ChiefsPlanet
Page 6 of 8 « First 2345 6 78
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Log jam at RB (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=298811)

TimBone 03-10-2016 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12125620)
I do, to a certain degree.

3 ypc is lame. Anything over 4 is impressive. Beyond that, it's about total production.

I couldn't care less if a guy has a 4.9 ypc average if he only rushes for 600 yards a year or less than 5,000 in a career.

On the other hand, a guy that has a 3.9 or 4 and has 10,000+ yards shows durability and longevity.
lol, I'm not going down this road with you again.

DaneMcCloud 03-10-2016 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimBone (Post 12125626)
lol, I'm not going down this road with you again.
I'd rather have Eddie George than Jamaal Charles.

At least Eddie George would have contributed to the Chiefs playoff appearances in 2013 and 2015.

You can't help the club if you're always in the tub.

jspchief 03-10-2016 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverChief (Post 12125512)
:shrug: if you could swing DAT and JC to the niners for a 3rd (#68) and a 5th (#130) you wouldn't swing that?
No. Charles is a known commodity. A draft pick isn't. Ware and West aren't either. Charles' contract isn't holding KC back either.

Look through a list of KC's 3rd round picks and tell me what percentage of them are Charles caliber players. Remember, 90% of this CP though Knile Davis was a stud after a few games. The reality is very few players are going to give you the dependable production that Charles has put out.

The entire premise is absurd to me. CP's fascination with draft picks is ****ing out of control.

jspchief 03-10-2016 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverChief (Post 12125567)
A third round pick? Because third round picks end up being impact players?
So you want to trade an impact player for a pick you admit doesn't typically net an impact player? Wut?

jspchief 03-10-2016 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimBone (Post 12125623)
So wait, you're entire argument is 'let's trade an impact player for a pick that I'm admitting usually doesn't yield an impact player?'

I think it may be time for me to put this thread on ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12125631)
So you want to trade an impact player for a pick you admit doesn't typically net an impact player? Wut?
Great minds...

DenverChief 03-10-2016 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 12125632)
Great minds...
Trading the 2-3 years he has left on the possibility of finding a gem. They all aren't gems and no one is delusional enough to hinge their teams hopes on a 3rd round pick. But it's worth a gamble.

Have you ever been to Vegas?

jspchief 03-11-2016 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverChief (Post 12125641)
Trading the 2-3 years he has left on the possibility of finding a gem. They all aren't gems and no one is delusional enough to hinge their teams hopes on a 3rd round pick. But it's worth a gamble.

Have you ever been to Vegas?
Vegas? An entire city built on the industry of taking advantage of idiots who want to "take a chance".

Great example.

DenverChief 03-11-2016 12:17 AM
Boom

Quote:
NFL Network analyst Marshall Faulk wonders why the Chiefs would keep RB Jamaal Charles at his high salary after the team managed to replace his production with Spencer Ware and Charcandrick West last year.

“The conversation is, ‘Why does Kansas City keep Jamaal Charles when you saw Spencer Ware and Charcandrick West? For what reason?’” Faulk recently asked the Kansas City Star. “I can’t even see what reason they would continue to pay (him) if they have a way of getting up from under that contract and dispersing money elsewhere to fill some of the gaps that they have. And that’s just real talk — that’s the business of the game.

“I love Jamaal, and I think he could find another home. I think there’s a lot left in him. But looking at what went on when he went down in Kansas City, are his days possibly numbered there?”

Easy 6 03-11-2016 12:17 AM
The one thing I absolutely cannot stand, is a three deep rotation of studs at running back

What is Dorsey thinking?

DenverChief 03-11-2016 12:23 AM
I guess Marshall and I have great minds.

go bo 03-11-2016 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverChief (Post 12125093)
What the **** does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I think we have one expendable running back. With ware, West, Sherman, Davis and Charles on the roster we have plenty of opportunities to use the depth to fill other needs.

Oh and lick my hairless perfectly bleached asshole.
:eek: :eek: :eek: tmi! tmi! TMI!!! :Poke:

DaneMcCloud 03-11-2016 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverChief (Post 12125654)
I guess Marshall and I have great minds.
No.

What Faulk is suggesting is that the Chiefs cut Charles. He has a $5 million dollar cap number this year and a $7 million dollar hit next year.

The Chiefs proved they don't need him, so Faulk is suggesting they dump him outright.

Dorsey said shortly thereafter that Charles wasn't going anywhere.

This story is more than a month old, BTW.

DenverChief 03-11-2016 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TribalElder (Post 12125085)
LMAO

DenverChief 03-11-2016 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12125660)
No.

What Faulk is suggesting is that the Chiefs cut Charles. He has a $5 million dollar cap number this year and a $7 million dollar hit next year.

The Chiefs proved they don't need him, so Faulk is suggesting they dump him outright.

Dorsey said shortly thereafter that Charles wasn't going anywhere.

This story is more than a month old, BTW.
Who gives a shit how old it is. The idea still stands. If you can get something for him you should instead of an outright release. The whole idea is to open up cap room, open up a roster spot at another position of need and let ware and west decide who is going to lead this team into the future.

DenverChief 03-11-2016 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by go bowe (Post 12125658)
:eek: :eek: :eek: tmi! tmi! TMI!!! :Poke:
Sorry sorry sorry!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 PM.
Page 6 of 8 « First 2345 6 78
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.