Smart Free Agency

Most fans are watching their team's every move in anticipation of scoring the big turnaround -- those Free Agents / Draft picks that will take their team to Super Bowl heights. When the coveted player doesn't arrive, we tend to get deflated. I know I'm on here like a kid at Christmas, who are the Chiefs looking at? when will they make an offer? when will we have that first free agent? They've got the money, why don't they spend it? 

All of these questions feed the intensity of our passion for a winner but I find myself asking this question. "Would I really be satisfied with Thomas Jones (age 31) as a compliment to Prince Charles? Or does Nate Burleson, who had 3 TD catches last year, deserve $11 million guaranteed?"

It would be nice if the Chiefs made a splash and signed somebody, but I don't want a signing just for the sake of signing someone. I don't usually agree with Peter Prisco (as a matter of fact, he annoys me to no end) but this statement resonated with me after the signing of Burleson:

Burleson is a complimentary player -- at best. I know the Lions want to get Matt Stafford help, but Burleson is expensive help for what he brings.

This is typical of a bad team: Spending to try and get better.

It doesn't work. Don't rush it. Draft players and take your time.

Bad team-itis

And Don Banks, over at CNNSI, brings up another point that any of us as astute fans should ask ourselves: Do we want to overpay for average talent that will probably be replaced in a year or so? Kendrell Bell anyone?

A five-year, $25 million contract for an almost 29-year-old receiver who averaged just 12.9 yards per catch last season (63 receptions for 812 yards and three touchdowns) sounds like the familiar story of a losing franchise having to overpay to attract decent free agents. The Seahawks certainly weren't willing to ante up anywhere near that much for Burleson, whose inconsistency and history of injuries marred his four-year stay in Seattle. In two of his four years as a Seahawk, Burleson posted five and 18-catch seasons.

8:45 a.m. -- Burleson to Lions

I mean the two biggest players in Free Agency to this point are the Detriot Lions and the Chicago Bears. But how much improvement have these teams really gotten for themselves? I mean the risks for both teams are probably greater than the potential rewards. First, the players they are bringing in are not the younger players with rising potential they are mostly in their 30's (which for most football players is the downside of the career). 

I guess my point is this, Don't worry Chiefs' fans! Just because we didn't sign Peppers or Taylor or Jones doesn't mean we won't find some hidden gems. Remember Pioli and Belicheck signed a guy named Vrabel from the Steelers when he was only a back-up and that turned out alright. Also, Don Banks makes this telling announcement:

  Kansas City -- All I know is that Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli said last week at the NFL Scouting Combine that Kansas City would be active in free agency. There are times when Pioli channels his inner Bill Belichick and refuses to confirm what day of the week it is, so when he comes out and proclaims that K.C. will be a player in free agency, I expect a few more moves than just re-signing Mike Vrabel.

Five teams who will be heard from

We might not go out and sign the big name Free Agents but shelling out the big bucks doesn't always guarantee a winner, just ask Carl Peterson.