PDA

View Full Version : The better he looks, how high a draft pick can we get for Larry?


mcan
12-22-2004, 03:16 AM
If he's gonna get all uppity about everything, then he WILL eventually cause problems... Usually it happens when the team suffers a big loss. I can totally see this guy being the Elvis Grbac of running backs. Instead of a humble leader like Priest... So, here's to the Chiefs winning out, and a slew of other teams losing out.. And here's to Larry putting up 200 yards per game for the remaining games and playoffs (if that be the case)...

And finally, here's to San Fransisco or Miami wanting to shop for a really young running back with proven experience...

KC Kings
12-22-2004, 05:23 AM
Please explain the logic behind trading LJ? Priest Holmes is injured, and Blaylock is a free agent. Do you want us to trade LJ and spend money resigning Blaylock again neglecting defense, or do you want us to let Blaylock go, address concerns on defense, trade LJ, and draft a RB again neglecting defense?

The kid has a chip on his shoulder and a big mouth, but I have seen changes in his interviews and the things that he says just in the last 3 weeks. I think as he is able to spend more time playing every week and interacting with the starters he will come around nicely.

John_Wayne
12-22-2004, 06:57 AM
Please explain the logic behind trading LJ? Priest Holmes is injured, and Blaylock is a free agent. Do you want us to trade LJ and spend money resigning Blaylock again neglecting defense, or do you want us to let Blaylock go, address concerns on defense, trade LJ, and draft a RB again neglecting defense?

The kid has a chip on his shoulder and a big mouth, but I have seen changes in his interviews and the things that he says just in the last 3 weeks. I think as he is able to spend more time playing every week and interacting with the starters he will come around nicely. No, he's saying that Priest will be back 100% next year. Everyone knows that. LJ's value is going up. KC may be able to resign Blaylock for cheap. The fee agent market is flooded with RB's and they are almost all better than Blaylock. That brings his value down. I wouldn't be surprised if we can resign him. Do you want us to keep LJ, who will be underutilized and throw away the draft picks that could be had by trading him and thus neglect the defense? Your questions can be turned in the other direction very easily. LJ has value. That value could help our defense. It depends if we're thinking long or short term. If we want a Super Bowl now, trading LJ to help the D is the way to go. IF we're looking towards the future, keeping LJ and doing the best that we can on D is the way to go. I, personally, think we need to keep LJ. I've, admitedly, changed my mind about him. He's our future at RB. But, I can totally see what mcan is saying. LJ has a bad attitude and a bad habit of spouting off in the media. His attitude and his media habits need to change or they WILL cause problems.

King_Chief_Fan
12-22-2004, 07:03 AM
No guarantee that Priest will be back "healthy" next year. And if he is, for how long. He is a marked man, and he has been taking shots and he has had injuries. LJ is the insurance Chiefs need. Blaylock is only average. Let him test free agency. LJ needs to stay

Earthling
12-22-2004, 07:11 AM
Someone needs to tell LJ to 'put up or shut up!'.....Oh, wait a minute...

philfree
12-22-2004, 07:18 AM
Between free agency and the draft there will be a glut of RBs available this off season for free. For that reason I don't think LJ will bring enough in trade and Blaylock will not draw the interest he wants from other teams. His injury prone and he's yet to prove that he is an every down back. I won't be a bit suprised when we go into camp next year with Holmes, LJ and Blaylock all on the roster.


PhilFree :arrow:

mikey23545
12-22-2004, 07:20 AM
The whole concept of trading LJ is retarded. Do you honestly mean you would trade a 24 year old RB who is starting to show all sorts of talent and keep an oft-injured RB near the end of his career?

I love what Priest has done for this team, but he does not have nearly as many productive years left as LJ. And Blaylock is a great guy to have around, but his size worries me as far as durability goes. The first time he has had a chance to play regularly this year, he almost right away has missed games due to injury.

Don't get me wrong, my dream scenario is to keep all three guys, at least for next year.
And as far as LJ's attitude goes, maybe the fact the head coach and fan base have done nothing but shit all over him since he was drafted might have something to do with it.

Cochise
12-22-2004, 07:21 AM
worst thread ever.

Alton deFlat
12-22-2004, 07:24 AM
If Priest comes back next year, which I fully expect him to, I wouldn't be surprised if it's his final season. He's in his 30s, and has really taken a beating. LJ has a long term contract, and playing time will help his bruised ego. I hope we don't deal him to another team.

Dartgod
12-22-2004, 07:28 AM
We didn't spend all of our cap money this year. Where are we going to get the $$$ to sign Blaylock AND the extra draft picks we get from trading LJ? Not to mention the cap hit we take from trading him. This is a dumb idea.

Oh yeah, as someone else said. There is NO guarantee that Priest is healthy all next year.

penchief
12-22-2004, 07:28 AM
If LJ continues to improve on what he has done so far it would be lunacy to trade a future superstar.

Can we really say that we can count on Priest for an entire season, let alone two more?

I'll go out on a limb right now and project LJ getting more carries than Priest next year.

I see us moving Priest around a little bit more and leaving LJ in the backfield more. What about Priest in the slot or as the Hback? It seems that doing this could put pressure on the defense, create mismatches, and get Priest the ball in situations where he can do his magic. It may also have the effect of extending Priest's career by limiting the physical toll without sacrificing a lot of yardarge (higher YPC avg).

Everybody on the offense is a weapon when you have a running back that can score anytime he touches the ball. The defense cannot take the risk of LJ barrelling through the line with a full head of steam or allow him to get around their defense. All of a sudden, you have wide receivers streaking down the field open. All of a sudden, you are scoring 40 points a game.

