PDA

View Full Version : Carl Peterson- "Even if the Buccaneers offered McCardell straight up........


C-Mac
10-12-2004, 10:35 AM
"Even if (the Buccaneers) offered (WR Keenan) McCardell straight up, I wouldn't do it," Carl Peterson stated. May be old news but it makes me feel better about the front office and using wise business decisions. Sounds like Johnson is still whining a bit.


KFFL INJURY REPORT:
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS October 11, 2004 14:47:23 PT

CURRENT UPDATES

OFFENSE
-- TE Tony Gonzalez (foot) had soreness and was limited in practice Monday, Oct. 11, but will play in the Sunday, Oct. 17, game at the Jacksonville Jaguars.

DEFENSE
-- DE Jimmy Wilkerson (knee) left practice early Monday, Oct. 11, and is uncertain for the Sunday, Oct. 17, game at the Jacksonville Jaguars.
-- DT Ryan Sims (Hamstring) did not practice Monday, Oct. 11, and is unlikely to play in the Sunday, Oct. 17, game at the Jacksonville Jaguars.
-- LB Scott Fujita (ankle) did not practice Monday, Oct. 11, and is unlikely to play in the Sunday, Oct. 17, game at the Jacksonville Jaguars.

NOTES AND MISCELLANEOUS UPDATES
-- 10/11 -- RB Larry Johnson, a former first-round draft pick, is anxious for an opportunity to display his skills on the playing field. "I know what everyone says about being patient and waiting your turn, but that's not what I see for myself," Johnson said. "I don't want to be three, four years into my career before I get a chance to be a starter. Running backs age fast in the NFL, and I feel like the clock is already ticking on my career. I want to get going." Johnson is currently a reserve to RB Priest Holmes this year. ... Team president and general manager Carl Peterson addressed the speculation that RB Larry Johnson is on the trading block. "If someone offered that (a first-round pick) I would consider it," Peterson said. "But I'm a Larry Johnson guy. That's why I drafted him. I believe that he will make a significant impact on the Kansas City Chiefs someday." Specifically, Peterson shot down the recent trade rumor involving the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. "Even if (the Buccaneers) offered (WR Keenan) McCardell straight up, I wouldn't do it," Peterson said.

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

Logical
10-12-2004, 10:39 AM
Great Peterson is going to be a jackass to the detriment of our chances of winning.:cuss:

Big F*cking suprise.

John_Wayne
10-12-2004, 10:40 AM
Keenan McCardell for LJ straight up is silly. No way. Plaxico maybe. Marvin Harrison and Jerry Porter are both free agents next season. I hope we look at one of them. LJ is just stuck here. He needs to work is ass off on special teams to make a name for himself. Pouting and wearing diapers doesn't help his cause. Yes, he is still wearing diapers. Vermiel was right when he said that LJ was wearing diapers.

BigRedChief
10-12-2004, 10:41 AM
So you think thats good? LJ walks at the end of this season. I'm pretty sure on this. He has a loop hole/out/buy out something that makes him a free agent at the end of this season. Correct me if I'm wrong here...:shake: We get nothing at the end of this season. So you think that nothing is better than McCardell?

Chiefnj
10-12-2004, 10:46 AM
LJ hasn't carried the ball enough to warrant a team to give up a 3rd round pick, let alone a first rounder.

LJ is going to be disgruntled, but you can't really blame him; he just wants to play. It's a tough decision, keep him for insurance or get something for him that can help the team this year and next.

Logical
10-12-2004, 10:47 AM
So you think thats good? LJ walks at the end of this season. I'm pretty sure on this. He has a loop hole/out/buy out something that makes him a free agent at the endo of this season. We get nothing at the end of this season. So you think that nothing is better than McCardell?

Actually he has one more season to sit on the bench before he can walk. But at the end of 2005 walk away he will. A complete wasted pick.

BigRedChief
10-12-2004, 10:49 AM
Well what the heck good is he to us? Priest retires at the end of this year. We start LJ next year? If so why is Blaylock getting carries instead of LJ? Motivation?

If he was ever going to be anybody They are ruining LJ.

ROYC75
10-12-2004, 10:51 AM
Actually he has one more season to sit on the bench before he can walk. But at the end of 2005 walk away he will. A complete wasted pick.

I agree with Jim, LJ was a wasted and still is a wasted pick.

But for the record, I don't want McCardell....... Too old .

Get what ya can CP !

C-Mac
10-12-2004, 10:52 AM
You know what bothers me is that everone and their brother would love to see him play with the first string during a real game and I dont understand why the O cordinators cant make some play packages with him in their with Holmes. Does he even play on special teams?

Chiefnj
10-12-2004, 10:54 AM
Does anyone have any proof when LJ's contract is up?

I found:

"7 years, $8.85M. Voids to 5 years, $6.7M."

Can he void it to under 5 years??

Skip Towne
10-12-2004, 10:58 AM
Actually he has one more season to sit on the bench before he can walk. But at the end of 2005 walk away he will. A complete wasted pick.
Vlad, you are an angry man. But are you clairvoyant? How do you know what's going to happen?

Rausch
10-12-2004, 10:59 AM
Well what the heck good is he to us? Priest retires at the end of this year. We start LJ next year? If so why is Blaylock getting carries instead of LJ? Motivation?

If he was ever going to be anybody They are ruining LJ.

Well, LJ is locked up for a while. He won't be hitting any incentives that allow him to opt out early.

2nd, Blaylock is gone after this year. Gone. LJ is the back of the future. That's obvious. Peterson might need to physically push that information through some nasal passages to get it into the brain of some fans, but that's the facts.

Run Blaylock, try and up his value and trade HIM off to someone for a low round pick instead of getting nothing later.

LJ is going nowhere, Blaylock IS going somewhere, why not pimp Blaylock's trade value since he isn't the RBOTF?

BigRedChief
10-12-2004, 11:00 AM
Does anyone have any proof when LJ's contract is up?

I found:

"7 years, $8.85M. Voids to 5 years, $6.7M."

Can he void it to under 5 years??
I'd like some confirmation too. I don't remember where I heard it or read it but I was surprised to hear he could chose to walk early.

Chiefnj
10-12-2004, 11:01 AM
Well, LJ is locked up for a while. He won't be hitting any incentives that allow him to opt out early.

2nd, Blaylock is gone after this year. Gone. LJ is the back of the future. That's obvious. Peterson might need to physically push that information through some nasal passages to get it into the brain of some fans, but that's the facts.

Run Blaylock, try and up his value and trade HIM off to someone for a low round pick instead of getting nothing later.

LJ is going nowhere, Blaylock IS going somewhere, why not pimp Blaylock's trade value since he isn't the RBOTF?

How do you know that the #1 offseason priority isn't resigning Blaylock??

Rausch
10-12-2004, 11:04 AM
How do you know that the #1 offseason priority isn't resigning Blaylock??

What the hell would make you think it would be? Why? We don't need the guy.

If we can, great, I love Blaylock. But we don't need him. Use that cap space to add depth at WR or CB....

BigRedChief
10-12-2004, 11:04 AM
How do you know that the #1 offseason priority isn't resigning Blaylock??

Remember this is the same brain trust that was going to build an offense around Tony Richardson and Priest was going to be a 3rd down back. :harumph:

Skip Towne
10-12-2004, 11:04 AM
Well, LJ is locked up for a while. He won't be hitting any incentives that allow him to opt out early.

2nd, Blaylock is gone after this year. Gone. LJ is the back of the future. That's obvious. Peterson might need to physically push that information through some nasal passages to get it into the brain of some fans, but that's the facts.

Run Blaylock, try and up his value and trade HIM off to someone for a low round pick instead of getting nothing later.

LJ is going nowhere, Blaylock IS going somewhere, why not pimp Blaylock's trade value since he isn't the RBOTF? ROFL At the nasal passages comment. And agree with most of the other stuff. I just wonder how the naysayers know LJ is a wasted pick or that he can't play. How do they know???

KCTitus
10-12-2004, 11:05 AM
Remember this is the same brain trust that was going to build an offense around Tony Richardson and Priest was going to be a 3rd down back. :harumph:

This little version of 'history' is almost as good as the history about DV drafting Lawrence Phillips. :thumb:

Chiefnj
10-12-2004, 11:09 AM
What the hell would make you think it would be? Why? We don't need the guy.

If we can, great, I love Blaylock. But we don't need him. Use that cap space to add depth at WR or CB....

What makes me think it would be? First, Priest is an odd fellow who could retire at any moment during the offseason. Second, Blaylock if familiar with the offense. Third, Blaylock is a better receiver and blocker than LJ. Fourth, Blaylock is still ahead of LJ on the depth chart. Fifth, I'm of the opinion that LJ will leave KC at the first available opportunity.

nmt1
10-12-2004, 11:10 AM
How do you know that the #1 offseason priority isn't resigning Blaylock??

