ANSWER BOB – 2/10

Busy days end up leaving me behind on answering some of your posts and questions. Trying to catch up, so here we go.

Responses to “Chiefs Without 2011 Contracts”

el cid says: What a list, makes you think. For a young team we have a lot of starters who can walk. Add the CBA and what do the Chiefs do? Cannot win for trying. Things that pop out to me: Carr, Hali, all DL free agents, how do you not re-sign them? If the veterans walk, no center left on roster (with experience) and no RT who played last year. Can a college FB start next year? If Thomas Jones is done, do you go into the season without Battle on roster? Does anyone want O’Connell at the second TE? This is a very hard time for Pioli/Haley/OCs to pick and chose. Would not like their job with this.

Bob says: It’s hard to know how tough the list of 25 players without contracts is going to be for the Chiefs to deal with since we do not yet know how they will all be classified. I would rank them in this order:

  • Must sign (3): OLB Tamba Hali, CB Brandon Carr, DE Wallace Gilberry.
  • Should sign (3): OT Barry Richardson, LB Cory Greenwood, RB Jackie Battle.
  • Wait and see (4): WR Terrance Copper, NT Ron Edwards, DL Shaun Smith, DB Maurice Leggett.
  • Wait and wait (7): FB Tim Castille, FB Mike Cox, TE Leonard Pope, C Rudy Niswanger, S Reshard Langford, TE Brad Cottam, WR Kevin Curtis.
  • Goodbye/Retirement (8): QB Brodie Croyle, OT Ryan O’Callaghan, C Casey Wiegmann, LB Charlie Anderson, LB Corey Mays, LB Mike Vrabel, CB Travis Daniels, S Jon McGraw.

The lack of true center presents a challenge, but last year’s draft choice Jon Asamoah can snap, so don’t discount that possibility.

********

SG says: I think one question we should be considering is…which of our top FA’s is most likely to be allowed to leave for another team? Don Pioli has proven history that shows he is prone to take this approach from time to time.

Bob says: I don’t think there is anybody in the group of 25 that Pioli & Company are going to chase away. The players with the arrow pointing out in the group are Gilberry, Greenwood and Carr. After that, they all become for the most part interchangeable parts.

********

Responses to “Hall of Fame Vote In the Rearview”

jim says: Clear this up for me, not that it really matters – but, you state that of the five that you didn’t vote for -Dawson, Dent, Martin, Reed and Roaf, all were eliminated but Dent. Then you state “I voted FOR Roaf”, who did not advance. Seems like a contradiction. Just asking, and not being picky.

Bob says: Good catch Jim, I did not word that very well. In the final 10, I did vote for Roaf, but he was eliminated. I did not vote for Dawson, Dent, Martin, Reed or Kennedy. My mistake.

********

Petey says: So is it safe to assume Bob that you will be speaking on behalf of Will Shields next year?

Bob says: Yes, if Shields makes the final 15 then I will make the presentation. I think his chances are very good of getting to the last group. I’m sure there are those who believe he should be a first-ballot inductee, but Chiefs fans should not get their hearts set on that. Shields and Willie Roaf will both be in Canton before all is said and done.

********

Rex says: Just curious what your thoughts are on this, Bob. We heard for years about how DT wasn’t getting in because he was too one dimensional and didn’t play the run. But Sanders, a known avoider of contact, gets in on the first ballot. As if he ever played the run. Did you notice any hypocracy from the people who were against DT those first few years? Did their objections just magically vanish once it was Deion’s name up for discussion?

Bob says: Rex, can’t say that I did. Most of the voters who were not convinced of D.T.’s worthiness have moved off the committee. They tended to be among the older voters and they’ve been replaced by younger members. In the case of Deion the cover corner vs. Derrick the pass rusher, the general impression I got was that the voters felt Sanders was the best cover corner of his generation, while Thomas was one of the best pass rushers.

********

Responses to “Chiefs Stay In-house For O.C. – Bill Muir”

el cid says: If this is what Haley needs, got to go along. Would be interesting to know if anyone else was considered (as in out of house), betting no one.

