In fact, we shouldn't even want him. At all.

Here's my thinking:

Last year, the Chiefs were actually pretty good at stopping the run...for 2-3 quarters. If you look at the statistics, opponents ran on the Chiefs more than the average team, and they usually had average or below-average ypc (yards/carry)...until sometime in the 3rd or 4th quarter, they'd break a 60-yarder. Last year, if I remember correctly, four running backs had their longest run of their career against the Chiefs, and at least one (maybe two!) team had its franchise-record-longest run against us. That's not even counting how many teams/players had their season-longest run against the Chiefs.

That's ridiculous.

But almost none of those runs came in the first half. Because the Chiefs actually did shut down the run in the first half in the majority of our games. The only thing is, opponents believed KC was soft against the run. So they kept pounding. Had it been against another team, they might have abandoned the run as being unproductive, but against the Chiefs, well, if you haven't had success with the run against such a poor run defense, it must just be that you hadn't had success yet. And since the offense wasn't getting 2- and 3-touchdown leads like they had opening the 2003 season, opponents weren't forced to abandon the run to catch up. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy, that a team that believed it could run against KC would eventually find a way...catch someone out of position, or find the right combination, and we'd be off to the races.

Belief is a powerful thing in football. I've heard O-line players say that Priest gets a good portion of his run yardage because they know he's patient and will find the seam, if they hold the block just that half-second longer. I've heard special teams players say they put that little extra effort on blocking for Dante Hall because they believe he can break it...where they might just consider the play a lost cause for another returner...and so when he does some juking out of what seems a sure-tackle, his blockers are still blocking for him, and he gets a long return or a TD that another returner wouldn't.

How does this compare with Law?

Well, he suffered a fairly bad injury. He's still not ready to run, and probably won't be by the start of training camp.

That paints a bright red target on him. Even if he's 100% by the opener, teams are going to test him. And test him again. And again. Can an aging veteran coming off of a serious injury that prevented him from even walking for months stand up to that sort of testing?

I don't think so. Teams will believe its a vulnerability, and they will go for it. 5, 6 stops by Law won't be enough to convince them to stay away...especially not with Surtain on the other side. They'll keep going until they start getting big gains against him, TDs...and the next team will take up where the last one left off. It would take 3-4 games of near-perfect play to get opponents off his case, and the Chiefs don't have that sort of time to waste. We could lose 2 games just because teams attack Law and he's not quite ready.

It's just not worth it.

I was thinking we'd sign Beasley, based on last year's environment and age, but I could be happy with Ambrose. I'm sure we'll sign someone who can start for 2-4 games...who might also be a pleasant surprise and push Warfield for playing time this year, and increase depth at the position for 2-3 years.

The Chiefs are looking good not only for this year, but for the next several years to come...but that's another post for 2-3 days from now.