PDA

View Full Version : Should LJ be our starting RB in 2005?


FringeNC
12-19-2004, 12:13 PM
It needs to be discussed...

I think he should be. We are more explosive with him in there.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:14 PM
yes no doubt age speed power give him the ball

The Bad Guy
12-19-2004, 12:14 PM
No.

Just because LJ has had 3 good games doesn't mean he should overtake the ebst back to ever play for the Chiefs.

suds79
12-19-2004, 12:16 PM
No. He will have his time later.

Priest when healthy is still arguably the best back in the NFL.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:18 PM
Holmes is developing a history of injuries problems....why shitcan LJ and take the chance on an aging Holmes????

Deberg_1990
12-19-2004, 12:22 PM
Oh brother....Priest has earned the right to quit on his own terms. Considering Priest's age and history of injury, id say LJ will get plenty of action next year. Priest + LJ gives us the best backfield in the NFL bar none.

Logical
12-19-2004, 12:23 PM
No. He will have his time later.

Priest when healthy is still arguably the best back in the NFL.

Absolutely, but I will now not feel bad about losing Blaylock.

The Bad Guy
12-19-2004, 12:27 PM
Holmes is developing a history of injuries problems....why shitcan LJ and take the chance on an aging Holmes????

How are you 'shitcanning' LJ by starting Holmes?

You take the chance on Holmes because he's produced for 3 years over a 3 game stretch.

It's truly amazing how fickle Chief fans can be.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:29 PM
after the way hes been playing and his history of opening his mouth to the media,you think he will honestly be able to take a backseat to holmes next year without opening a huge can of stink and make life miserable around here???

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:31 PM
i agree Holmes is good...but why not take what we can.i.e.,draft pick,starting middle linebacker,or good db.

Manila-Chief
12-19-2004, 12:32 PM
Absolutely, but I will now not feel bad about losing Blaylock.

I fully agree with you Vald!!!!

FringeNC
12-19-2004, 12:33 PM
How are you 'shitcanning' LJ by starting Holmes?

You take the chance on Holmes because he's produced for 3 years over a 3 game stretch.

It's truly amazing how fickle Chief fans can be.

And what's the probability that LJ, in his limited action, would have the three longest TD runs for the Chiefs this season if Priest was better?

suds79
12-19-2004, 12:33 PM
i agree Holmes is good...but why not take what we can.i.e.,draft pick,starting middle linebacker,or good db.

Who are we going to get for a 30+ year old RB who's had injury problems 2 of the last 3 years?

If you were another team, would you trade away a player or a draft pick for a guy who might only play one year?

Neither would I.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:36 PM
Who are we going to get for a 30+ year old RB who's had injury problems 2 of the last 3 years?

If you were another team, would you trade away a player or a draft pick for a guy who might only play one year?

Neither would I.


true

but do u know for a fact "noone" would trade for him????

why am i wrong to say stick him out there...see what we can get

noone wants to see KC do a major change.why???

its pretty obvious tha minor changes arent solving KCs problems

brent102fire
12-19-2004, 12:40 PM
:shake:

KCJake
12-19-2004, 12:42 PM
Holmes is developing a history of injuries problems....why shitcan LJ and take the chance on an aging Holmes????
Just because you start Holmes, doesn't mean you have to "shitcan" LJ

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:42 PM
:shake:


what?

brent102fire
12-19-2004, 12:43 PM
Have you guys lost your mind? LJ has a few good games and now we are talking about trading Priest? You all need to go take your medications because obviously you have begun to or have lost your f'n mind! :cuss: :shake:

suds79
12-19-2004, 12:43 PM
true

but do u know for a fact "noone" would trade for him????

why am i wrong to say stick him out there...see what we can get

noone wants to see KC do a major change.why???

its pretty obvious tha minor changes arent solving KCs problems

Well if we can get an good defensive player or at least a 2nd for Priest, yeah I'd do it.

I just don't think it could happen.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:45 PM
Well if we can get an good defensive player or at least a 2nd for Priest, yeah I'd do it.