George says: Bill Muir is another knowledgeable NFL person to state the Chiefs and Haley are building this organization the right way. I’m not that knowledgeable, just a fan. But, I’m seeing evidence from our play this year that these NFL experts seem to be on to something. The Chiefs think maintaining continuity is important to continue being successful and elevating Bill will help accomplish this. They are very secretive about who they have researched, discussed and talked to and who may also be joining the team. So, I’ll have to take their word that they are doing a thorough job to get the offensive staff adjusted to improve offensive play for the coming season. Bob, what are your thoughts on this. Do you think the Chiefs are building the football side of the organization the right way?

Bob says: Haley says he’s not done with his offensive staff yet, so I’ll withhold final opinion status until we see what other moves might be coming. But based on the promotion of Muir, I think it’s a good, solid move and one that will bring the continuity that QB Matt Cassel badly needs. There’s nothing sexy about naming Muir, certainly not as big a splash as hiring Charlie Weis last year. But this guy is one of the best assistant coaches in the NFL and has been. People like Bill Parcells and Jon Gruden swear by this guy – that’s pretty impressive when you start lining up recommendations. What’s needed now is a QB coach-passing game type, who can help pull the game plan together each week. If Haley wants to call the plays, then that’s fine; he’s probably going to be the best offensive play caller on the staff.

As to whether the Chiefs are building the football side of the organization the right way, so far I haven’t seen any bad moves. There have been some that might have been better to go in a different direction or a different coach or scout. But the true test of the scouting, selecting and developing process is sustained success and that’s what we need to see in 2011. They got it turned in the right direction, but staying there is a lot harder than getting there.

********

SG says: I have two questions: 1.) what is Muir’s position on the Thomas Jones deal? 2.) Will this be a slight change from the run-run-pass-punt philosophy to the run-run-run-punt approach? My opinion: not impressed at all. Coach Haley better negotiate a serious pay raise for Coach Crennel and keep him on staff or he (Haley) won’t be around past 2011-2012. “The 68-year old Muir” – does this guy carry health insurance? At age 68, seems to be something that will create more pressure and stress on anyone, much less somebody working for someone as intense as Haley obviously is.

What’s the chance we wanted to talk to someone with Green Bay or Pittsburgh but were declined permission to approach after the Super Bowl?

Bob says: I’m not sure what you mean by Muir’s position on Jones deal, but if it’s in using him in combination with Jamaal Charles, I’m sure that Muir was one of the architects of the situation. Understand that Muir was actively involved in game planning and play selection throughout the 2010 season. This idea that there’s this person sitting up in the box or on the sideline that makes every decision on what the offense, defense or special teams is going to do is just wrong. These are almost always collaborative efforts. There has to be a final say, but that generally comes after consultation during the week and in the game.

Also remember that while he would never say so, Haley knows that in year No. 3 of his four-year contract, his team cannot go backwards. The best way to assure that is to create some continuity on his offense.

Don’t worry about whether Muir can handle Haley. There is nobody on the coaching staff that can give it back to the head coach better than his new offensive coordinator. There is total respect between these guys and that won’t be a problem. Plus, Muir won’t be angling for his next job.

As for missing out on somebody from Green Bay or Pittsburgh, I don’t think so. First, the Packers offense is very different than what the Chiefs have done under Haley – that wasn’t going to fit. The Steelers offense is closer to what K.C. does, but there’s nobody on the Pittsburgh staff that has the NFL experience or background that Haley would have been looking for.


9 Responses to “ANSWER BOB – 2/10”

  • February 11, 2011  - Tim says:

    Agree with your take on FAs, Bob…all but one. I think we should sign Shaun Smith for sure. We don’t have prototype 3-4 DEs. We don’t have solid NTs. Smith produced. Smith has the size. Smith is versatile. It seemed he was initially signed to platoon at NT with Edwards & was soon pressed into action at DE. He produced. With the super hefty contracts of Dorsey & Jackson, it would seem we wouldn’t necessarily tie up significant money in another DE. I’m sure however,the prospect of a rookie salary cap could change this thinking. Keeping Smith allows us to address more pressing needs in the draft sooner.


  • February 11, 2011  - el cid says:

    I hope some of you will look at Bob’s list. Look a the bottom 15 names. Any given year, any team can draft or free agent 15 replacements. But combine starting games and you need 5 starters to cover them leaving. How the devil do the Chiefs find 5 STARTERS who are actually starters not just in name only?

