PDA

View Full Version : Pissed off about Blaylock


Hoover
11-15-2004, 09:00 AM
As much as I love the Chiefs, and want them to do well, after last weeks loss, I knew this team had no shot at the playoffs. So it is time to play young players and see what if any depth this team has for next year and years to come. This leads me to Blaylock. If Blaylock was going to be our number 2 back going into this year, why did we only offer him a one year tender? And since we gave him a one year tender why continue to play him and drive up his value when the team will get nothing for it.

Like it or not we need to be playing Larry Johnson to see if he can play in this league, because if he can't then we need to draft or get a FA running back.

dtebbe
11-15-2004, 09:10 AM
I was just thinking about it today, what a total waste the LJ pick was. We already had our backup for Priest, and could have taken defense (Boss Bailey) with that pick. I know Bailey has been hurt, but linebacker is where we are weak right now.

DT

Hydrae
11-15-2004, 09:14 AM
Maybe they played Blaylock because he was the better back and gave us the best chance at winning. It didn't work but it was worth the try.

The rest of the season I want to see a lot of our younger players. Heck, the rest of this season should be treated like pre season games. Let's see what we have and finish doing a serious, no BS evaluation of every player on the team. Then a comprehensive plan can be made to get us back to the top of the AFCW sometime in the next 5 years.

Hoover
11-15-2004, 09:16 AM
If he is better than LJ, we should have signed him to more than a one year tender is my point.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 09:20 AM
I'm sure they expected LJ to move up the depth chart.

Rick
11-15-2004, 09:32 AM
What a shock!! We misjudged the talent we have. Can anyone believe it? Front office ignorance.

morphius
11-15-2004, 09:37 AM
We have no idea how negotiations were like, it is very possible we tried to sign him to something, the Agents said no, and to guarntee that we had him for anohter year we put the one year tender on him that would make him basically ours for another year cheap.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 09:45 AM
We have no idea how negotiations were like, it is very possible we tried to sign him to something, the Agents said no, and to guarntee that we had him for anohter year we put the one year tender on him that would make him basically ours for another year cheap.
We gave him the minimum tender which is pretty common for RFAs, when nobody signed him to an offer sheet.

BigRedChief
11-15-2004, 09:46 AM
This is nothing more than King Carl and his staff's inability to evaluate football talent.

royr17
11-15-2004, 05:42 PM
Blaylock will still be a chief after this season cause they will resign him and he'll wanna resign and stay in KC, Blaylock is not a greedy player and a complainer, he'll do whatever they would want him to do, thats why if im the chiefs i trade away LJ and get what we can get for him and resign LJ and draft Darren Sproles, but Blaylock is our RBOTF.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2004, 05:44 PM
As much as I love the Chiefs, and want them to do well, after last weeks loss, I knew this team had no shot at the playoffs. So it is time to play young players and see what if any depth this team has for next year and years to come. This leads me to Blaylock. If Blaylock was going to be our number 2 back going into this year, why did we only offer him a one year tender? And since we gave him a one year tender why continue to play him and drive up his value when the team will get nothing for it.

Like it or not we need to be playing Larry Johnson to see if he can play in this league, because if he can't then we need to draft or get a FA running back.

that's it ... your being disowned by your dad!!!

Logical
11-15-2004, 05:49 PM
If he is better than LJ, we should have signed him to more than a one year tender is my point.

Well clearly we should have signed him to a multi-year contract. But that would have exposed Carl as the draft idiot he is in reality. Carl cannot admit he screwed the pooch with yet another dumbshit Number 1 pick.

Spicy McHaggis
11-15-2004, 06:01 PM
Blaylock will still be a chief after this season cause they will resign him and he'll wanna resign and stay in KC, Blaylock is not a greedy player and a complainer, he'll do whatever they would want him to do, thats why if im the chiefs i trade away LJ and get what we can get for him and resign LJ and draft Darren Sproles, but Blaylock is our RBOTF.

I'm pretty sure it has nothing with being greedy. If I were a FA running back who had just shopped myself to the NFL and had a good showing I would want to get paid. I'm sorry but choosing between being a "team player" and getting a fat contract almost 100% of players are going to go 4 the money. Blaylock might want to stay in KC but for that to happen A.) Blaylock will have to be the #1 back 2.) Carl is going to have to pay Blaylock whatever he wants. I can't see the King coughing up starting money to Blaylock when he has already invested in LJ.

Ralphy Boy
11-15-2004, 06:03 PM
I too think Blaylock will stay here, even though I don't think he'll be the cheapest backup RB in the league, we'll make every effort to re-sign him and trade LJ in the offseason. I am confident of that.