I just don't think it could happen.




right


all im sayin is we need to look outside the box......cause the view from inside the box hasnt been that good.


we need to keep our options open

4th and Long
12-19-2004, 12:50 PM
Holmes is developing a history of injuries problems....why shitcan LJ and take the chance on an aging Holmes????
:rolleyes: Oh brother.

Holmes has had a history of bad luck where injuries are concerned but to call it "a history of injury problems" is overstating it a bit. It's not like his hip keeps flaring up or he has back spasms all the time, etc. The man took a helmet shot directly on the knee.

Priest set 2 NFL records last year with his "injury prone" body, bub.

I hate when people exaggerate "injury problems." :cuss:

The Bad Guy
12-19-2004, 12:55 PM
true

but do u know for a fact "noone" would trade for him????

why am i wrong to say stick him out there...see what we can get

noone wants to see KC do a major change.why???

its pretty obvious tha minor changes arent solving KCs problems

Trading your best player in franchise history solves nothing.

And you can't trade him. He received too much of a signing bonus to make it easy to trade him.

You need a dose of reality. You are exactly what the Chiefs want, a fan who's judgement is clouded by meaningless games in December.

ChiefsFire
12-19-2004, 12:58 PM
dose of reality??

reality is winning a playoff game

Sure-Oz
12-19-2004, 01:07 PM
Priest is way better than LJ at this point, no wya you trade him!

The Bad Guy
12-19-2004, 01:17 PM
dose of reality??

reality is winning a playoff game

And to win a playoff game, you have to play your best players.

Holmes > Johnson.

Wake the F up.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 01:35 PM
after the way hes been playing and his history of opening his mouth to the media,you think he will honestly be able to take a backseat to holmes next year without opening a huge can of stink and make life miserable around here???
He has already said he has NO PROBLEMS playing behind Priest. In fact, he said it a few weeks ago in reference to his problem with playing behind Blaylock.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 01:37 PM
Holmes + Johnson = Best RB Tandem in the league.

There is ZERO reason to drop either.

jollymon
12-19-2004, 02:27 PM
I think Priest will be quitting within the next 2 seasons. LJ should just bide his time and get a lil playing time.

Count Zarth
12-19-2004, 02:30 PM
LJ will help us immensely next year by spelling Priest. Ideally Priest would get 250 carries for about 1,200 yards and LJ 100 carries for 500 yards.

Also, there is something to be said that LJ rips of 30-yard runs like he's falling off a log, while Priest struggles to do it.

royr17
12-19-2004, 02:32 PM
Priest is injury prone, he only haves about 1 year left really in my opinion, umm LJ is faster than Priest, but Priest is very good at making something happen outta of nothin.

But id rather have Priest as the starter, but like I said LJ is faster than Priest and we better not trade him cause he's a RBOTF.

Tribal Warfare
12-19-2004, 02:38 PM
It pains me to say this, but KC could trade Priest to another team and recieve their 1st round pick for the 2005 NFL Draft

Skip Towne
12-19-2004, 02:44 PM
:rolleyes: Oh brother.

Holmes has had a history of bad luck where injuries are concerned but to call it "a history of injury problems" is overstating it a bit. It's not like his hip keeps flaring up or he has back spasms all the time, etc. The man took a helmet shot directly on the knee.

Priest set 2 NFL records last year with his "injury prone" body, bub.

I hate when people exaggerate "injury problems." :cuss:
Priest had knee injuries in college, too. That's why he wasn't drafted.

penchief
12-19-2004, 02:46 PM
Oh brother....Priest has earned the right to quit on his own terms. Considering Priest's age and history of injury, id say LJ will get plenty of action next year. Priest + LJ gives us the best backfield in the NFL bar none.

I didn't know the NFL was about nicey-nice. I thought it was about winning. Vermeil has proven that being a humanitarian first and a football coach second will not work. Nobody, including DV, can stroke William Bartee into Deon Sanders.

Priest Holmes does deserve the respect of any person that calls themself a fan of the National Football League. However, both parties (Holmes and the Chiefs) can be better served by this emerging dilemna.

With LJ, we may have the best young running back in the NFL. That is a sweet place to be. We may also have the best running back in the league in Priest Holmes. As a Chiefs fan, it is difficult to have to say that you prefer one over the other.

I mean, to finally have a guy like Priest Holmes, who is probably the best pure running back (instinct and intelligence) in the entire league, yet ironically, we are burdened by the emergence of a young stud possessing what is seemingly unlimited ability.

I don't believe we will win a Super Bowl during Priest's tenure. I also believe that LJ will prove to be better than Priest. Thirdly, it will take us more than two years to rebuild this defense. That is why I say trade Priest while he has maximum value. Trade him to a team in which we can get an extra first-round pick somewhere in the twenties plus a couple of defenders better than what we have now or a couple of good young defenders with a bright future.

It pays to be smart rather than sentimental.

David.
12-19-2004, 02:51 PM
no way. Keep Priest until Priest is done. Lj can spell and eventually take over.

penchief
12-19-2004, 02:58 PM
no way. Keep Priest until Priest is done. Lj can spell and eventually take over.

Do you believe that a probable 2000 yard rusher is going to want to sit on the bench for two years while we bid our sentimental farewell to the Priest for being the best back in KC history?

David.
12-19-2004, 03:02 PM
Do you believe that a probable 2000 yard rusher is going to want to sit on the bench for two years while we bid our sentimental farewell to the Priest for being the best back in KC history?

uh, yes. He's said in many qoutes that he is fine with backing up Priest. He knows, just like everyone else, that Priest is the best player in the nfl. He'll still get his carries. He'll also probably take over in a year, or 2. But he IS going to be the number 2 back.

Nightfyre
12-19-2004, 03:03 PM
I can see it now.... 4 man backfield... LJ, PH TRich and Kris Wilson. Too bad that formation would be illegal.

Logical
12-19-2004, 03:03 PM
To all those proposing trading Priest

1. You will not get value for value and with the way Carl drafts I say forget it.

2. The cap hit for trading Priest would put us in Cap hell there is a huge amount of signing bonus that would hit the cap.

I just want to say it ain't going to happen. If you want to talk about it fine but just realize the implications make it untenable.

penchief
12-19-2004, 03:06 PM
I didn't know the NFL was about nicey-nice. I thought it was about winning. Vermeil has proven that being a humanitarian first and a football coach second will not work. Nobody, including DV, can stroke William Bartee into Deon Sanders.

Priest Holmes does deserve the respect of any person that calls themself a fan of the National Football League. However, both parties (Holmes and the Chiefs) can be better served by this emerging dilemna.

With LJ, we may have the best young running back in the NFL. That is a sweet place to be. We may also have the best running back in the league in Priest Holmes. As a Chiefs fan, it is difficult to have to say that you prefer one over the other.

I mean, to finally have a guy like Priest Holmes, who is probably the best pure running back (instinct and intelligence) in the entire league, yet ironically, we are burdened by the emergence of a young stud possessing what is seemingly unlimited ability.

I don't believe we will win a Super Bowl during Priest's tenure. I also believe that LJ will prove to be better than Priest. Thirdly, it will take us more than two years to rebuild this defense. That is why I say trade Priest while he has maximum value. Trade him to a team in which we can get an extra first-round pick somewhere in the twenties plus a couple of defenders better than what we have now or a couple of good young defenders with a bright future.

It pays to be smart rather than sentimental.

Not only that, but if we can get an extra first rounder in addition to a couple of defensive starters, we can trade the higher of our two picks to Sandyeggo for Phillip Rivers while the iron is hot (for them).

That way we can get our quarterback of the future (IMO, Phillips is an excellent choice to take the reins from Trent) and still have a first rounder to spend on a corner or a linebacker that has a history of being a defensive stopper.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:07 PM
uh, yes. He's said in many qoutes that he is fine with backing up Priest. He knows, just like everyone else, that Priest is the best player in the nfl. He'll still get his carries. He'll also probably take over in a year, or 2. But he IS going to be the number 2 back.
:clap: :clap:

It's amazing how much the "Leon Attitude" ASSUMPTION has muddled the thoughts of others.

Nightfyre
12-19-2004, 03:08 PM
Not only that, but if we can get an extra first rounder in addition to a couple of defensive starters, we can trade the higher of our two picks to Sandyeggo for Phillip Rivers while the iron is hot (for them).