Our last four games are four of our seven highest scoring games of the season. We scored 30+ three times in the first 10 weeks. We've done it four times in a row. We've busted fourty for two weeks in a row.

Project an offense with Green, LJ, Gonzo, Wilson, a top-notch receiver, and Priest used like the Rams use Marshall Faulk sometimes. It would be dang near impossible to stop an offense with that much talent.

However, if we could get a high number one pick and two defenders that can start for us I would not object to trading Priest.

Skip Towne
12-22-2004, 07:30 AM
I saw his dad in the stands Sunday. I'm hoping he came to KC to offer "guidance" to his son.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 07:30 AM
LJ would bring no more than a 3rd-round pick at this point. If we trade him for that, I'll find a new team to root for.

As for being a humble leader like Priest, I seem to remember that humble leader demanding more money SEVERAL times on national TV...

penchief
12-22-2004, 07:34 AM
LJ would bring no more than a 3rd-round pick at this point. If we trade him for that, I'll find a new team to root for.

As for being a humble leader like Priest, I seem to remember that humble leader demanding more money SEVERAL times on national TV...

Excellent point about Priest.

StcChief
12-22-2004, 07:35 AM
LJ isn't going anywhere, unless someone makes us an unbelievable offer, which no one does for a first year rookie player.

He is running behind the best O line in NFL (IMHO)

Skip Towne
12-22-2004, 07:37 AM
I'll find a new team to root for.
I knew you weren't a real fan. :p

Chiefnj
12-22-2004, 07:38 AM
Even if LJ brought a 2nd round pick, what makes anyone think the Chiefs would draft someone who would have an immediate impact in 2005? 2nd round picks from recent years - Mitchell (underachieving and fans are all looking for a FA MLB or Amahd Brooks), Freeman (gone), Downing (3rd rounder but 1st player taken - gone), Bartee (should be gone), Cloud (gone), Sheehee (gone).

Keep LJ. He's under contract for a few more years, is playing well, is faster than Priest, is younger and doesn't have a history of injuries.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 07:38 AM
LJ is the insurance Chiefs need. Blaylock is only average. Let him test free agency. LJ needs to stay

Your reasoning would be valid IF we had a team with no dire need at any position. Unfortunately there are more than dire needs in several 'D' positions. If an LJ trade would bring equal value in a position of immediate need, that would be the smart way to go. When we have to plug glaring holes, the word "insurance" is moot. We have a couple of years to adress replacing Priest, and Blaylock (if re-signed) is more than adequate as his back-up.

I also agree with mcan's point that there could be a RB's version of Grbac in LJ that might appear at the worst time when the team goes through problems. Believe me, we won't need that.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 07:49 AM
Your reasoning would be valid IF we had a team with no dire need at any position. Unfortunately there are more than dire needs in several 'D' positions. If an LJ trade would bring equal value in a position of immediate need, that would be the smart way to go. When we have to plug glaring holes, the word "insurance" is moot. We have a couple of years to adress replacing Priest, and Blaylock (if re-signed) is more than adequate as his back-up.

I also agree with mcan's point that there could be a RB's version of Grbac in LJ that might appear at the worst time when the team goes through problems. Believe me, we won't need that.

Your entire post is a contradiction.

First you say this team has dire needs. Then you say keep Blaylock and trade LJ.

Keeping LJ costs NOTHING. Keeping Blaylock costs money that could be used to sign a free agent.

The chances of filling one of those DIRE needs in the draft, outside of the top of the 1st round, are about nil, considering Peterson is doing the drafting. We'd be in good shape if we got a 3rd-round pick out of Johnson, which basically translates into giving him away for nothing, because we're not going to fill a "dire" need on defense in the 3rd round.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 07:52 AM
Even if LJ brought a 2nd round pick, what makes anyone think the Chiefs would draft someone who would have an immediate impact in 2005? 2nd round picks from recent years - Mitchell (underachieving and fans are all looking for a FA MLB or Amahd Brooks), Freeman (gone), Downing (3rd rounder but 1st player taken - gone), Bartee (should be gone), Cloud (gone), Sheehee (gone).

Keep LJ. He's under contract for a few more years, is playing well, is faster than Priest, is younger and doesn't have a history of injuries.

The point of this thread is NOT trading LJ for a 2nd rdc. It is the assumption that LJ will continue to impress and merit either a fairly high draft choice or an excellent 'D' player. If either situation is there I'd say go for it and trade him. I do have a little phobia about his negative attitude.

Also, what makes you think that Priest's replacement will come through the draft? We didn't get Priest himself through the draft. Here's a situation that may prove ideal for the Chiefs in a couple of years. Travis Henry.... The Bills are obviously a Willis McGahee team. Henry looks in the Priest mold (more suitable to our 'O') and will wanna get out of Buffalo. Plus he is young.

I'd still say trade LJ (a surplus), if good value is available, to FIX a position of immediate need on 'D.'

KC Kings
12-22-2004, 07:54 AM
No, he's saying that Priest will be back 100% next year. Everyone knows that. LJ's value is going up. KC may be able to resign Blaylock for cheap. The fee agent market is flooded with RB's and they are almost all better than Blaylock. That brings his value down. I wouldn't be surprised if we can resign him. Do you want us to keep LJ, who will be underutilized and throw away the draft picks that could be had by trading him and thus neglect the defense? Your questions can be turned in the other direction very easily. LJ has value. That value could help our defense. It depends if we're thinking long or short term. If we want a Super Bowl now, trading LJ to help the D is the way to go. IF we're looking towards the future, keeping LJ and doing the best that we can on D is the way to go. I, personally, think we need to keep LJ. I've, admitedly, changed my mind about him. He's our future at RB. But, I can totally see what mcan is saying. LJ has a bad attitude and a bad habit of spouting off in the media. His attitude and his media habits need to change or they WILL cause problems.