In hindsight, we may not have made the right move in drafting LJ, but there was good reason why he was the pick. Aside from Priest's injury, LJ was considered the #1 or #2 back in the draft by just about everyone. We traded down but could not ignore his value and made the pick. We didn't know he'd be another Mike Cloud, and hopefully he'll end up being good. He could very well have been another Deuce McAllister and had he, nobody would be bitching.

Not trying to sound like a Carl apologist, just saying that the draft is speculation and right now it doesn't look like it was the right move, but in the end it could prove to be worth it.

We also made the right move by signing DB to a one year tender, we'd already drafted LJ who we spent a lot of money on in addition to the money we gave Priest.
It's one thing to gripe when things aren't going the way we want, but being realistic I can't question either of the moves in question given the context and timing of when they occured.

Demonpenz
11-15-2004, 06:14 PM
I too think Blaylock will stay here, even though I don't think he'll be the cheapest backup RB in the league, we'll make every effort to re-sign him and trade LJ in the offseason. I am confident of that.

In hindsight, we may not have made the right move in drafting LJ, but there was good reason why he was the pick. Aside from Priest's injury, LJ was considered the #1 or #2 back in the draft by just about everyone. We traded down but could not ignore his value and made the pick. We didn't know he'd be another Mike Cloud, and hopefully he'll end up being good. He could very well have been another Deuce McAllister and had he, nobody would be bitching.

Not trying to sound like a Carl apologist, just saying that the draft is speculation and right now it doesn't look like it was the right move, but in the end it could prove to be worth it.

We also made the right move by signing DB to a one year tender, we'd already drafted LJ who we spent a lot of money on in addition to the money we gave Priest.
It's one thing to gripe when things aren't going the way we want, but being realistic I can't question either of the moves in question given the context and timing of when they occured.

Out of all the reasons to use the word Hindsight, drafting LJ on the first day was not one of them. Before the pick I was hoping defense defense defense, no way we won't get a defender, then we get a backup running back. that is unless i have never heard the phrase "backup runningbacks win superbowls. There are plenty of people that didn't even need hindsight in seeing LJ would be a bad pick.

tk13
11-15-2004, 06:18 PM
I think you all should love LJ, he really wasn't drafted with Priest in mind, we all know he was really drafted to motivate Blaylock. Remember, this is the same Blaylock that couldn't beat out Mike Cloud for the backup role, but because we drafted Larry Johnson, Blaylock suddenly got in gear and because a stud. Everyone here owes Larry Johnson some gratitude for helping Derrick Blaylock become one of the best backup RB's in the league. :)

Ralphy Boy
11-15-2004, 06:23 PM
Well clearly we should have signed him to a multi-year contract. But that would have exposed Carl as the draft idiot he is in reality. Carl cannot admit he screwed the pooch with yet another dumbshit Number 1 pick.

Really? So will Carl make up for it if he does give DB a multi-year contract in the offseason?

Signing DB to the contract we did at the time was in keeping with what almost every other GM in the league would have done in Carl's situation and if you honestly think about it you would agree.

You and I and everyone else didn't know how LJ would have performed this season and at this point he is still a somewhat unknown talent. DB didn't perform at all his rookie season as he was inactive the entire season. LJ at least saw the field his rookie year and had a 4.3 average to show for it along with a TD. Granted this year he didn't look hot against Tampa, but the fact is we still don't know what we've got in LJ.

Blaylock's career stats.
RUSHING STATS
YEAR TEAM G GS ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
2002 KC 12 0 16 72 4.5 16 0
2003 KC 16 0 22 112 5.1 25 2
2004 KC 8 1 65 336 5.2 24 5
CAREER 36 -- 103 520 5.0 25 7
RECEIVING STATS
YEAR TEAM G GS REC YDS AVG LNG TD
2002 KC 12 0 5 47 9.4 21 0
2003 KC 16 0 15 181 12.1 63 1
2004 KC 8 1 12 133 11.1 30 0
CAREER 36 -- 32 361 11.3 63 1

Larry Johnson
RUSHING STATS
YEAR TEAM G GS ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
2003 KC 6 0 20 85 4.3 15 1
2004 KC 4 0 11 40 3.6 19 0
CAREER 10 -- 31 125 4.0 19 1

RECEIVING STATS
YEAR TEAM G GS REC YDS AVG LNG TD
2003 KC 6 0 1 2 2.0 2 0
2004 KC 4 0 4 38 9.5 15 0
CAREER 10 -- 5 40 8.0 15 0

Logical
11-15-2004, 06:26 PM
Really? So will Carl make up for it if he does give DB a multi-year contract in the offseason?