    Folks, we got a problem, cannot ignor the ELEPHANT in the room. For whatever reason, the management has not got enough players under contract for next year. Will there be losses and gains, of course, but will there be a building on the 10 wins of last year. Rather, if many are allowed to walk, the replacements will not be “teamlike” until 2012, want that? Not me.


  • February 11, 2011  - Tim says:

    el cid – certainly valid concerns. I believe you can replace them though. Studebaker is ready to step in for Vrabel. Sheffield will be coming back & depth can be added via FA &/or the draft. Same with Wiegmann should he retire. Our draft position will allow for a variety of possibilities this year along the OL. Perhaps we trade down, gain an additional pick & grab the other Pouncey for a C/G. We’re in much better position to maneuver in this draft to gain more picks like he has in the past at NE. There’s no doubt many of those players will be offered contracts though.


  • February 11, 2011  - el cid says:

    I can agree for the most part. Studebaker is a fan favorite but if he was “ready” what did he gain since season’s end because he did not replace Vrabel except for a series now and then. As for Center, Grundhart took 6 games before he got on the field and he was not hash liver. So a college pick at C may not be ready to play. Lastly, you mentioned how we are in a position to move during the draft like did in NE. Well since Pioli left NE, they still move and trade their draft positions and how much has Pioli done in KC? Just saying that movement might not have been Pioli’s thing, that is the fun of the future, who is Pioli and how much of what was done in NE was him or someone else?


  • February 11, 2011  - Tim says:

    Pioli was drafting much lower in the drafts at NE than he’s had an opportunity to do in KC. He’s down in the neighborhood where he can move, should they feel its in their best interest if THE guy isn’t there or they’re indifferent to what’s on the board at the time. With rookie salaries as they have been, NOBODY wants to trade into the top 5 or so…very rarely anyway. As for the center. I believe the guy in front of Grunny was still there. If Wiegmann retires, that’s a different situation. The right rookie is capable just as the right rookie is capable at other positions. Our interior 3 have to get younger & better. I believe Asomoah will be fine for one of the slots. As the year went on, Sudy was out there more. Its clear he’s the guy unless they get a much more talented rookie in the draft or a FA. There are A LOT of FAs pending this CBA outcome. We’ll just have to see what happens. I believe we’ll be ok.


  • February 11, 2011  - Michael says:

    Another factor that helps allow a team like New England to make trades to move around in drafts is that the organization has built the team up into a very good team, full of very good players, for a very long time. After you get something like that rolling, it’s a lot easier to trade away veteran players for picks, or defer picks to later years so you can pick up extra choices. If you can live without a first pick this year, you might trade it for a first and a third next year, or trade a second rounder this year for a second and a fourth the next year. I’ve even seen NE trade a second rounder in a current year for a first the following year. So, you have three ways to pick up choices: trade veteran players; slide down the draft order; or trade current picks for future picks plus. Right now I don’t think KC has enough players it could trade away, and I don’t think they can afford to trade current picks for future picks; fourth thru seventh rounders maybe. Unless, they were able to sign enough quality free agents; then they might be able to trade something like a second or third for future picks. Trading away a first for future picks is at a whole other level, and teams usually won’t do it unless they have a couple first rounders. I think the Chiefs are still at the point of needing all their picks, needing to retain most of their own free agents, needing to acquire a handful of quality veteran free agents, and needing to be right on a couple colleg free agents. Moving around the draft board should be a little easier given their draft position, and if they can aqcuire more picks that way I think it would be best to get current picks. The Chiefs still need more than a handful of players, so they ought to go looking down every avenue that makes sense for them.


  • February 11, 2011  - el cid says:

    All good comments. Only wanted to point out in last two drafts, Mr Pioli traded away two picks to get his two TEs. Both look to be part of the future but subtracting draft picks is not the same as adding picks. Once again the future will tell. But I do agree about your comments in general.


  • February 11, 2011  - el cid says:

    Not that you would notice, but you gutless regulars might read all the warm and fuzzies toward Whitlock. You have big mouths about how good things are, always fair and yet you gutless wonders got nothing to say about the former hate monger Mr Whitlock. Where are you Micheal, Nate, and the rest?


  • February 14, 2011  - Michael says:

    el cid, I decided a long time ago not to waste any time or energy on the garbage Whitlock produces.




Get the Flash Player to see the slideshow.


Categories

Other News

Archives


RSS


Pages

Home