Good points, but the market being flooded with RB's hurts LJ's resale value as well. Even last year Priest talked about being in pain every day, needed daily hot tub sits and full body massages several times a week just to keep going. Granted everybody in the NFl hurts, but this is 2 out of three seasons that have been ended by injury. LJ is one of the few CP 1st round picks that has actually made an impact in a game, and I think it would be crazy to get rid of a promising 1st round pick, for the hope of a lower pick having more of an impact.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 07:56 AM
Your entire post is a contradiction.

First you say this team has dire needs. Then you say keep Blaylock and trade LJ.

Keeping LJ costs NOTHING. Keeping Blaylock costs money that could be used to sign a free agent.

The chances of filling one of those DIRE needs in the draft, outside of the top of the 1st round, are about nil, considering Peterson is doing the drafting. We'd be in good shape if we got a 3rd-round pick out of Johnson, which basically translates into giving him away for nothing, because we're not going to fill a "dire" need on defense in the 3rd round.

Obviously you didn't read my entire post, or you wouldn't call it a contradiction. Yes, we have DIRE needs..... BUT NOT AT RB.

crossbow
12-22-2004, 08:02 AM
LJ has a bad attitude and a bad habit of spouting off in the media. His attitude and his media habits need to change or they WILL cause problems.

I think LJ has a great attitude. He wants to play while he is young and still has the tools to accomplish something. Priest can say he is gonna be 100% all he wants but the harsh reality is that, Priest is 31 years old and he has taken a pounding these last three years. LJ is young and can carry the load for a good 4 or 5 years so the Chiefs are set at that position and can focus their attention on other needs. Trading LJ would be a big mistake. Besides, why are we talking about this? Peterson has clearly stated that he isn't going to trade LJ. That LJ has been signed for 6 years and he isn't going anywhere.

Chiefnj
12-22-2004, 08:04 AM
The point of this thread is NOT trading LJ for a 2nd rdc. It is the assumption that LJ will continue to impress and merit either a fairly high draft choice or an excellent 'D' player. If either situation is there I'd say go for it and trade him. I do have a little phobia about his negative attitude.

Also, what makes you think that Priest's replacement will come through the draft? We didn't get Priest himself through the draft. Here's a situation that may prove ideal for the Chiefs in a couple of years. Travis Henry.... The Bills are obviously a Willis McGahee team. Henry looks in the Priest mold (more suitable to our 'O') and will wanna get out of Buffalo. Plus he is young.

I'd still say trade LJ (a surplus), if good value is available, to FIX a position of immediate need on 'D.'

What do you consider a "fairly high draft choice"? I consider a 2nd round pick to be just about as high of a choice one could get for him. Miami isn't going to give up the 2nd pick in the draft for LJ.

I want to make sure I understand your plan. You are willing to let Blaylock walk because the money spent resigning him would need to be used on a dire area of need- defense. (this I agree with). You then want to trade LJ for a draft pick or a player and rely on Holmes who is older, slower, has a history of serious injuries and who is quite flakey himself. You then want to spend money to bring in another HB as a backup who will cost more than LJ in the first place, taking away money from possible free agent defensive players? Is this right?

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:06 AM
Obviously you didn't read my entire post, or you wouldn't call it a contradiction. Yes, we have DIRE needs..... BUT NOT AT RB.

I did read your entire post. And then I read this one. It's even more dumb.

The reason this team doesn't have a dire need at RB is BECAUSE WE HAVE LARRY JOHNSON.

So by all means, trade him away. Get it through your head -- no one is going to trade an established defensive player for Larry Johnson. The only thing we're going to get for him is a draft pick. We've used tons of draft picks on defense in recent years, what do we have to show for it?

LJ is NOT a surplus. Blaylock is a free agent, one that will need a paycheck, a paycheck that could be better spent on a defensive player. We don't need draft picks, we need MONEY. The key to fixing this defense lies in free agency.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:08 AM
What do you consider a "fairly high draft choice"? I consider a 2nd round pick to be just about as high of a choice one could get for him. Miami isn't going to give up the 2nd pick in the draft for LJ.

I want to make sure I understand your plan. You are willing to let Blaylock walk because the money spent resigning him would need to be used on a dire area of need- defense. (this I agree with). You then want to trade LJ for a draft pick or a player and rely on Holmes who is older, slower, has a history of serious injuries and who is quite flakey himself. You then want to spend money to bring in another HB as a backup who will cost more than LJ in the first place, taking away money from possible free agent defensive players? Is this right?

Thank you. I'm glad someone else can see how dumb the whole thing sounds.

Skip Towne
12-22-2004, 08:20 AM
Hey, Frankie, no offense but I'm sure glad you're not running things.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:27 AM
Get it through your head -- no one is going to trade an established defensive player for Larry Johnson. The only thing we're going to get for him is a draft pick.

Oh, I don't know. I bet if we both thought hard about it there's a team with a "surplus" at a 'D' position the way we have one at RB. If, per chance, that team is in need of a 100+yd/game RB we should really explore it. It's a lot of "if"s, I know. But then that's what this thread is all about. All I'm saying is IF a mutually favorable trade scenario develops, the Chiefs should not consider LJ untouchable.