That way we can get our quarterback of the future (IMO, Phillips is an excellent choice to take the reins from Trent) and still have a first rounder to spend on a corner or a linebacker that has a history of being a defensive stopper.
Interesting thought.... If it panned out this way, I wouldnt mind too much.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:09 PM
Not only that, but if we can get an extra first rounder in addition to a couple of defensive starters, we can trade the higher of our two picks to Sandyeggo for Phillip Rivers while the iron is hot (for them).

That way we can get our quarterback of the future (IMO, Phillips is an excellent choice to take the reins from Trent) and still have a first rounder to spend on a corner or a linebacker that has a history of being a defensive stopper.
Trent has AT LEAST two more good years, likely three. To assume Rivers is MORE WILLING to be a backup behind Trent than LJ behind Priest is ABSOLUTELY absurd.

:(

Logical
12-19-2004, 03:10 PM
Not only that, but if we can get an extra first rounder in addition to a couple of defensive starters, we can trade the higher of our two picks to Sandyeggo for Phillip Rivers while the iron is hot (for them).

That way we can get our quarterback of the future (IMO, Phillips is an excellent choice to take the reins from Trent) and still have a first rounder to spend on a corner or a linebacker that has a history of being a defensive stopper.

You do realize that the Chargers would get hit with like a 10 million hit against their cap for trading Rivers. I do not see any way they are going to consider that move.

penchief
12-19-2004, 03:13 PM
uh, yes. He's said in many qoutes that he is fine with backing up Priest. He knows, just like everyone else, that Priest is the best player in the nfl. He'll still get his carries. He'll also probably take over in a year, or 2. But he IS going to be the number 2 back.

If DV and AS are willing to forego what seems to have been a prior prejudice, in order to maximize LJ's value, then I wll be very content. In fact, I have proposed utilizing both in the same offense for some time now. I would say that if both players got between 15-20 touches per game that both players would be content with that.

The mere fact that each one would make the other better is enough to recognize that, not only their statistics, but their longevity would be impacted in a positive way if they were to tag-team it.

Priest could be the best third-down back in the history of the game, IMO.

2bikemike
12-19-2004, 03:15 PM
You do realize that the Chargers would get hit with like a 10 million hit against their cap for trading Rivers. I do not see any way they are going to consider that move.

Yeah and they pretty much stated that there is no way they are going to dump Rivers.

penchief
12-19-2004, 03:18 PM
You do realize that the Chargers would get hit with like a 10 million hit against their cap for trading Rivers. I do not see any way they are going to consider that move.

No I didn't. And that is why you are Logical and I am a dreamer.

beavis
12-19-2004, 03:33 PM
It pains me to say this, but KC could trade Priest to another team and recieve their 1st round pick for the 2005 NFL Draft
ROFL

I'm going to catalog these threads for next week when LJ runs for 40 yards on 19 carries and has 3 fumbles.

FringeNC
12-19-2004, 03:35 PM
You do realize that the Chargers would get hit with like a 10 million hit against their cap for trading Rivers. I do not see any way they are going to consider that move.

But...wouldn't the team acquiring Rivers have a QB for quite a few years with virtually no cap hit? That should make Rivers even more valuable...if the Chargers can somehow afford the hit, they should be able to get a lot for Rivers.

Messier
12-19-2004, 03:37 PM
We, or should I say you guys keep talking about Carl's "bad" drafts and yet here we are with a good rb Larry Johnson 1st round pick by "bad" drafting Carl. I'll say now and it is true: the Chiefs are NOT bad at drafting players.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:38 PM
Who the hell is RETARDED enough to think that the Chargers would give up a #1 pick for a RB when they have Lawrence Taylor ?!?!?!?!?

COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

At least TRY and be reasonable!

Edit:
When did L T = Taylor on this board? That has got to go.

Logical
12-19-2004, 03:38 PM
But...wouldn't the team acquiring Rivers have a QB for quite a few years with virtually no cap hit? That should make Rivers even more valuable...if the Chargers can somehow afford the hit, they should be able to get a lot for Rivers.