Signing DB to the contract we did at the time was in keeping with what almost every other GM in the league would have done in Carl's situation and if you honestly think about it you would agree.

You and I and everyone else didn't know how LJ would have performed this season and at this point he is still a somewhat unknown talent. DB didn't perform at all his rookie season as he was inactive the entire season. LJ at least saw the field his rookie year and had a 4.3 average to show for it along with a TD. Granted this year he didn't look hot against Tampa, but the fact is we still don't know what we've got in LJ.
...
I think a minimal bonus three year contract would have been more appropriate. Something where you could eat the bonus with minimal difficulty. Hell we gave Hicks and Bartee multi-year deals, how do you justify that and not one for Blaylock?

By the way I have been saying LJ was a mistake since the day we drafted him. He has never fit this offense.

Ralphy Boy
11-15-2004, 06:58 PM
Out of all the reasons to use the word Hindsight, drafting LJ on the first day was not one of them. Before the pick I was hoping defense defense defense, no way we won't get a defender, then we get a backup running back. that is unless i have never heard the phrase "backup runningbacks win superbowls. There are plenty of people that didn't even need hindsight in seeing LJ would be a bad pick.

Give me a break, it's all hindsight now.

Tell me this, was it a bad idea for the Saints to draft Deuce when they already had Ricky Williams? No is the answer and RW wasn't actually hurt when they drafted him. They'd had problems doing anything in their offense when he went down to injury and when Deuce was there, they took him and it worked out well. The difference being that Holmes WAS injured and his recovery was a big question mark at the time. LJ was a great value at the spot we picked him, it's not like we traded up to get the guy, we traded down and when he was still available we chose not to ignore the talent, THAT EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS THERE.

Everyone preaches drafting based on best talent or athlete available and there is a long held belief among most every coach and front office staff in the league, but now because it APPEARS that LJ wasn't worth the spot we picked him at, everyone wants to say that it was poor decision making and that simply isn't the case.

Take a step back in time and look at Blaylock's 2002 stats and tell me if you honestly would have passed on LJ (the top rated RB) in the following years draft (at the 27th pick) when you knew Priest had a serious injury and that he was the lifeblood of your offense.
Blaylock had 16 carries for 72 yards with no TD's in 2002, yeah that's a great reason to not select the #1 rated RB who fell to us.

Blaylock turning out to be better than LJ is right now, doesn't mean the LJ pick was a bad one. Time will tell if LJ is a bust, but don't write the guy completely off just yet because Blaylock wasn't near the RB he is now, after or during his second season either.

How much difference would EJ Henderson or Boss Bailey have made IF Priest's injury had been a bigger problem and if Blaylock wasn't up to the challenge?
Carl drafted the best RB available because he knew that our offense had relied so heavily on Priest in 2001 & 2002 that the possibility of not having a talent close to being his equal could have had a tremendous impact and the fact that it didn't doesn't negate the need that was there. He'd already signed the FA's that the coach wanted in Holliday, Barber and McCleon and had drafted a lot of young talent on Defense in the 2 years prior. He had DV under contract for only one more season and made his decision based on the window that was there.
Did they do enough on defense, clearly not, but to say that a rookie drafted then would have had a significant impact is guessing at best.

Be realistic, it's one thing to gripe because things didn't work out, but I can honestly say I'd have done the same thing if I were in Carl's shoes because our offense went in the crapper in 2002 when Priest went down and there was nobody else to fill his spot.

Ralphy Boy
11-15-2004, 07:01 PM
I think a minimal bonus three year contract would have been more appropriate. Something where you could eat the bonus with minimal difficulty. Hell we gave Hicks and Bartee multi-year deals, how do you justify that and not one for Blaylock?

By the way I have been saying LJ was a mistake since the day we drafted him. He has never fit this offense.

Yeah, and I'm sure that Blaylock is such a good TEAM guy that he would have played out the contract had he become the starter and Priest retired.

I get your point because quite frankly, once you throw Bartee into it, it's hard to argue.

go bowe
11-15-2004, 07:35 PM
I think you all should love LJ, he really wasn't drafted with Priest in mind, we all know he was really drafted to motivate Blaylock. Remember, this is the same Blaylock that couldn't beat out Mike Cloud for the backup role, but because we drafted Larry Johnson, Blaylock suddenly got in gear and because a stud. Everyone here owes Larry Johnson some gratitude for helping Derrick Blaylock become one of the best backup RB's in the league. :):thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

thanks, larry... :toast: