PDA

View Full Version : The Priest restructures.....


DIESELMAN
03-16-2006, 02:37 AM
Holmes restructured his contract by taking his 2006 salary from $3.75 million to $710,000, giving the chiefs some cap relief, ESPN.com's John Clayton reports. While such a deal is often done by a player who is going to be a June 1st cap casualty, the Chiefs have no plans to cut him.
Holmes is undergoing tests to determine if he can play. He won't know for months and odds are starting to build up that he might have to retire, but the Chiefs plan to keep him on the roster through the season at the $710,000 number, and possibly keep him on the physically unable to return list until he's healthy.
If he's not healthy, the Chiefs don't mind paying him the $710,000 for his past work. If he does comeback, the team can rework the contract later.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 03:49 AM
Classy move by the Chiefs.

All the best to the Priest - the greatest undrafted RB ever.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:11 AM
Classy move by the Chiefs.

All the best to the Priest - the greatest undrafted RB ever.

NM

damn after your take on duce staley i was sure you would think of this as a huge waste of money, both last year and next. after all wouldnt it be cheaper to spend that $710,000 upgrading their cheerleaders outfits?

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 11:51 AM
damn after your take on duce staley i was sure you would think of this as a huge waste of money, both last year and next. after all wouldnt it be cheaper to spend that $710,000 upgrading their cheerleaders outfits?

You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'future' and 'past' Tony.

Duce Staley was a waste of money because he spent most of the regular season and all of the post season sat on the sideline runnning the Jerome Bettis fanclub.

That is an example of the past, Tony.

The Chiefs have signed the Priest to a minimum contract for this year, in the hope that he can regain fitness and be a serviceable back-up to Larry Johnson.

That is an example of the future.

Its a reasonably simple concept once you get the hang of it.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 12:00 PM
You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'future' and 'past' Tony.

Duce Staley was a waste of money because he spent most of the regular season and all of the post season sat on the sideline runnning the Jerome Bettis fanclub.

That is an example of the past, Tony.

The Chiefs have signed the Priest to a minimum contract for this year, in the hope that he can regain fitness and be a serviceable back-up to Larry Johnson.

That is an example of the future.

Its a reasonably simple concept once you get the hang of it.

NM

Holmes restructured his contract by taking his 2006 salary from $3.75 million to $710,000, giving the chiefs some cap relief, ESPN.com's John Clayton reports. While such a deal is often done by a player who is going to be a June 1st cap casualty, the Chiefs have no plans to cut him.
Holmes is undergoing tests to determine if he can play. He won't know for months and odds are starting to build up that he might have to retire, but the Chiefs plan to keep him on the roster through the season at the $710,000 number, and possibly keep him on the physically unable to return list until he's healthy.
If he's not healthy, the Chiefs don't mind paying him the $710,000 for his past work. If he does comeback, the team can rework the contract later.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think youre struggling with the concept and your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) arent helping you any. where does it say anything about him being a servicable back up? or did you read in between the lines and get that out of this sentence: "odds are starting to build up that he might have to retire"?

i love your logic though. if any player gets hurt they are a waste of money (unless of course its bruschi or brady)

Lyn
03-16-2006, 12:00 PM
I am thinking/hoping that much of the reason Duce was in his gray sweatsuit most of the year (well he did get 75 or so yards and he did dress for the superbowl) is because the coaching staff was dedicating much of the year to Bettis and that Duce will make an attempt to fill Bettis' shoes (that is not gonna happen). Noone can fill his shoes in my mind.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 12:06 PM
Holmes restructured his contract by taking his 2006 salary from $3.75 million to $710,000, giving the chiefs some cap relief, ESPN.com's John Clayton reports. While such a deal is often done by a player who is going to be a June 1st cap casualty, the Chiefs have no plans to cut him.
Holmes is undergoing tests to determine if he can play. He won't know for months and odds are starting to build up that he might have to retire, but the Chiefs plan to keep him on the roster through the season at the $710,000 number, and possibly keep him on the physically unable to return list until he's healthy.
If he's not healthy, the Chiefs don't mind paying him the $710,000 for his past work. If he does comeback, the team can rework the contract later.

i think youre struggling with the concept and your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) arent helping you any. where does it say anything about him being a servicable back up? or did you read in between the lines and get that out of this sentence: "odds are starting to build up that he might have to retire"?

Tony, Tony, Tony.

My point is a simple one.

The value the Chiefs are going to get from the outlay of $710K is undecided because we dont know how the Priest will perform in 2006/7.

We do know that Duce Staley spent most of last year sat on the sidelines, for a much larger slice of money - which is fact.

At this point we can only guess what sort of value $710K gives the Chiefs next year.

Just accept it - Duce Staley was bad value for money last year.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 12:13 PM
living- you know why they didnt bring duce staley back in once he was ready to go? the same reason the patriots didnt bring bledsoe back in, in 2001. pretty easy concept to understand once you get used to it. but bledsoe was a waste of money right? of course it was especially if you choose to ignore him coming in to save the bradyless pats in the afcc game.

insurance is always a waste of money until you get in an accident or have to file a claim. you are familiar with insurance policies arent you? there are cheap ones and expensive ones. to walk you through slowly (cause i know your next remark will be "whats insurance have to do with this?") i am comparing bledsoe and duce to expensive insurance policies who werent brought back to fix something that wasnt broken.

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 12:15 PM
Just accept it - Duce Staley was bad value for money last year.

NM you mean like half the pats roster? i guess willis mcgahee was a terrible signing and draft pick. look at all the money wasted on carson palmer to carry a clipboard for a whole year.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 03:19 PM
living- you know why they didnt bring duce staley back in once he was ready to go? the same reason the patriots didnt bring bledsoe back in, in 2001. pretty easy concept to understand once you get used to it. but bledsoe was a waste of money right? of course it was especially if you choose to ignore him coming in to save the bradyless pats in the afcc game.

insurance is always a waste of money until you get in an accident or have to file a claim. you are familiar with insurance policies arent you? there are cheap ones and expensive ones. to walk you through slowly (cause i know your next remark will be "whats insurance have to do with this?") i am comparing bledsoe and duce to expensive insurance policies who werent brought back to fix something that wasnt broken.

Interesting Patriots example.

1a. Drew Bledsoe was the undisputed starter for the Patriots.

1b. Jerome Bettis was in the last year of his career and was used exclusively as a short yardage pounder.

2a. Tom Brady was a 6th round project.

2b. Duce staley was a high profile FA signing who was intended to be the focal point of the running game.

3a. Tom Brady took the place of an injured Bledsoe and played so fantastically well that he kept the job, despite Bledsoe returning to full health.

3b. Jerome Bettis compiled 350 yards over the whole season - Duce Staley didnt play another down after he got injured.


The Brady/Bledsoe situation is not really very similar to the Bettis/ Staley one at all.

NM

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 03:24 PM
you mean like half the pats roster? i guess willis mcgahee was a terrible signing and draft pick. look at all the money wasted on carson palmer to carry a clipboard for a whole year.

Holy jesus Tony.

How many more Patriots examples do you want?

The players who spent the whole season, or a majority of it, out injured and who didnt return were very poor value for money.

Matt Light was very poor value for money last year, as was Rodney Harrison, this doesnt mean I dont think the Patriots should have drafted them or picked them up in FA.

I am admitting this because it is true.

You are looking back in retrospect after a SB win and claiming that everything worked out perfect.

It didn't.

Send me a postcard from cloud Cuckoo land, if you get the time.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 04:14 PM
this from a guy who says spending money on players who may or may not get injured is a waste of money. its a business with inherrent risks, particularly injuries. a team has to field a 53 man roster. if 15 of those guys get hurt the only money you have wasted is probably with your training staff and conditionning coaches. otherwise it was money well spent in the name of doing business called the NFL.

and yes, everything did work out perfect. thanks for asking.

