to being competitive is because we were too close to the cap to retain our best free agents. Mind you the only contract I would have matched was Schwartz or asamoah.

Oakland is still the worst in the division.

Right, because to tag and trade you don't need a partner. It just happens. How many tag and trades EVER happen in the NFL? Fans love to talk about them, but they occur once in a blue moon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Morkim


Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Posts: 815
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
OILCHIEFS wrote:
I don't know how you can applaud a GM for letting a quality LT in veldheer go and then trying to sign Saffold as his replacement for even more money. Saffold can't play LT or stay healthy. That move was laughable.

Not a single player he signed was better than Veldheer or Houston. Which he let both walk without getting anything. Talk about terrible asset management. He had the cap space to at least tag and trade 1 of them. The only reason Oakland is closer to being competitive is because we were too close to the cap to retain our best free agents. Mind you the only contract I would have matched was Schwartz or asamoah.

Oakland is still the worst in the division.

Right, because to tag and trade you don't need a partner. It just happens. How many tag and trades EVER happen in the NFL? Fans love to talk about them, but they occur once in a blue moon.


You know blue moons happen every year? lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
eddie mac


Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 6179
Location: Ireland
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DT58_lives_on wrote:
So your ranking is this

Den>Oak>KC

Wonder if this impacts it? Here is the cap space of those teams

Den (17.9m) Oak (66.3m) KC (9.7m)

Simply put, we didn't have the money to compete with those teams. Oakland NEEDED to be active in free agency as they were well below the minimum cap number. Now have they over-paid for some guys, yes I think so, not to mention the Saffold fiasco.

Denver has a pretty strong draw, and had a good cap number. But it's going to make things tight down the road when it comes time to re-sign guys like Bebe, Julius and Von.

KC, honestly is a loser in free agency in my opinion. We had a number of quality free agents (as seen by how quickly they signed elsewhere) and in reality had little hope of keeping more than a couple at best. We've made a few moves, but certainly nothing with a WOW factor, but honestly we can't afford most of those players and still have money going forward. It's tough to lose guys, and I think this year could be a struggle as we rely on some of the young guys to step up.

To assume we aren't trying to better our team however I think is a stretch, we simply cannot compete with some of these other teams Cap wise, and were caught in the losing end of a bad situation with the Sanders thing, which would have been our biggest "instant improvement" player.


Actually it wont considering none of the signed players bar Ware ($3.5m) have any guaranteed money beyond 2014 and the signing bonuses were all $5m or under so there wont be an issue at all with the cap in future years or dead money. The Broncos had the cash this offseason and they spent it in this offseason and both the Talib/Ware deals are basically 1-2 yr contracts in essence. So when it comes to deciding who deserves the money more in 2015/16 it will be the Broncos choice and not dictated by current contracts.
_________________


Sig by Lil Uno thanks bro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OILCHIEFS


Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 1473
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
OILCHIEFS wrote:
I don't know how you can applaud a GM for letting a quality LT in veldheer go and then trying to sign Saffold as his replacement for even more money. Saffold can't play LT or stay healthy. That move was laughable.

Not a single player he signed was better than Veldheer or Houston. Which he let both walk without getting anything. Talk about terrible asset management. He had the cap space to at least tag and trade 1 of them. The only reason Oakland is closer to being competitive is because we were too close to the cap to retain our best free agents. Mind you the only contract I would have matched was Schwartz or asamoah.

Oakland is still the worst in the division.

Right, because to tag and trade you don't need a partner. It just happens. How many tag and trades EVER happen in the NFL? Fans love to talk about them, but they occur once in a blue moon.



So don't trade them. They are still better players then the ones brought in to replace them.
_________________
Adopt-a-Chief: Beast from the East

Tamba Hali
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DT58_lives_on


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 5791
Location: St. Cloud, MN
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They also have to be willing to stay on the Raiders. Short of them being tagged. While I agree I think The Hulk was a better LT than anyone else they brought in or signed it's possible he just said no thanks.

Keep in mind scheme fit can also play a role, maybe now that Al's wonder-kids are mostly gone, they have plans to move some stuff around. I truly think they're trying to start over and change the identity. Hence bringing in some players that know what it's like to win.
_________________
[image]http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg481/jesse_fritsch1/DEEFORD2_zpsef1ad50c.jpg[image]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kw_215


Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Location: Northwest PA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cutler06 wrote:
kw_215 wrote:
Morkim wrote:
chiefs82 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here


Denver>Oakland>KC?

lol


Exactly...and just added WR James Jones. I would have to say that Oakland is trying to be competitive..


What a poor attempt at trolling...especially given the average quality of OAK's acquisitions


Wasn't trolling by the way. I was just making comments about how oakland has been active in free agency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Kansas City Chiefs All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group