So what would you have the Chiefs do, San Diego does not need Priest or Gonzo, we have nothing of real value they would want, they already have two first round picks. Is there someone out there that could put a package together, maybe, but it certainly is not the Chiefs.

Nightfyre
12-19-2004, 03:38 PM
We, or should I say you guys keep talking about Carl's "bad" drafts and yet here we are with a good rb Larry Johnson 1st round pick by "bad" drafting Carl. I'll say now and it is true: the Chiefs are NOT bad at drafting players.
Yeah... we had Priest Holmes tho... Shoulda picked up a cb or LB.

Nightfyre
12-19-2004, 03:39 PM
Who the hell is RETARDED enough to think that the Chargers would give up a #1 pick for a RB when they have Lawrence Taylor ?!?!?!?!?

COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

At least TRY and be reasonable!
PH wouldnt be traded to the chargers. the 1st rd pick we got for ph would be.

Bowser
12-19-2004, 03:40 PM
We, or should I say you guys keep talking about Carl's "bad" drafts and yet here we are with a good rb Larry Johnson 1st round pick by "bad" drafting Carl. I'll say now and it is true: the Chiefs are NOT bad at drafting players.

Drafting NFL players and baseball averages aren't the same.

You hit .320 in the majors, you're pretty good. You draft at a .320 success rate, you're pretty bad.

Logical
12-19-2004, 03:42 PM
Drafting NFL players and baseball averages aren't the same.

You hit .320 in the majors, you're pretty good. You draft at a .320 success rate, you're pretty bad.

I don't think Carl is even close to .300, pretty sure he is below the Mendoza line.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:45 PM
PH wouldnt be traded to the chargers. the 1st rd pick we got for ph would be.
OK, I missed a post somewhere.

We trade Priest to "someone" for a first, and then use that first to get Rivers?!

People are pissed because LJ is not "quiet" about being behind Blaylock. They think he won't be happy behind Priest (even though he has said he understands backing up the BEST RB in the NFL). And yet, Rivers is going to be "happy" backing up Trent for AT LEAST 2 more years?!?!?!

I guess I don't see the logic to this at all.

Messier
12-19-2004, 03:46 PM
Please list all the bad picks that Carl has made. Keep in mind a player that starts and is quality i.e. Victor Reily ot Jon Tait are good picks. If you start saying "Oh, that sixth round pick in '97 didn't pan out" you're being extra extra extra picky

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:49 PM
I don't think Carl is even close to .300, pretty sure he is below the Mendoza line.
If this years class can "come to fruition", in my book Carl has simply broken even.

To me, that means, Siavii (or Sims from last year) and Parker and Wilson and one defensive pick (outside Allen) must become starter quality.

Nightfyre
12-19-2004, 03:50 PM
Please list all the bad picks that Carl has made. Keep in mind a player that starts and is quality i.e. Victor Reily ot Jon Tait are good picks. If you start saying "Oh, that sixth round pick in '97 didn't pan out" you're being extra extra extra picky

Why dont you go pick out all of his good picks.

unlurking
12-19-2004, 03:52 PM
Please list all the bad picks that Carl has made. Keep in mind a player that starts and is quality i.e. Victor Reily ot Jon Tait are good picks. If you start saying "Oh, that sixth round pick in '97 didn't pan out" you're being extra extra extra picky
I'm drunk (started the 151 and Cokes at half time), so cannot "efficiently" go back and review the picks. I am waiting for others to do so, but I believe that your call out would require you to list the "good picks" as well. Personally, as I said before, I think we need some success stories to emerge in order to give CP a 50/50 grade on drafting.

FringeNC
12-19-2004, 03:53 PM
So what would you have the Chiefs do, San Diego does not need Priest or Gonzo, we have nothing of real value they would want, they already have two first round picks. Is there someone out there that could put a package together, maybe, but it certainly is not the Chiefs.


Oh, I agree with you the Chiefs and Chargers won't trade. But I am not convinced that SD won't move Rivers. How can you possibly trade a young QB with a rating over 100? They are fools if they get rid of Brees.

Bowser
12-19-2004, 03:53 PM
Please list all the bad picks that Carl has made. Keep in mind a player that starts and is quality i.e. Victor Reily ot Jon Tait are good picks. If you start saying "Oh, that sixth round pick in '97 didn't pan out" you're being extra extra extra picky

Bullshit I'm being extra picky! Troy Brown was an 8th round pick in '92 for the Patriots. Look at him today. Our front office couldn't even sniff a guy with enough talent to play both sides of the ball in his 13th year in the league.

If what you are trying to say is that Carl hits on more draft picks than he misses on, you are oh so wrong. He has had good picks to be sure, but all those good picks can't balance out all the misses he's made.

I'll give you two off the top of my head.....

Trezelle Jenkins. A given

Victor Bailey. We gave up a second rounder for this guy in '96, and his wife made more headlines being on the track team in the Olympics than he did all his brief career with the Chiefs (OK, granted that wasn't a "drafted" player, but you get the drift.).

Ultra Peanut
12-19-2004, 03:57 PM
Also, there is something to be said that LJ rips of 30-yard runs like he's falling off a log, while Priest struggles to do it.Indeed.

Priest-LJ is going to be a wicked tandem next year.

Ultra Peanut
12-19-2004, 03:58 PM
Bullshit I'm being extra picky! Troy Brown was an 8th round pick in '92 for the Patriots. Look at him today. Our front office couldn't even sniff a guy with enough talent to play both sides of the ball in his 13th year in the league.So... the Pats were retarded for passing up on him for seven rounds, too?

Alphaman
12-19-2004, 04:09 PM
It needs to be discussed...

I think he should be. We are more explosive with him in there.

NO!!! But he should give Priest alot more rest. I'm not saying go to RBBC, but I am saying that we can knock about 5 carries off of Priest's total and give them to LJ.

Bwana
12-19-2004, 04:13 PM
RBBC next year. He has looked fantastic.

Bowser
12-19-2004, 04:18 PM
So... the Pats were retarded for passing up on him for seven rounds, too?

Were they retarded for passing on him that long, or lucky for getting him that late?

Coogs
12-19-2004, 04:33 PM
To all those proposing trading Priest

1. You will not get value for value and with the way Carl drafts I say forget it.

2. The cap hit for trading Priest would put us in Cap hell there is a huge amount of signing bonus that would hit the cap.

I just want to say it ain't going to happen. If you want to talk about it fine but just realize the implications make it untenable.


I disagree with both points....

First off, there are some teams like Tampa Bay who aren't that far off from being a real contender. Their defenses are fine, but thier offense need a guy like Holmes to put them over the top. They may be willing to part with a mid-first round pick in a deal with the Chiefs.

And second, the base salary for Holmes starts escelating at a rapid rate starting next season. His cap hit is going to be virtually the same on either front. Maybe a little higher (a million or so) to trade him vs ikeeping him, but it isn't a huge gap in numbers anymore.

Skip Towne
12-19-2004, 04:33 PM
We haven't lost since LJ started playing semi-regularly. And he does exactly what Priest was trying to do this year......break off long runs.

jahhluv
12-19-2004, 04:48 PM
after the way hes been playing and his history of opening his mouth to the media,you think he will honestly be able to take a backseat to holmes next year without opening a huge can of stink and make life miserable around here???
He has NEVER brung up stink before why would he start now?LJ is Carl Petersons boy he will eventually be our starter as long as Priest plays tho he should be the starter and like Larry Johnson said he came here to be second string we give him sedond string he will never say a word.

penchief
12-19-2004, 04:57 PM
We, or should I say you guys keep talking about Carl's "bad" drafts and yet here we are with a good rb Larry Johnson 1st round pick by "bad" drafting Carl. I'll say now and it is true: the Chiefs are NOT bad at drafting players.

No, they are just bad a drafting defense. How many second rounders have they spent on unproven players just because they seem to be physical marvels?

jahhluv
12-19-2004, 05:28 PM
No, they are just bad a drafting defense. How many second rounders have they spent on unproven players just because they seem to be physical marvels?
How about a 6th rounder named Jared Allen I guess you forgot about him huh?If Jared Allen doesnt get defensive rookie of the year then that award is fixed.

KCFalcon59
12-19-2004, 05:29 PM
Cool stat.....

