Tamba Hali

[DeezNutz]

Has anyone seen him? His friends and family are worried.

What happened to our impact LB? The sack machine? The difference maker?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by doomy3

But I thought the main problem on the owners side with the CBA is more on the large market owners. Aren't those the guys that want the change so they can spend more of that money instead of sharing it?

It's a mix the small market owners don't like it either because they see the cap getting higher and it's creating have and have nots within the cap. Basically the smaller market owners want the luxury box/suit money to be shared too and the big market owners are telling them to **** off.

Here's where the advantage is..if I turn 80 million and you turn 40 million, I can circumvent the cap by giving out more money in bonuses than you turn and still make a profit.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Because Curry wasn't an elite, special talent at his position. He wasn't Patrick Willis. He wasn't Derrick Brooks.

Rare players supercede positional value. Guys like Sean Taylor, Barry Sanders, Deion, Adrian Peterson, etc.

I beg to differ. I remember watching Charlie Casserly state that he was the best linebacking prospect that he has seen in the past ten years hands down. Someone else (can't remember who) in the business stated that he was a bigger, faster version of Pat Willis (who I liked a ton and wished the Chiefs drafted). There were a lot of guys who were full on the Curry bandwagon. Guys who were in the business of evaluating players.

And I remember people around here stating that they wouldn't take Adrian Peterson for a number of reasons.

(And I'm not a positional guy. I'd be estatic if the Chiefs actually took a guy like Berry, Mays, Dunlap or Spikes. I just think it's a bit hypocritical to bag on Curry as a top ten guy because he played the strongside backer position in college, but polish up Mays or Berry when they play safety. I mean, seriously. Safety. In terms of positional picking, that's about as low as you can go on the totem pole.)

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by doomy3

I just really don't see the dominance from the large market teams in the NFL like I do in MLB. It seems like it is pretty even and not like teams in NY are far and away outspending teams in smaller markets in the MLB.

Dude, come on.

The Patriots. Three Super Bowls. Philly. Atlanta. The Giants. Need I go on?

There's a real problem in Pittsburgh. They just don't have the cash, which is why their offensive line and running backs suck. The Rooney's have been contemplating selling the team, which would be bad for the NFL but good (maybe) for the Steelers.

It's all about money. And Jerry Jones is INTENT on making it a HUGE issue and has called-out Kansas City specifically in interviews.

The same thing happened in MLB, too. I detailed Steinbrenner's unhappiness with the Royals before and now they've spent $70 million as opposed to $30 million.

Small market subsidies piss these guys OFF.

[Mecca]

Yea Charlie Casserly also thought Troy Williamson was a great WR prospect.

[Mecca]

Jerry Jones basically made fun of Minnesota for being to cheap to pay for their stadium.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Mecca

It's a mix the small market owners don't like it either because they see the cap getting higher and it's creating have and have nots within the cap. Basically the smaller market owners want the luxury box/suit money to be shared too and the big market owners are telling them to **** off.

Here's where the advantage is..if I turn 80 million and you turn 40 million, I can circumvent the cap by giving out more money in bonuses than you turn and still make a profit.

Is that last part really happening all that often though? I mean, are there a lot of teams doing that because of the suites? I realize a lot of teams pay the huge backloaded contracts with the big signing bonuses, but it certainly doesn't seem exclusive to just large market teams. Seems like everyone does this.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Yea Charlie Casserly also thought Troy Williamson was a great WR prospect.

Conversely, weren't you a big Mike Williams proponent?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by doomy3

Is that last part really happening all that often though? I mean, are there a lot of teams doing that because of the suites? I realize a lot of teams pay the huge backloaded contracts with the big signing bonuses, but it certainly doesn't seem exclusive to just large market teams. Seems like everyone does this.

The Giants are doing it..Cowboys, Redskins, several others do it too, NE does it.

All teams give out bonuses but the idea is the big market teams can do it more because they have more money. Basically the Chiefs give Cassel and Jackson their money and have nothing left.

A team like the Giants could pay them and 5 more guys.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Conversely, weren't you a big Mike Williams proponent?