The key to fixing this defense lies in free agency.

So may be the key in replacing Priest.

chiefz
12-22-2004, 08:27 AM
Hmmm, so what happens if Priest can't play or decides to retire in the next year or two.

Would that be a glaring enough need at RB to make everyone happy?

To trade LJ right now would be idiotic.

It won't happen because Blaylock will get picked up in the offseason and Peterson wants to keep what has turned out to be one of his prize picks.

The man has pretty much already said that Johnson will be #2 and they will pickup Blaylock if nobody else offers him a big contract and he comes at the right price.

chiefz
12-22-2004, 08:29 AM
BTW: You do realize that Johnson just ripped the #5 rush defense in the league to shreds and single handedly knocked them down to 8th in one game.

Demonpenz
12-22-2004, 08:30 AM
leon needs to go

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:35 AM
Oh, I don't know. I bet if we both thought hard about it there's a team with a "surplus" at a 'D' position the way we have one at RB. If, per chance, that team is in need of a 100+yd/game RB we should really explore it. It's a lot of "if"s, I know. But then that's what this thread is all about. All I'm saying is IF a mutually favorable trade scenario develops, the Chiefs should not consider LJ untouchable.

We do not have a surplus at RB. We have 3 RB's. One is injured and one is a free agent. That leaves us with ONE GUY, and you're contemplating trading him away.

Yes, it's possible that a team would trade a "surplus" defender for LJ. What kind of defender do you think that will be? We don't freaking need another William Bartee, and that's precisely what we'll get in a trade. NO ONE is going to give up a real defender for LJ at this point in his career.

So may be the key in replacing Priest.

That's completely assinine! Seriously, what are you thinking?

You're suggesting that we trade away the one RB we have that costs us nothing to keep. You're suggesting we replace Priest by spending money on a free agent, instead of spending that money on a defensive free agent that you yourself said is our most dire need.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:36 AM
leon needs to go

Yeah, by all means, let's trade away guys that want to play.

We need more "character" guys that react better when we're 3-8, like Eric Hicks.

This whole thread is bullshit. It's the reason we're becoming a laughing stock ala Arizona and Cincinatti.

Wile_E_Coyote
12-22-2004, 08:37 AM
How soon we forget the MIKE CLOUD PROJECT

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:37 AM
What do you consider a "fairly high draft choice"? I consider a 2nd round pick to be just about as high of a choice one could get for him. Miami isn't going to give up the 2nd pick in the draft for LJ.

What did Miami pay for AJ Feeley? Plus if we really want the 2nd pick of the draft, what if we packaged, say our 1st with LJ for their 1st and 4th. Or their 1st and a good young 'D' player with an upside. There are many combinations in a trade.


I want to make sure I understand your plan. You are willing to let Blaylock walk because the money spent resigning him would need to be used on a dire area of need- defense. (this I agree with). You then want to trade LJ for a draft pick or a player and rely on Holmes who is older, slower, has a history of serious injuries and who is quite flakey himself. You then want to spend money to bring in another HB as a backup who will cost more than LJ in the first place, taking away money from possible free agent defensive players? Is this right

I never said I'm willing to let Blaylock walk. You misunderstood. I've been saying Blaylock, re-signed for a reasonable sum, would be way more than adequate to back-up Priest, while we still have time to adress Priest's eventual replacement.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:41 AM
What did Miami pay for AJ Feeley? Plus if we really want the 2nd pick of the draft, what if we packaged, say our 1st with LJ for their 1st and 4th. Or their 1st and a good young 'D' player with an upside. There are many combinations in a trade.

A good young 'D' player with an upside.

Kawika Mitchell. Jimmy Wilkerson. Julian Battle. Junior Siavii.

No thanks, we've got plenty of those. We need IMPACT PLAYERS. Period.

I never said I'm willing to let Blaylock walk. You misunderstood. I've been saying Blaylock, re-signed for a reasonable sum, would be way more than adequate to back-up Priest, while we still have time to adress Priest's eventual replacement.

You really need to analyze what you're saying and realize how stupid it sounds.

You're advocating trading a guy that costs ZERO to keep because we have "dire needs on defense". In the same breath, you're advocating spending FREE AGENT MONEY, that could be used to address said "dire" needs, on guys we don't even need.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:41 AM
Hey, Frankie, no offense but I'm sure glad you're not running things.
No 'defense' either. ;) That's why my plan should work IF there is that mutually ideal scenario somewhere in the league. Again, all I'm saying is don't just blindly say no to an LJ trade.

Wile_E_Coyote
12-22-2004, 08:41 AM
There was a piece on the NFL network about running backs. There are more available than teams needing them & those teams have other needs as well. Blaylock was the bottom of the bunch. He could very well be back on the cheap

Demonpenz
12-22-2004, 08:43 AM
Yeah, by all means, let's trade away guys that want to play.

We need more "character" guys that react better when we're 3-8, like Eric Hicks.

This whole thread is bullshit. It's the reason we're becoming a laughing stock ala Arizona and Cincinatti.


we are going to be 8-8, exactly the kind of year that will prepell us next year as long as we keep the defence intact. They need another year with guns system and need to get used to playing with each other

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:44 AM
No 'defense' either. ;) That's why my plan should work IF there is that mutually ideal scenario somewhere in the league. Again, all I'm saying is don't just blindly say no to an LJ trade.

Nobody is "blindly" saying no to an LJ trade.

We've looked at it. There's no reasonable scenario where we would get anything remotely useful for LJ.

