PDA

View Full Version : Will we have to use the Franchise or Transition tag on Blaylock?


shaneo69
11-15-2004, 12:32 PM
Congratulations, DV, you've done it. You've given Blaylock the opportunity he needed to become a hot commodity this offseason when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. Like someone said on another thread, he'd be a fool not to at least test the market now. So the question becomes, do we need to slap a tag on him to protect ourselves? Not sure what the franchise tender will be, but it will surely take up a huge chunk of cap space. If we don't, we run the risk of losing a guy who could become another Joe Horn. Let's make the decision for CP/DV.

Franchise tag?
Transition tag (no compensation, just matching rights)?
Take a chance and try to outbid other teams on an open market?
Don't try to re-sign him; let him walk and give LJ a chance?

Poll not forthcoming.

jcroft
11-15-2004, 12:35 PM
Is there any downside to using the transition tag? If no, I say we do that.

He's not going to be worth the franchise number to us -- he'll be a backup here, and we can't afford to pay him like a starter. If we transition him, he can sign an offer with another team, and then we can decide if it's worth matching or not (chances are, it won't be).

el borracho
11-15-2004, 12:36 PM
Will not happen. Blaylock is a backup player who has a first round draft choice waiting to take his job. Blaylock will not get tag money.

Chiefnj
11-15-2004, 12:40 PM
Will not happen. Blaylock is a backup player who has a first round draft choice waiting to take his job. Blaylock will not get tag money.

I used to feel that way, but I found it very, very odd that LJ didn't get a single carry yesterday. I know Blaylock was running well, but I just assumed that he would be given a short breather here and there. Nope. They did not want to give LJ the ball at all. No trust or faith in the kid. If no faith in him now, why would they run the risk of him being the starter next year if Blaylock and Holmes fly to coop?

jcroft
11-15-2004, 12:42 PM
I used to feel that way, but I found it very, very odd that LJ didn't get a single carry yesterday. I know Blaylock was running well, but I just assumed that he would be given a short breather here and there. Nope. They did not want to give LJ the ball at all. No trust or faith in the kid. If no faith in him now, why would they run the risk of him being the starter next year if Blaylock and Holmes fly to coop?

True. Plus, with as big a part of the offense as Priest is, I think they'd like to keep a back that can do some of the same kinds of things Priest can. Although i've not seen enough of him to say for sure, my impression is that our screen and draw plays go out the window with Johnson in the game. That's a major segment of the offense playbook that we really can't afford to lose.If the Chiefs truly believe in Blaylock and truly think LJ is worthless, then it really is quite possible the Chiefs would pay to keep Blaylock.

I still doubt it, but it's worth considering.

Raiderhader
11-15-2004, 12:45 PM
If Carl uses a tag on a back up I will be highly surprised.

Chiefnj
11-15-2004, 12:46 PM
True. Plus, with as big a part of the offense as Priest is, I think they'd like to keep a back that can do some of the same kinds of things Priest can. Although i've not seen enough of him to say for sure, my impression is that our screen and draw plays go out the window with Johnson in the game. That's a major segment of the offense playbook that we really can't afford to lose.If the Chiefs truly believe in Blaylock and truly think LJ is worthless, then it really is quite possible the Chiefs would pay to keep Blaylock.

I still doubt it, but it's worth considering.

I was surprised but LJ actually showed good hands last week. He caught a couple of balls, one of which he had to turn the corner and get a first down.

jcroft
11-15-2004, 12:47 PM
I was surprised but LJ actually showed good hands last week. He caught a couple of balls, one of which he had to turn the corner and get a first down.

That's true, he did -- but as I recall that wasn't a screen pass. It seems to me that they just don't CALL the screens and draws as often (yeah, I know he ran for like 19 on a draw at the end of the half a game or two ago) when he's in there. I could be wrong. I'm not saying LJ can't do it -- just that it seems like the Chiefs drop that segment of the playbook when he's in the game.

Chiefnj
11-15-2004, 12:50 PM
That's true, he did -- but as I recall that wasn't a screen pass. It seems to me that they just don't CALL the screens and draws as often (yeah, I know he ran for like 19 on a draw at the end of the half a game or two ago) when he's in there. I could be wrong. I'm not saying LJ can't do it -- just that it seems like the Chiefs drop that segment of the playbook when he's in the game.


You're right, it wasn't a screen. They just rolled him out. Nonetheless, his hands were questioned coming out of college since they didn't ask him to catch much at Penn and in his first game (where he got real playing time) I don't think he dropped any and he converted a key first down. In any event, my impression that he might be a better receiver than originally thought don't mean squat as the coaching staff doesn't appear to want to give him much playing time.

el borracho
11-15-2004, 12:51 PM
That's true, he did -- but as I recall that wasn't a screen pass. It seems to me that they just don't CALL the screens and draws as often (yeah, I know he ran for like 19 on a draw at the end of the half a game or two ago) when he's in there. I could be wrong. I'm not saying LJ can't do it -- just that it seems like the Chiefs drop that segment of the playbook when he's in the game.
Does LJ have enough carries at this point to establish tendencies? Not in my opinion.

shaneo69
11-15-2004, 12:51 PM
Is there any downside to using the transition tag? If no, I say we do that.

The franchise tag gives a player a tender worth the average of the top 5 highest paid players at that position, while a transition tag gives the player a tender worth the average of the top 10 highest paid players at that position.

Last year we transitioned Tait. I think the Franchise tender for an OT was $8.x mil and the transition tender was $7.x mil.

jcroft
11-15-2004, 12:53 PM
Does LJ have enough carries at this point to establish tendencies? Not in my opinion.

No, which is why I said, "I haven't seen enough of him to be sure, but..."

jcroft
11-15-2004, 12:54 PM
The franchise tag gives a player a tender worth the average of the top 5 highest paid players at that position, while a transition tag gives the player a tender worth the average of the top 10 highest paid players at that position.

Last year we transitioned Tait. I think the Franchise tender for an OT was $8.x mil and the transition tender was $7.x mil.

In that case, I don't think we should use either tag on Blaylock.

el borracho
11-15-2004, 12:56 PM
I used to feel that way, but I found it very, very odd that LJ didn't get a single carry yesterday. I know Blaylock was running well, but I just assumed that he would be given a short breather here and there. Nope. They did not want to give LJ the ball at all. No trust or faith in the kid. If no faith in him now, why would they run the risk of him being the starter next year if Blaylock and Holmes fly to coop?
I am fairly sure that Priest takes himself out of the game. I am guessing* that Vermeil and co. extend that decision-making to any of their rbs, including Blaylock, unless that rb was injured or not playing effectively. Since Blaylock was playing well, was not injured and did not take himself out of the game we did not see LJ.



* Yes, this is just my guess. I admit in advance that your theory may be equally likely (if not as appealing to me).

ROYC75
11-15-2004, 12:57 PM
IMHO, we do nothing as far tagging him. DB will stay if he wants to, alot depends on how long PH is going to be around.

As for LJ, he's gone, look for KC to move him after the season. The guy was brought in for insurance and contract reasons. I was never big on him in college, still not.

Can he produce, probally yes, but not the system of offense KC runs.

HolmeZz
11-15-2004, 01:11 PM
You can't franchise him. I don't see the harm in just resigning him and cutting some of the deadweight on defense.

Mr. Laz
11-15-2004, 01:28 PM
You can't franchise him. I don't see the harm in just resigning him and cutting some of the deadweight on defense.

i doubt that will happen either ... Blaylock will be looking for a starting job. If other teams think he has a chance to do so, then i doubt we can keep him.


This decision was made when we used a 1st round draft pick on another running back.