Suitanim
03-16-2006, 06:21 PM
I just wonder if the guy has any fantasy value left at all...

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 06:47 PM
I just wonder if the guy has any fantasy value left at all... not like larry johnson did last year. i hate to see him retire but he was talking about retiring before his injury. but as of today him and t. bruschi are the only injured players worth paying to be injured on a teams roster, so who knows? bruschi provided a ton of fantasy value.

really though on one hand i wanna think if he could play he would wanna do it on another team as a starter. on the other hand i see him as a smart dude like marshall faulk who would see the benefits of extending his career (even if it be from the sidelines in a supporting role) and tutoring and backing up the young buck (or old buck- whatever the case may be) ahead of him.

LITP has just got me so confused i dont know what to think:dang: after all, all that matters is how much money a team "wastes" due to injuries.

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 09:56 PM
this from a guy who says spending money on players who may or may not get injured is a waste of money. its a business with inherrent risks, particularly injuries. a team has to field a 53 man roster. if 15 of those guys get hurt the only money you have wasted is probably with your training staff and conditionning coaches. otherwise it was money well spent in the name of doing business called the NFL.

and yes, everything did work out perfect. thanks for asking.

So you got the same value from Ben Roeth. as you did from Duce Staley?

After all, both were on your 53 man roster so they must have had equal input into the SB win right?

Your 'insurance' scenario was extremely faulty - who wants insurance that that cannot be relied upon?

You cant prove that Staley was fit.

As i say, if he was fit - then he couldnt even beat out a RB who compiled 350yards over the whole season, and who was on the very tip of retirement.

Either way you look at it Staley wasn't worth his paycheck.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:16 PM
You cant prove that Staley was fit.


NM define "fit". was he 100% bona fide in shape? probably not. but was he more fit than corey dillon before belichick ran him out too early (only to sustain another injury)? im willing to bet yes. only in cowhers case he was not willing to risk a part of the future while on a sb run when willie and jerome were doing fine. sounds like more smart coaching than a waste of money to me. if the patriots had this type of depth at one of the most important contributing positions to the running game you might understand.

ben roethlisberger said he was ready 2 weeks after the san diego injury yet cowher sat him for an additional 2 weeks and 2 losses. i guess the "smarter" belichick wouldve ran him out there 2 weeks too early to avoid wasting money. :rolleyes:

Livinginthe past
03-16-2006, 10:22 PM
define "fit". was he 100% bona fide in shape? probably not. but was he more fit than corey dillon before belichick ran him out too early (only to sustain another injury)? im willing to bet yes. only in cowhers case he was not willing to risk a part of the future while on a sb run when willie and jerome were doing fine. sounds like more smart coaching than a waste of money to me. if the patriots had this type of depth at one of the most important contributing positions to the running game you might understand.

ben roethlisberger said he was ready 2 weeks after the san diego injury yet cowher sat him for an additional 2 weeks and 2 losses. i guess the "smarter" belichick wouldve ran him out there 2 weeks too early to avoid wasting money. :rolleyes:

Well we are going to open the subject out even further are we tony?

Who is the better coach?

Bill B. or Cowher?

3SB's or 1.

Pats win.

Well done Tony - another Steelers better than Pats thread.

NM

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 10:32 PM
Well we are going to open the subject out even further are we tony?

Who is the better coach?

Bill B. or Cowher?

3SB's or 1.

Pats win.

Well done Tony - another Steelers better than Pats thread.

NM

well i bet you been itching for a while to get that off your chest. what, almost 2 months now? that had to have been almost therapeutic for you. we dont mind if you express your true feelings or show your true colors here.

good job of not addressing the point of belichick rushing out dillon too soon while cowher had the luxury and power running game to sit staley and win a sb.

MattsMe
03-16-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by tony hipchest
this from a guy who says spending money on players who may or may not get injured is a waste of money. its a business with inherrent risks, particularly injuries. a team has to field a 53 man roster. if 15 of those guys get hurt the only money you have wasted is probably with your training staff and conditionning coaches. otherwise it was money well spent in the name of doing business called the NFL.

Originally posted by Livinginthe past

So you got the same value from Ben Roeth. as you did from Duce Staley?

After all, both were on your 53 man roster so they must have had equal input into the SB win right?


Is that actually the message you got by reading tony's post? Can we say misinterpretation? (I know it's a long word, try sounding it out.)

As for who is the better coach, it's a matter of opinion in the end. But here's my 2 cents:

The mark of a good coach is NOT how many championships they win. It is doing the most with the players they have, and managing the game to their advantage.

I'm not saying Bill B. isn't an above average coach, but come on, it didn't take a coaching genius to win 3 rings with those Pats teams.

Yes, Cowher lost his first Super Bowl, but there isn't a coach in the league that could have taken the '95 Steelers that far.

And when it comes to game management, I refer you to The Jaw's record when holding an 11 point or more lead...

Okay, I'm done now...

Livinginthe past
03-17-2006, 02:34 AM
well i bet you been itching for a while to get that off your chest. what, almost 2 months now? that had to have been almost therapeutic for you. we dont mind if you express your true feelings or show your true colors here.

good job of not addressing the point of belichick rushing out dillon too soon while cowher had the luxury and power running game to sit staley and win a sb.

Au Contraire Tony.

Its what YOU have been itching for for the last 2 months.

Everytime I have commented on Steelers personnel you are there like a shot to throw the Patriots into the mix.

What have the Pats got to do with Duce Staley's value, I ask?

Your Patriots avatar makes me put the Patriots in every reply, you answer.

What if I had a picture of a sugared donut instead, would you have to include references to sweetened deep fried dough in every post?

My true colors you say....sounds like someone has an apprentice :sofunny:

My team is the Patriots - but I am not the one who injects them into every thread.

What does the opinion of Bill Belichick have to do with Staley's value? - he didnt play - it is that black and white.

What does Corey Dillon (another Pats player..what a surprise) have to do with Duce Staley's value?

I can address the Dillon issue, like countless other injured patriots you have thrown into this topic, with total honesty.

Dillon was rushed back and broke down - he had a bad year - he was not good value for money, even if we won the SB - he was not good value for money.

Maybe we should just run through the whole of the Patriots roster right now so you can clear your system?

I can only wonder what random topic you are going to throw into this discussion next - crop circles maybe?

NM

Livinginthe past
03-17-2006, 02:42 AM
Is that actually the message you got by reading tony's post? Can we say misinterpretation? (I know it's a long word, try sounding it out.)

As for who is the better coach, it's a matter of opinion in the end. But here's my 2 cents:

The mark of a good coach is NOT how many championships they win. It is doing the most with the players they have, and managing the game to their advantage.

I'm not saying Bill B. isn't an above average coach, but come on, it didn't take a coaching genius to win 3 rings with those Pats teams.

Yes, Cowher lost his first Super Bowl, but there isn't a coach in the league that could have taken the '95 Steelers that far.

And when it comes to game management, I refer you to The Jaw's record when holding an 11 point or more lead...

Okay, I'm done now...

Well everyone is welcome to their opinion I guess - I happen to think that SB rings count for a little more in the real world than your 2 cents.

Maybe you should go ahead and tell fans across the country that they should forget about winning the SB - it all comes down to MattsMe's judgement on how they do with the players they have available - maybe they should have a special trophy for that one aswell?

Im pretty sure alot of coaches have a great record when leading by 11 points or more - the key is to get 11points ahead in 3 or 4 consecutive post-season games and stay there.

Im sure those Pats teams will be glad to hear that you rate them so highly that they dont even really need to be coached to win 3 out of 4 SB's.

NM

MattsMe
03-17-2006, 04:19 AM
Well everyone is welcome to their opinion I guess - I happen to think that SB rings count for a little more in the real world than your 2 cents.

They do count for more in the real world. That is why I called it My Opinion.

Maybe you should go ahead and tell fans across the country that they should forget about winning the SB - it all comes down to MattsMe's judgement on how they do with the players they have available - maybe they should have a special trophy for that one aswell?


No, for fans across the country, it does not all come down to my judgement. That is why I called it My Opinion.

It is an opinion on what constitutes a good coach. NOT on what each team's -or each coach's- goal should be. Nor is it an opinion on what fans should want their team to accomplish each seaon. The fans, coaches, and players want the ring at the end of the season, and rightfully so. I certainly do.

Im pretty sure alot of coaches have a great record when leading by 11 points or more -

Yes, I'm sure they do too. But NONE have Cowher's record.

Im sure those Pats teams will be glad to hear that you rate them so highly that they dont even really need to be coached to win 3 out of 4 SB's.

I said it didn't take a coaching genius to win with those teams. The difference between not needing a coaching genius and not needing to be coached is something that even the most casual observer of sports wouldn't miss. Yet somehow you did.

I don't need you to agree with me, I actually welcome criticism and differing opinions. I'm not above changing my mind on anything. But you are disagreeing with things that were never written, and criticizing opinions that were never given.

I've been reading this forum for a while now, and I've noticed a sad little pattern in your posts. This is yet another example of you putting things in people's mouths and changing what they wrote in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways to better support your misguided conceptions. I doubt you will see it that way, as this has probably become seond nature to you by now, and is not done with conscious effort on your part. I'm sure it serves you well in other areas of your life. But personally I find it transparent and annoying. It is also an indication of something.....nevermind, this isn't the place.

I'll leave it open to you for the last word, I know that's an important to you. Goodbye.

Livinginthe past
03-17-2006, 08:28 AM
They do count for more in the real world. That is why I called it My Opinion.



No, for fans across the country, it does not all come down to my judgement. That is why I called it My Opinion.

It is an opinion on what constitutes a good coach. NOT on what each team's -or each coach's- goal should be. Nor is it an opinion on what fans should want their team to accomplish each seaon. The fans, coaches, and players want the ring at the end of the season, and rightfully so. I certainly do.



Yes, I'm sure they do too. But NONE have Cowher's record.



I said it didn't take a coaching genius to win with those teams. The difference between not needing a coaching genius and not needing to be coached is something that even the most casual observer of sports wouldn't miss. Yet somehow you did.

I don't need you to agree with me, I actually welcome criticism and differing opinions. I'm not above changing my mind on anything. But you are disagreeing with things that were never written, and criticizing opinions that were never given.

I've been reading this forum for a while now, and I've noticed a sad little pattern in your posts. This is yet another example of you putting things in people's mouths and changing what they wrote in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways to better support your misguided conceptions. I doubt you will see it that way, as this has probably become seond nature to you by now, and is not done with conscious effort on your part. I'm sure it serves you well in other areas of your life. But personally I find it transparent and annoying. It is also an indication of something.....nevermind, this isn't the place.

I'll leave it open to you for the last word, I know that's an important to you. Goodbye.

For someone who opened their previous post with such biting sarcasm you certainly seem like a sensitive type.

Can I say misinterpretation, you say? Its a long word, you say.

Imagine sitting in debate class.

Imagine standing up and saying - 'the world is square, but I dont expect any of you idiots to understand'.

Then imagine sitting back down announcing- 'i'll leave it open to you guys to have the last word - it obviously seems important to you - good bye.'

Thats basically what you have done.

I hope this technique serves you well in whatever mode of life you find yourself when you finish school.

NM