That's not blind, that's REALISTIC.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:46 AM
we are going to be 8-8, exactly the kind of year that will prepell us next year as long as we keep the defense intact. They need another year with guns system and need to get used to playing with each other

That's horribly funny and terribly depressing, all at the same time.

Good job. :cuss:

:)

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:47 AM
You're suggesting that we trade away the one RB we have that costs us nothing to keep. You're suggesting we replace Priest by spending money on a free agent, instead of spending that money on a defensive free agent that you yourself said is our most dire need.

He will "costs us nothing to keep" for another couple of years only. Then he will want Lamar's arm and a leg. His attitude hints at that eventual scenario. When CP offers him only Lamar's leg, LJ will bolt to a high market team. Just in time that replacing Priest is a DIRE and Immediate need.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:48 AM
There was a piece on the NFL network about running backs. There are more available than teams needing them & those teams have other needs as well. Blaylock was the bottom of the bunch. He could very well be back on the cheap
:thumb:

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 08:50 AM
He will "costs us nothing to keep" for another couple of years only. Then he will want Lamar's arm and a leg. His attitude hints at that eventual scenario. When CP offers him only Lamar's leg, LJ will bolt to a high market team. Just in time that replacing Priest is a DIRE and Immediate need.

That scenario is 100% speculation.

My scenario is 100% FACT.

We have 1 year to get it done with the current staff and perhaps even players.

We need money NOW. Blaylock and/or some other free agent RB is not something we can afford.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:52 AM
A good young 'D' player with an upside.

Kawika Mitchell. Jimmy Wilkerson. Julian Battle. Junior Siavii.

No thanks, we've got plenty of those. We need IMPACT PLAYERS. Period.

I don't disagree with that. But more than "impact" players we need to think about "plugging" glaring holes on the 'D.'

Plus who'se to say LJ's performance in the next coupla games won't elevate him almost to the "impact" player realm? :shrug:

Demonpenz
12-22-2004, 08:55 AM
Here's what I would like to see done. Maybe blaylock gets resigned here maybe he doesn't. If he DOES, then we have a back like a priest JR that can run screens and the counter plays priest runs just in case priest gets hurt. Having a deep running back core is never bad. If blaylock goes, then we still have two Good running backs. We desperately need a good draft this year. If i was running the scouting I would take a gander at the conbine stats, but I would put more emphasis on who can play football. Move bartee to saftey and indicate this is his last chance. Draft a Corner, and maybe aquire a corner that may or may not pan out. Just give SOMEONE a look. The D line is fine right now. It could use improvement, but I think the guys are serviceable. Jarrod allen is going to start to get chipped and double teamed more. He needs some help, but i think if savii can get some more PT that will help. As bad as our WR are, I don't see an upgrade in the future. The only hope is that parker can come in and stretch the defense. The biggest problem I have always seen with the guys on defense is they are conbine wonders. They have shown they can run, jump, slide, take a great test, show a good character, but they can't flow to the ball, tackle, or make any kind of play "looking at you mitchell" That play where mitchell dropped the ball pretty much is a microcosim of the chiefs defense. In the right position doing the right things, just can't make a fuggin play.

Wile_E_Coyote
12-22-2004, 08:55 AM
:thumb:

there is no trade value in a glut

Keep Priest & LJ

Mojo Rising
12-22-2004, 08:56 AM
LJ should not be traded. Hunt needs to go out and spend all of the money we have under the cap on FA's. Until we do that there is no need to go out and get rid of young talent.

Some of the attitude problem rests with DV. I have never understood why Blaylock played in front of LJ. I was always confused to why we would pull out PH on 3rd downs all year and replace him with Blaylock. Just imagine how many of those would have been converted if LJ would have been in instead of Blaylock.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 08:57 AM
That scenario is 100% speculation.

My scenario is 100% FACT.

We have 1 year to get it done with the current staff and perhaps even players.

I don't buy into the "window" thing. I think we'll be just fine after DV if there's a smooth transition to Saunders. He surely should have picked up a lot under DV. And by all accounts, he is no Martz.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 09:01 AM
there is no trade value in a glut

Keep Priest & LJ

What if in LJ, we have the cream of the glut? :shrug:

Wile_E_Coyote
12-22-2004, 09:04 AM
What if in LJ, we have the cream of the glut? :shrug:

other teams are JUST like us, they have other needs as well.

vailpass
12-22-2004, 09:39 AM
The next two years represent the bulk of the $$$ Priest will earn as an NFL player. As everyone knows he is scheduled to be paid the big bucks in '05 & '06. Short of his leg falling off there doesn't seem to be any way Priest retires before getting paid.
If you accept that scenario and if LJ stays do you think the Chiefs:
1) Get Priest his usual amount of carries and make LJ a bench back & insurance policy again until/unless Priest can't carry the load
2) Platoon the two RB's and pay Priest top-dollar starter money for part-time work
3) If Priest does not appear 100% at training camp ask Priest to re-work his deal and make LJ the starter
4)Other option not mentioned above

It's interesting that KC went for quite a while without one feature back and now find themselves considering the possibility of having two.

penchief
12-22-2004, 09:47 AM
What do you consider a "fairly high draft choice"? I consider a 2nd round pick to be just about as high of a choice one could get for him. Miami isn't going to give up the 2nd pick in the draft for LJ.

Let's see what LJ does for the next two games. Right now? He's playing like he's worth a top 15 pick. Even so, I wouldn't trade him. He looks like he could easily be a 2000 yard rusher and easily score 25 to 30 TD's a season.

Another big thing about Johnson that people are overlooking is that he as new as a running back can be. He only played as a starter his senior year in college, plus, we already know how much he's played here. I can't remember him ever being slowed by injury.

Most of all, he gains a lot of yardage without anyone getting a clean hit on him. He has all the signs of someone that can do what he does for possibly the next ten years. I'm telling you, this guy has a lot of record-setting potential when you consider everything, (young RB body, power, speed, and a unique style that makes it nearly impossible to get a solid hit on him in the open field. Combine that with a consistent knack for long TD runs and I'd say we might have something very special; maybe even Super Bowl special.

Rausch
12-22-2004, 09:49 AM
The only position on our team where we're great 2 deep on the depth chart, and people want to trade that depth and once again make us one injury from mediocre there...like every other position on our team.

BRILLIANT!

jspchief
12-22-2004, 10:18 AM
He will "costs us nothing to keep" for another couple of years only. Then he will want Lamar's arm and a leg. His attitude hints at that eventual scenario.

Kind of like Holmes did? If he continues to play like he has, he'll be worth an arm and a leg. His "attitude" is a direct result of the way Vermeil has mishandled him. It appears clear that LJ should have been getting carries much sooner than week 10 of his second year, and it was Vermeil's ridiculous loyalty to Blaylock that has caused all this drama in the first place.


Besides, no one is going to give anything for a RB in the NFL these days. It's become a common opinion that RBs are easy to come by. When a the Ravens have Chester Taylor (who?), the Chargers have Jesse Chatman (who?), an the Vikings have Michael Bennet, Onterrio Smith, Moe Williams, and Mewelde Moore all having 100+ yard games, not to mention Nick Goings, Maurice Hicks....you get the point. Running backs are a dime a dozen. And LJ happens to look good running behind what is widely regarded as the best O-line in the game. He simply has no value to any other team than the Chiefs. And for us, he's currently a Corvette with the car payments of a Chevette.

penchief
12-22-2004, 10:27 AM
Kind of like Holmes did? If he continues to play like he has, he'll be worth an arm and a leg. His "attitude" is a direct result of the way Vermeil has mishandled him. It appears clear that LJ should have been getting carries much sooner than week 10 of his second year, and it was Vermeil's ridiculous loyalty to Blaylock that has caused all this drama in the first place.


Besides, no one is going to give anything for a RB in the NFL these days. It's become a common opinion that RBs are easy to come by. When a the Ravens have Chester Taylor (who?), the Chargers have Jesse Chatman (who?), an the Vikings have Michael Bennet, Onterrio Smith, Moe Williams, and Mewelde Moore all having 100+ yard games, not to mention Nick Goings, Maurice Hicks....you get the point. Running backs are a dime a dozen. And LJ happens to look good running behind what is widely regarded as the best O-line in the game. He simply has no value to any other team than the Chiefs. And for us, he's currently a Corvette with the car payments of a Chevette.

I agree and disagree. Johnson definitiely should have been incorporated into the offense well before he was, IMO.

On the other hand, LJ is a talent. Talent evaluator's recognize that he is a talent. He does things other runners don't do. And he does them with regularity. It is obvious that LJ is a big-time prospect.

My brothers are both die-hard Cowboy fans. They are content with Julius Jones being their back of the future. But both agree, they would trade their first-round pick for Johnson in a heartbeat. They see that explosive big-play capability that I'm sure NFL general managers see, as well. There is too much to like about Larry's football ability.

Even Vermeil acknowledges that LJ is going to keep getting better.

By the way, you are right on the money with your comment about Vermeil's loyalty to Blaylock, IMO.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 10:30 AM
His "attitude" is a direct result of the way Vermeil has mishandled him. It appears clear that LJ should have been getting carries much sooner than week 10 of his second year, and it was Vermeil's ridiculous loyalty to Blaylock that has caused all this drama in the first place.
I disagree. His runnig talent aside, DV perhaps had to wait for LJ's other stuff (blocking? Receiving?) to be polished enough to play. Everyone here is going ga-ga over LJ because he seems to be able to carry the ball.



Besides, no one is going to give anything for a RB in the NFL these days. It's become a common opinion that RBs are easy to come by. When a the Ravens have Chester Taylor (who?), the Chargers have Jesse Chatman (who?), an the Vikings have Michael Bennet, Onterrio Smith, Moe Williams, and Mewelde Moore all having 100+ yard games, not to mention Nick Goings, Maurice Hicks....you get the point. Running backs are a dime a dozen. And LJ happens to look good running behind what is widely regarded as the best O-line in the game. He simply has no value to any other team than the Chiefs. And for us, he's currently a Corvette with the car payments of a Chevette.

All the more reason to believe replacing Priest shouldn't be that scary. Again, all I'm saying is if another team falls in love with LJ....CONSIDER A TRADE!

morphius
12-22-2004, 10:34 AM
Frankie - And after his one missed block he has been pretty solid. He said it himself, that was a wake up call, and lately I have seen him stuff some rushers. He also said that the coaches didn't have him practicing it during the season at all last year. I think most everyone saw him smash the MLB on a blitz this week at the LoS, just stopped him cold.

But trading either when an injury a RB is so common, even to this team, is just being short sighted.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 10:38 AM
I don't buy into the "window" thing. I think we'll be just fine after DV if there's a smooth transition to Saunders. He surely should have picked up a lot under DV. And by all accounts, he is no Martz.

I've seen enough from Saunders that tells me he's EVERY BIT like Martz...

penchief
12-22-2004, 10:46 AM
I disagree. His runnig talent aside, DV perhaps had to wait for LJ's other stuff (blocking? Receiving?) to be polished enough to play. Everyone here is going ga-ga over LJ because he seems to be able to carry the ball.