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, the Chiefs are the first team in NFL history with three different backs going over 150 yards in a game in one season. In addition to the big games by Johnson and Holmes against Denver, Derrick Blaylock (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5598/) rushed for 186 against New Orleans.

penchief
12-19-2004, 05:32 PM
How about a 6th rounder named Jared Allen I guess you forgot about him huh?If Jared Allen doesnt get defensive rookie of the year then that award is fixed.

Actually, I made that distinction in another post. I asked what the differnence in Allen was from Bartee, Mitchell, Battle, Siavii, etc.

IMO, the difference is drafting potential upside versus proven producers like Allen.

Defense is about heart. Upside is for offense, IMO.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-19-2004, 05:56 PM
I say we let Blaylock go, keep LJ, Priest starts at the beginning of the 2005 season. As much as I don't want this to happen, I'm afraid Priest will be replaced next year by week 8. I just don't think Priest will be able to carry the load again here in KC. He's done so much these 4 years, I'm afraid his motor is done. How you can tell is when the injuries start coming. Don't pile on me, this is just the way things go with RBs when they get at the age Priest is, and with the load that he carries.

What do I want to happen? I want Priest to start next year, have a great year, win the Super Bowl, and retire. Then LJ takes over in 2006.

LTownChief
12-19-2004, 05:59 PM
dont forget about Priest's contract. Just last year Priest had 27 rushing TDs, an NFL record. Now we should bench him for a cocky Penn State RB who has had a few good games? LJ has been great the past few weeks, but if we get rid of Priest to keep this guy, that would be ridiculous.

IMO, No. LJ should not be our starting RB next year. we should just trade him.

tk13
12-19-2004, 06:22 PM
Duh folks, we trade LJ to Miami for their 2nd-3rd overall pick and other assorted pick movement... draft Derrick Johnson to be a stud at OLB for the next 15 years while drafting CB Marlin Jackson with our mid-first rounder... voila, two new stud defensive starters while still having one of the top 2 offenses in the league. :)

(Before penchief whacks me over the head with a baseball bat, I know this isn't going to happen, and I'm perfectly happy with LJ, but it's tempting to want to find balance. )

jahhluv
12-19-2004, 06:25 PM
dont forget about Priest's contract. Just last year Priest had 27 rushing TDs, an NFL record. Now we should bench him for a cocky Penn State RB who has had a few good games? LJ has been great the past few weeks, but if we get rid of Priest to keep this guy, that would be ridiculous.

IMO, No. LJ should not be our starting RB next year. we should just trade him.
Trading him would be dumber than starting him for sure!!!!!!TRADE HIM????HOW LONG DO YOU THINK PRIEST IS GONNA LAST?????Trading LJ would be the dumbest thing since the Donnie Edwards debacle!!!!!!!

jahhluv
12-19-2004, 06:34 PM
Also how in the motherf*** is he cocky he is averaging 6.4 yards a carry thats the best in the NFL isnt it?Granted he has only started 1 game but thats the only chance he has had.Who is to say that wouldnt be his average if he would have started game 1?

CanadaKC
12-19-2004, 06:43 PM
I think Priest Holmes, after all he's given this franchise, would be very hurt with a trade. So would I believe the rest of the team. And although LJ is starting to come into his own...he's no Priest Holmes. This puts us in a conundrum...as we now have an expendable player.
LJ is shutting up the critics on the field...and we now have two stud RB's. What would you do? If I'm Carl...I'm pricing LJ very high...and shipping him to Miami. He deserves to be a starter....but not here if we want to go to the show sooner than later.

philfree
12-19-2004, 06:50 PM
IMO Holmes ain't gonna give up his spot without a fight. I think Holmes will earn the start next year but LJ will be on his heels and also splitting time giving us a tough 1-2 punch. It's a good situation to be in IMO.


PhilFree :arrow:

DT4everaChief
12-19-2004, 07:36 PM
I am torn between keeping LJ or Blaylock. LJ has been playing with a mission and looks like we have a feature with him as a productive back. The question is will he be a head case and a problem in the locker room. I think he has proven himself over the past couple of weeks and would be good trade bait. Blaylock has more speed and can read holes better. Blaylock is a free agent after this season if we were to keep him at the price he is going to want then we probbably wont be able to do much in free agency. As far as talent goes they both have their flaws. Derrick runs flat footed and LJ is a straight up runner. I am undecided as who to keep.

philfree
12-19-2004, 07:44 PM
I am torn between keeping LJ or Blaylock. LJ has been playing with a mission and looks like we have a feature with him as a productive back. The question is will he be a head case and a problem in the locker room. I think he has proven himself over the past couple of weeks and would be good trade bait. Blaylock has more speed and can read holes better. Blaylock is a free agent after this season if we were to keep him at the price he is going to want then we probbably wont be able to do much in free agency. As far as talent goes they both have their flaws. Derrick runs flat footed and LJ is a straight up runner. I am undecided as who to keep.


Blaylock has gotten a little dinged every year he's played and missed some time if I remember correctly. IMO he's not gonna get starter money as a RB. He is a great change of pace and 3rd down back though. IMO because he won't get starter money there's a good chance he stays a Chief. I'm usually wrong on stuff like that though :shrug:


PhilFree :arrow:

Tribal Warfare
12-19-2004, 07:46 PM
my deciding factor why LJ over Priest, and again it pains me to say this. Johnson is younger Priest is at the later stages of his career.second thing is any team would take Priest in a second with the offense they're running. thirdly this more for Priest for having shot than anything else he has a SB Ring records now he want's to make some cash

Tribal Warfare
12-19-2004, 07:52 PM
ROFL

I'm going to catalog these threads for next week when LJ runs for 40 yards on 19 carries and has 3 fumbles.


go ahead, I'm very accurate with my summations with talent, and Larry Johnson has proven that he can do it.

Tribal Warfare
12-19-2004, 08:02 PM
To all those proposing trading Priest

1. You will not get value for value and with the way Carl drafts I say forget it.

2. The cap hit for trading Priest would put us in Cap hell there is a huge amount of signing bonus that would hit the cap.

I just want to say it ain't going to happen. If you want to talk about it fine but just realize the implications make it untenable.


That's the problem with whole situation if we trade Johnson now with Priest with a growing amount of injuries, and Blaylock will be wanting Feature back money or at least his agent will.This could be another disaster that could bite us because I can see Johnson being more productive back for KC than Priest,because of his age Priest is going to hit 30 real soon and that usually marks when RBs start losing a step.

PastorMikH
12-19-2004, 08:30 PM
Didn't we learn anything at all watching the donkeys trade away one of the better RBs in the game? Why, when we have the best RB in the game right now, would we even consider replacing him with a rookie? OK, we like what we see in LJ. But we also know what we have with Priest.

Why not let Priest keep running the ball, but let LJ relieve him, until Priest hangs it up. That way, when Priest is done, we still have a fresh stud RB ready to go. Shoot, we could even start LJ a few years down the road and see Priest take more of the roll like Marcus Allen did as he gets older. We could get several more years out of both of them this way.

OR

We could get rid of Priest, lose Blaylock to FA, and put all our hopes on LJ. With the way Denver plays, who knows, he could get cut low, lose his knees and be done halfway through next season. Then where will we be?

Messier
12-19-2004, 08:52 PM
Let me say that any draft that includes a future hall of famer is a good draft.

1989- DT good draft
1990-Tim Grunhard Dave Szott good
1991-Harvey Williams Bad
1992-Dale Carter Good
1993-Will Shields Good
1994-Greg Hill et al Bad
1995-Bad!!!!
1996-As good as '95 was bad
1997-TG good
1998- Victor Hugeo, Eric Warfield 7th round good
1999-Jon Tait, Gary Stills solid
2000- Dante Hall, Greg Wesley above average
2001-Not great but Trent Green, Shanuard Harts, Blaylock
2002-Sims Fujita OK
2003-Johnson looking ok
2004-Can't really tell but Allen making it look alright

Look around the leauge not just at the Chiefs if you can get two or three solid contributors from a draft you're doing okay. The Chiefs are fine at drafting. Sure you'll be able to find more misses than hits within the draft as with all teams.