Ha no, I said I thought he was to slow, I don't like big slow WR's.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dude, come on.

The Patriots. Three Super Bowls. Philly. Atlanta. The Giants. Need I go on?

There's a real problem in Pittsburgh. They just don't have the cash, which is why their offensive line and running backs suck. The Rooney's have been contemplating selling the team, which would be bad for the NFL but good (maybe) for the Steelers.

It's all about money. And Jerry Jones is INTENT on making it a HUGE issue and has called-out Kansas City specifically in interviews.

The same thing happened in MLB, too. I detailed Steinbrenner's unhappiness with the Royals before and now they've spent $70 million as opposed to $30 million.

Small market subsidies piss these guys OFF.

I get all that, but I do think it is a much more even playing field than most sports. I hadn't heard about Rooney considering selling the team though, that's the first I've heard about that.

Admittedly, I am not as versed in the salary cap/CBA as I could be. That's why I am asking questions and engaging in this discussion.

So, you and Hamas can take more shots at me if that makes you feel better, but this has been informative. I wasn't exactly sure how the suite money worked. I knew teams with suites had an advantage, but wasn't sure exactly what it was.

[Mecca]

Look at teams like the Steelers, Bills or Jacksonville or even the Chiefs then compare those moves to teams like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Pats.

You'll see a stark difference in how active the teams are in FA and how much money is going out.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

I beg to differ. I remember watching Charlie Casserly state that he was the best linebacking prospect that he has seen in the past ten years hands down. Someone else (can't remember who) in the business stated that he was a bigger, faster version of Pat Willis (who I liked a ton and wished the Chiefs drafted). There were a lot of guys who were full on the Curry bandwagon. Guys who were in the business of evaluating players.

And I remember people around here stating that they wouldn't take Adrian Peterson for a number of reasons.

(And I'm not a positional guy. I'd be estatic if the Chiefs actually took a guy like Berry, Mays, Dunlap or Spikes. I just think it's a bit hypocritical to bag on Curry as a top ten guy because he played the strongside backer position in college, but polish up Mays or Berry when they play safety. I mean, seriously. Safety. In terms of positional picking, that's about as low as you can go on the totem pole.)

Top ten isn't top 5, FWIW, and Curry wasn't good enough to supercede the dent that his position has on his value. And Safety is more important that any of the LB positions in a pass happy league.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by doomy3

I get all that, but I do think it is a much more even playing field than most sports. I hadn't heard about Rooney considering selling the team though, that's the first I've heard about that.

Admittedly, I am not as versed in the salary cap/CBA as I could be. That's why I am asking questions and engaging in this discussion.

So, you and Hamas can take more shots at me if that makes you feel better, but this has been informative. I wasn't exactly sure how the suite money worked. I knew teams with suites had an advantage, but wasn't sure exactly what it was.

Dude, did I take a shot during this conversation? All I asked was if you were aware of this practice.

As for the rest, it's the "Dirty Little Secret" of the NFL.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The Giants are doing it..Cowboys, Redskins, several others do it too, NE does it.

All teams give out bonuses but the idea is the big market teams can do it more because they have more money. Basically the Chiefs give Cassel and Jackson their money and have nothing left.

A team like the Giants could pay them and 5 more guys.

So do you see us having money to re-sign guys like Flowers, Bowe, Albert?

My thinking was that we weren't re-signing guys because we had shit talent that were young enough to be a core. With those guys, I would have to assume we would pay large bonuses even though we aren't a large market team. Am I correct in assuming that will probably happen?

My point is, of course the Giants are spending more money. They have drafted much better players the last several years that cost a hell of a lot more to lock up. If the Chiefs would have drafted Manning, Tuck, Kiwi, Osi, etc, you don't think we would have given them big money to lock them up?

[ChiefsCountry]

Wait till next year when the Giants move out of Arrowhead East to their new digs. They will have even more cash. The NFL tv deal pays the players salaries, the siging bonuses are paid out by the team's cash flow which is the advertising, suites, parking, and club seating.