All the more reason to believe replacing Priest shouldn't be that scary. Again, all I'm saying is if another team falls in love with LJ....CONSIDER A TRADE!


I disagree with this line of thinking and I also think it is a cop-out for Vermeil and those who apologize for his and Saunders treatment of LJ. Here's why.

How many times do you see a first-round running back as the wing-man on kick-off coverage? How often do you see guys like McGehee and Chris Brown being held back because they need more work on their blocking? Those teams couldn't wait to get their new feature back in the game.

That is where LJ was coming from, IMO. What other team would have not found a way to utilize the big play potential of a young stud like LJ? What other team would have stifled his talent by burying him on the inactive list?

jspchief hit the nail on the head. Vermeil's loyalty to Blaylock was the problem. The only way he could justify oppressing Johnson's talent was to use the excuse that he was not as good of a blocker as Blaylock.

The answer would have been to utilize Johnson's long-run capability or his power and speed in situations that did not require blocking in critical situations until he became more proficient at it. Any other team in the league would have found a way to put pressure on OUR defense by utilizing the game-breaking talents of any offensive weapon available to them.

It's a good thing we didn't sit Tony G. during his first couple years because he wasn't as good a blocker as a tight end should have been. Not only RBs, but I wonder how many of the mercurial wide receivers in the league, ala Moss, have been made to learn to be the best blocker they can be before they are allowed to dominate defenses with their god-given talent.

No other team in this league would have handled LJ the way Vermeil and Saunders did. I still contend that Tennessee would have killed for LJ. Brown was their second choice, IMO.

P.S. Johnson's receiving is not even an issue. He proved he had hands when he was at Penn State. Wait until you get treated with a swing pass into the flats that turns into an 80 yard TD play.

mikey23545
12-22-2004, 10:49 AM
I never said I'm willing to let Blaylock walk. You misunderstood. I've been saying Blaylock, re-signed for a reasonable sum, would be way more than adequate to back-up Priest, while we still have time to adress Priest's eventual replacement.

So we should trade away what seems to be a budding young superstar, and hope we get lucky in the draft a second time somewher down the road to replace a RB we already have?....

Good Grief...

the Talking Can
12-22-2004, 10:51 AM
LJ isn't going anywhere.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 10:55 AM
I still contend that Tennessee would have killed for LJ. Brown was their second choice, IMO.
Great.... Maybe we can get a stud LB and their 2nd rdc for LJ. ;)

penchief
12-22-2004, 11:04 AM
Great.... Maybe we can get a stud LB and their 2nd rdc for LJ. ;)

After witnessing the energy that has been infused into this team within the last three games and to witness how easy LJ makes it look, it is simply mind-boggling to me how anyone would want to trade a player that appears to have the talent, athletic prowess, and attitude to produce Hall of Fame numbers and, potentially, numerous championships.

Frankie
12-22-2004, 11:11 AM
After witnessing the energy that has been infused into this team within the last three games and to witness how easy LJ makes it look, it is simply mind-boggling to me how anyone would want to trade a player that appears to have the talent, athletic prowess, and attitude to produce Hall of Fame numbers and, potentially, numerous championships.

The "attitude" part is what I'm way less than comfy with. That's where we are disagreeing, mostly.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 11:14 AM
The "attitude" part is what I'm way less than comfy with. That's where we are disagreeing, mostly.

The guy wants to play. That's not attitude, that's DESIRE.

He's never, since day 1, been treated fairly by Vermeil. Instead of acting like a coach, Vermeil decided to pout because it wasn't player he wanted.

All he's ever said is that he wants to play. If only we had more guys out there like that, maybe we wouldn't be the bunch of 6-8 pussies we are today.

LiL stumppy
12-22-2004, 11:16 AM
Lj is staying here.Lil peterson already said so.

morphius
12-22-2004, 11:20 AM
And far as Attitude I haven't heard him complain about any other player, and he refused to say anything bad about Blaylock, even given many opertunities to do so. Its hard to see what he is going to be like long term, but he is better then Blaylock already.

jspchief
12-22-2004, 11:26 AM
The guy wants to play. That's not attitude, that's DESIRE.

He's never, since day 1, been treated fairly by Vermeil. Instead of acting like a coach, Vermeil decided to pout because it wasn't player he wanted.

All he's ever said is that he wants to play. If only we had more guys out there like that, maybe we wouldn't be the bunch of 6-8 pussies we are today.

I agree. LJ flat out got screwed by Vermeil. Even now in interviews Vermeil deflects from praising LJ to remind people that Blaylock is good also. It just burns him to admit that this kid has skill. LJ has every right in the world to feel less than committed to this team.

I just hope that he sticks it out long enough for the team to make it up to him. If he can last long enough to really get his shot, he'll be able to reap the rewards of playing for a great organization. Unfortunately, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to go elsewhere.

penchief
12-22-2004, 11:51 AM
The "attitude" part is what I'm way less than comfy with. That's where we are disagreeing, mostly.

I personally don't have a problem with his attitude. The kid has limitless ability yet he was held back for what appears to be personal or selfish reasons. He fought back. He stood up for himself. He has pride.

In fact, all he wants to do is play. It doesn't matter where. If KC fans love this guy he is going to give us more than we expect. He would love to be our offensive version of Derrick Thomas. All LJ wants to do is play and show how great he can be.

Granted, Priest deserves everyone's loyalty. I love Holmes as much as anybody. I have already stated that he is one of my three favorite backs of all time (the only one in the modern era) But, to not see what we have in LJ and to not appreciate his situation just doesn't seem very objective to me.