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. We've got excellent running back depth and I hope we keep it that way.

Rausch
10-12-2004, 11:13 AM
What makes me think it would be? First, Priest is an odd fellow who could retire at any moment during the offseason. Second, Blaylock if familiar with the offense. Third, Blaylock is a better receiver and blocker than LJ. Fourth, Blaylock is still ahead of LJ on the depth chart. Fifth, I'm of the opinion that LJ will leave KC at the first available opportunity.

First, LJ is going to replace Priest. Period. That's been decided. Over. Done.

Second, so is LJ.

Third, we don't know that. All we know is that Blaylock is a good blocker and pass catcher.

Fourth, that means nothing. DV has explained why this is the case numerous times.

Fifth, that opinion is based on faulty logic. LJ's contract is longer than Blaylock's. LJ can't leave here unless he's cut or traded, and we aren't going to do either. Blaylock is NOT the RBOTF. It doesn't matter if that's the correct decision or not, management has made their decision.

KCTitus
10-12-2004, 11:17 AM
It's enjoyable that after over a decade of the worst RB corps in the NFL, we're arguing about the status of the 3rd string RB...

BigRedChief
10-12-2004, 11:25 AM
It's enjoyable that after over a decade of the worst RB corps in the NFL, we're arguing about the status of the 3rd string RB...

Don't bye weeks suck....At least the Chiefs are out there hitting each other in pads again. BTW, you notice no Tony G or Trent on the Sunday am shows this year during the bye week.

Brock
10-12-2004, 11:28 AM
What makes me think it would be? First, Priest is an odd fellow who could retire at any moment during the offseason. Second, Blaylock if familiar with the offense. Third, Blaylock is a better receiver and blocker than LJ. Fourth, Blaylock is still ahead of LJ on the depth chart. Fifth, I'm of the opinion that LJ will leave KC at the first available opportunity.

You act as if Larry Johnson has a choice where he plays football. He does not. The Chiefs have at least a couple of avenues for keeping him here if that is what they want to do.

Logical
10-12-2004, 11:38 AM
Vlad, you are an angry man. But are you clairvoyant? How do you know what's going to happen?

I am not saying he walks contractually but he just sits out after next year sitting on the bench. He will be such a disruption that he will force a trade for no value.

Logical
10-12-2004, 11:39 AM
What the hell would make you think it would be? Why? We don't need the guy.

If we can, great, I love Blaylock. But we don't need him. Use that cap space to add depth at WR or CB....

Because he fits Saunders offense better than LJ.

Wile_E_Coyote
10-12-2004, 03:24 PM
DV is a stats guy, quotes them all the time. It's not that LJ isn't a good back. DV just worked up the stats on Chiefs first round choices in his tenure here :( LJ is DOOMED!

Skip Towne
10-12-2004, 03:33 PM
I am not saying he walks contractually but he just sits out after next year sitting on the bench. He will be such a disruption that he will force a trade for no value.
Sheer speculation.

Logical
10-12-2004, 03:49 PM
Sheer speculation.

Isn't that what this BB is mostly about?

Rausch
10-12-2004, 04:22 PM
Because he fits Saunders offense better than LJ.

Yeah, this offense is not built for a speedy, physical, pass catching HB...

Count Alex's Losses
10-12-2004, 04:55 PM
It is clear this offense does not need Keenan McCardell.

whoman69
10-12-2004, 06:32 PM
I'll give a few reasons why we should not trade LJ:

Jeff Kinney
Mike Cloud
Rashaan Shehee
Greg Hill
Ethan Horton
Mike Adamle
Donnell Bennett
Harvey Williams
Paul Palmer
Herman Heard

Its pretty clear that this organization does not know how to draft RBs. For us to just toss one away would be wholly shortsighted.

milkman
10-13-2004, 07:46 AM
I'll give a few reasons why we should not trade LJ:

Jeff Kinney
Mike Cloud
Rashaan Shehee
Greg Hill
Ethan Horton
Mike Adamle
Donnell Bennett
Harvey Williams
Paul Palmer
Herman Heard

Its pretty clear that this organization does not know how to draft RBs. For us to just toss one away would be wholly shortsighted.

This seems more of an arguement to trade LJ as opposed to keeping him.

BigRedChief
10-13-2004, 08:14 AM
This seems more of an arguement to trade LJ as opposed to keeping him.

What he said! :thumb: