Jump to content

Thomas Dimitroff work your friendship with Scott Pioli


atljbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Kansas City Chiefs needs a 3-4 DE and we need a 4-3 LE...... A Jamaal Anderson for Tamba Hali trade is perfect for both teams .... Jamaal Anderson would be a good five technique DE (3-4 DE) and Tamba Hali would be a nice LE for us.

I'm not most of you that think Jamaal Anderson is a bum..The guy is good at playing the run.. I just feel like Jamaal Anderson best position is as a 3-4 DE.

Lets make this trade happen TD.

The Kansas City Star suggests that DE Tamba Hali will struggle to find a role in the Chiefs' new defense.

KC will likely end up using a hybrid 3-4/4-3, but Hali may no longer be an every-down player. He's too small to play the five technique and isn't explosive enough to be a full-time rush linebacker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kansas City Chiefs needs a 3-4 DE and we need a 4-3 LE...... A Jamaal Anderson for Tamba Hali trade is perfect for both teams .... Jamaal Anderson would be a good five technique DE (3-4 DE) and Tamba Hali would be a nice LE for us.

I'm not most of you that think Jamaal Anderson is a bum..The guy is good at playing the run.. I just feel like Jamaal Anderson best position is as a 3-4 DE.

Lets make this trade happen TD.

Nice idea, I'm all for that. I agree JA98 is more suited to a 3-4 defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty mentioned that there would be changes to our defensive scheme this year, meaning, adding the 3-4, so why trade JA98 when we would run the exact same scheme? He's done well playing DT in our 4-3 scheme and in the 3-4, he may have even more success at LE. It does sound like a decent trade though...it'll give Abe some help from the other side, then all we would have to do is draft a DT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty mentioned that there would be changes to our defensive scheme this year, meaning, adding the 3-4, so why trade JA98 when we would run the exact same scheme? He's done well playing DT in our 4-3 scheme and in the 3-4, he may have even more success at LE. It does sound like a decent trade though...it'll give Abe some help from the other side, then all we would have to do is draft a DT.

i dont think he meant the 3 4 .i think he meant losing half of our starters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty said that he wants to play more man coverage....... We played allot of zone last year but the coaching staff wants to be able to switch it up...... We need another safety (it may be thomas decoud) and we need a consistent pass rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we keep the 4-3, why not work out something that would get us Dorsey. They don't need him. They could do better with our first round pick. Let's hope we keep up with the conversation of the Pats and their former employees.

I agree but lets be real.... KC gave Dorsey 22 million in guarentees........ The cap hit would hurt KC to much..... That dead money is not what KC need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty mentioned that there would be changes to our defensive scheme this year, meaning, adding the 3-4, so why trade JA98 when we would run the exact same scheme? He's done well playing DT in our 4-3 scheme and in the 3-4, he may have even more success at LE. It does sound like a decent trade though...it'll give Abe some help from the other side, then all we would have to do is draft a DT.

What gave you the idea that we will be switching to the 3-4. That is highly unlikely. Abe would have to move to an OLB in a 3-4. Just won't happen. I took from what Smitty was saying that we would not be playing as much bend but don't break style defense. We had to last year because of our lack of speed and athleticism but they plan on fixing that through the draft and with our young players. We will be more aggressive this year. That is more of a Smitty and Van Gorder type defense anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but lets be real.... KC gave Dorsey 22 million in guarentees........ The cap hit would hurt KC to much..... That dead money is not what KC need.

There would be no cap hit if they traded Dorsey to us. That would actually be a good reason to trade Dorsey if he didn't fit their scheme. It would save them that money for a player playing out of scheme. Personally, I think Dorsey might be able to play some DE in the 3-4 on running downs and NT on passing downs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about 2nd 5th for dorsey? we have a higher fifth now.

We would jump all over that but why would KC give up the 5th overall from last year for that. We would probably have to give up our 1st and 2nd this year and next years 2nd to get him. It would be pricey. He didn't explode luike some of us thought he would but he did alright for a rookie and will get better with more talent around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guaranteed money comes off their cap space, 13.2m this year!!

exactly...... it would be smarter and wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more cap friendly to keep him...... Glen Dorsey salarie was $ 6,933,250 but his cap hit was only $ 2,395,000..... A rookie cap hit is less then his actual salary unless the player is trade.... When the player gets trade to another team his whole guaranteed money counts as a cap hit on his last team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he's on their team, yea but not if they trade him. Then that goes to whoever he goes to. Just like if we somehow find a way to trade Vick. All his cap space would be gone immediately.

thank you. that is exactly what i thought. why would they have to pay his salary ne ways, when we would be taking it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you. that is exactly what i thought. why would they have to pay his salary ne ways, when we would be taking it over.

Yea, they wouldn't. I have no idea what these other guys are talking about. The new team takes over the entire salary. If this was the case, we would not be trying to trade Vick because he would cost about 15 million against our cap. Again, I have no idea what they are talking about. I've been watching this stuff go down for about 24 or 25 years and not once has a team's cap been charged with a traded players salary. If that wrere the case their would never be any trades. Did they not notice that when we unloaded D-Hall that his salary was off our cap? Same with Laurent. Guess not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he's on their team, yea but not if they trade him. Then that goes to whoever he goes to. Just like if we somehow find a way to trade Vick. All his cap space would be gone immediately.

Glossary of free-agency terms

Prorated signing bonuses: This is the hardest thing to understand about the cap. For cap purposes, signing bonuses are spread throughout the length of the contract. For example, a $4 million signing bonus spread across a four-year contract counts $1 million against the cap each year. This explains why a team can pay a player $5 million in one season but have it count only $2 million against the cap. You add the $1 million base salary with the 2009 prorated part of the signing bonus and end up with a $2 million cap number.

Salary-cap hits: The prorated part of a signing bonus will always count toward that year's cap. But because every dollar counts toward the salary cap, teams must add the remainder of a signing bonus if they cut or trade a player. They do this in two ways. The rules are different in 2009 because there is no cap scheduled for 2010 unless there is a collective bargaining extension within the next year. If a player is cut in 2009, the team takes the entire salary-cap hit in 2009. If a player is cut before June 1, the cap hit occurs this year.

Take that $4 million signing bonus example. If that player who accepted a $4 million signing bonus in 2008 is cut this year, the team is on the books for the $1 million proration in 2009 but also must take a $2 million salary-cap hit this season. Thus, the released player would count $3 million under the 2009 cap, even though he's no longer on the team.

Why trades usually don't happen: Often, it's because of that prorated signing bonus hit. Unlike with releasing a player, there is no way that a team that trades a player can delay taking a salary-cap hit. Once a player is traded, the remaining proration is moved into that season. The same standard applies if a player is cut. Trading can begin Feb. 27.

courtesy of John Clayton ESPN.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is money they have already payed the player in the signing bonus. The annual salary would not count. The up front money would count. That is actually what is going against us right now with Mike Vick. Maybe it would be 13 something million for Dorsey because he received a large signing bonus up front. Heck man, I don't know, I'm confusing myself now. lol. KC won't trade him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...