People, LJ is a caged bird ready to soar. At this point, he has unmeasurable potential. The things he does make you stop and take notice even though he does them without bluster.

In fact, his skills are so unique that I would challenge anyone to name any other back in the league that has similar skills.

The league seems to be filled with guys that can run in traffic (ala, Holmes, Emmit, Travis Henry, etc.), guys that can outrun the defenses (ala, Portis, Faulk, etc.), guys that can move the chains (ala, Bettis, Duckett, etc.), and guys that have great elusiveness in the open field (ala, Robert Smith, Marcus Allen, etc.)

But name me one guy in this league that can exhibit all of these abilities on the same play. That, my fellow Chief fans, is why LJ is a threat to go all the way anytime he touches the football. That is why it is my opinion that we have "potential" greatness in LJ.

That is why I believe we would forever regret, and be embarassed by, an LJ trade.

Hydrae
12-22-2004, 11:51 AM
The only real downside I see to keeping LJ is that Priest will lose carries. That is good for us probably but Priest has goals that he will never achieve while splitting any time at all in the backfield.

By the same token, I care more for the team that any individual so all I really hope is that this doesn't make Priest turn into a whining biatch.

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 11:57 AM
In fact, his skills are so unique that I would challenge anyone to name any other back in the league that has similar skills.

The league seems to be filled with guys that can run in traffic (ala, Holmes, Emmit, Travis Henry, etc.), guys that can outrun the defenses (ala, Portis, Faulk, etc.), guys that can move the chains (ala, Bettis, Duckett, etc.), and guys that have great elusiveness in the open field (ala, Robert Smith, Marcus Allen, etc.)

But name me one guy in this league that can exhibit all of these abilities on the same play. That, my fellow Chief fans, is why LJ is a threat to go all the way anytime he touches the football. That is why it is my opinion that we have "potential" greatness in LJ.

That is why I believe we would forever regret, and be embarassed by, an LJ trade.

The only one I can think of is Jamal Lewis. Maybe LT, although he doesn't have the size...

penchief
12-22-2004, 12:06 PM
The only one I can think of is Jamal Lewis. Maybe Lawrence Taylor , although he doesn't have the size...

You know, Lewis is a good example. I believe LJ will prove to be better than Lewis. He is definitely more nimble, more sneaky, and catches the ball a lot better.

The other guy who LJ reminds me of is Fred Taylor. Taylor is more compact than LJ. But they have similar skills. Taylor has power, speed, deceptively subtle moves, and has the knack for avoiding contact once he gets beyond the line of scrimmage, ultimately outracing everyone to the endzone.

Did I mention that I have always liked Fred Taylor, too?

htismaqe
12-22-2004, 12:10 PM
You know, Lewis is a good example. I believe LJ will prove to be better than Lewis. He is definitely more nimble, more sneaky, and catches the ball a lot better.

The other guy who LJ reminds me of is Fred Taylor. Taylor is more compact than LJ. But they have similar skills. Taylor has power, speed, deceptively subtle moves, and has the knack for avoiding contact once he gets beyond the line of scrimmage, ultimately outracing everyone to the endzone.

Did I mention that I have always liked Fred Taylor, too?

I just hope LJ can avoid the injury bug. Neither of those guys were able to, especially Taylor.

Skip Towne
12-22-2004, 12:25 PM
You know, Lewis is a good example. I believe LJ will prove to be better than Lewis. He is definitely more nimble, more sneaky, and catches the ball a lot better.

The other guy who LJ reminds me of is Fred Taylor. Taylor is more compact than LJ. But they have similar skills. Taylor has power, speed, deceptively subtle moves, and has the knack for avoiding contact once he gets beyond the line of scrimmage, ultimately outracing everyone to the endzone.

Did I mention that I have always liked Fred Taylor, too?
LaDanian Tomlinson.

penchief
12-22-2004, 12:35 PM
LaDanian Tomlinson.

I agree somewhat. The end result is more similar than the style, IMO. Tomlinson is even more compact than Taylor and his style of running just looks so much less smooth than LJ's. Also, I've seen Tomlinson caught from behind more than once. I'm not saying it hasn't happened to Johnson (I'm sure it has) but I cannot ever remember seeing LJ caught from behind once he's zeroed in on the endzone.

Thig Lyfe
12-22-2004, 12:40 PM
At this point, I don't think trading LJ is a good idea. He actually looks pretty good and could be RBOTF (can't believe I said that). Only if you can get immediate impact on D from the trade, don't do it.

tk13
12-22-2004, 01:12 PM
Man, I never thought I'd see the day where so many people seem "down" on Priest comparitively speaking. As much as I've backed LJ, that's kinda depressing to me because I respect the hell out of Priest. I think he'd laugh if he read this thread, and I think he's probably going to prove a lot of people wrong next year. Everybody wants to label Priest as an injury case... we were freaking 3-8! If we were in the hunt, he'd be playing this week, I 100% believe that. I don't think there's another guy on this team besides Trent Green you could say that about. The guy could barely walk right supposedly the week before the Houston game, every reporter that saw him said there was NO way he was playing. What happens on Sunday? He suits up and runs for 130 yards. I'm kinda glad this is all going down though, because it's good for the team. Priest is in the business of proving people wrong, and it looks like he's going to have a lot of work to do next year...

Demonpenz
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
I like the breakaway ablity LJ gives us. Something priest doesn't have is that secondary level burst.




Hopefully priest is reading that part