View Full Version : Chiefs prefer Priest Holmes over Charlie Garner...

03-14-2001, 11:13 PM

The Chiefs had Baltimore running back Priest Holmes in for a visit. If the Chiefs go the free-agent route at this position, Holmes appears to be their favorite choice.

Coach Dick Vermeil said San Francisco's Charlie Garner was an intriguing possibility but added that he preferred Holmes.

"He fits our profile a little better, the total picture of the guy," Vermeil said. "(Holmes) is an impressive kid. He can run, catch and block. You're always looking for guys who can do everything like that."

"We're looking for a different style," Vermeil said. "That doesn't mean if the guys we've got are given the opportunity and coached that they can't make some of those contributions.

"I think we've got kids that can play. I know we don't have Marshall Faulk, but we've got guys who can play. Tony Richardson can catch the ball. But I haven't been on the field with him. I don't know if he can come out and take people one-on-one up the field. I don't know if any of them can do it."

The Chiefs continue to look at receivers, too. They had Dedric Ward of the Jets in early this week and were expecting a visit from Minnesota's Matthew Hatchette tonight and Friday.

Hatchette, who had 16 receptions last season as the Vikings' third receiver, would help fill the Chiefs' need for a speed receiver.

The Chiefs also have talked with Kevin Lockett. The chances of Lockett returning, which were slim if they retained coach Gunther Cunningham, have brightened considerably. Lockett, though, is scheduled for a visit with Seattle next week.

[Edited by DaWolf on 03-15-2001 at 01:27 PM]

03-14-2001, 11:19 PM
Just hope our staredown contest with St. Louis doesn't screw up getting one of those two RB's. I think it's pretty ridiculous to jeopardize our other needs over one player.

03-14-2001, 11:22 PM
Damn it! :(

I'll need a priest if we take Holmes over Garner! Holmes is nothing different from Richardson. In fact, he;s not even as good as a HB as Richardson is. Garner gives you a Faulk-like back. He is NOT Faulk, but he can do things akin to Faulk. Holmes has RBBC written ALL OVER HIM!

I'd like to see Lockett stick around but Matthew Hatchette can be a Joe Horn in reverse. He has a lot of promise to be an absolute steal for whichever team should grab him. With the Vikings letting everybody go, me thinks Hatchette won't be wearing Vikings purple next year....

Either one as a # 3 WR is good (so is Ward, BTW). That Tony Horne scenario also is intriguing (restricted, but no compensation because he is undrafted. Let's stick it to those f*ckers again!

03-14-2001, 11:49 PM
I would not mind seeing Hatchette here, but I would rather keep Lockett. At times last year he appeared to be the only receiver who could hold on to a pass. I think he should have started over Slymo, but Gunther had another on of his personell hard-ons.

keg in kc
03-15-2001, 12:00 AM
I've never been a Lockett fan, so I couldn't care less if he stays or goes. I think Dedric Ward would be my pick for #3 of the folks mentioned so far.

I have been a Holmes fan, and if you folks think he's in the T-Rich mold, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised if we get him. He's a year and a half younger than Garner and has only been in the league for 3 years so he hasn't taken much punishment. As a matter of fact, I think if he finds a good home somewhere in the NFL, he'll explode much in the way that Garner did in SF, or Lamar Smith did in Miami last year. He'll be cheaper than Garner, he'll be around at least a year longer, and he will produce, in my opinion, barring injury (a risk with any player...).

03-15-2001, 12:10 AM
AJ, gotta disagree. I think Holmes is a back we'd all be happy with. Very durable with some speed and some moves, and had 32 catches in a part time role last season. He had a 200+ yard game (yes, against the Bengals) a few years ago and is said to be a very high character kind of guy. I've been hoping we'd get him since I heard he was unrestricted FA.

03-15-2001, 12:25 AM
I'll stick to my guns that Priest is the wrong move for the Chiefs, but I'll be extremely happy to be proved wrong.

I trust the team of Carl & Vermeil. They should know what they're doing. They're not together to go 5-11 and that is always cause to be optimistic.

I'm concerned about Priest Holmes' breakaway speed and ability to hit the corner. He is a capable RB, but not the superstar we need to get at RB.

Again, I hope I'm wrong (like I have been so often in the past when evaluating players)... :(

03-15-2001, 12:31 AM
AJKCFAN, are you ready for this? I think you better sit down, take a deep breath, and prepare yourself for this tremendous news: the greatest football mind in the country, Jeffrey Flanagan, thinks this move would be a "steal" for the Chiefs.

From the Good Move Department: Priest Holmes could be a steal for the Chiefs.

Let's not forget that Holmes ran for 1,008 yards in 1998 and offers the one thing we haven't seen from a Chiefs back since, dare we say, Greg Hill: some make-you-miss moves.

Holmes has speed and good hands and could be just what Dick Vermeil needs as a feature back, at least until Vermeil is able to draft and develop his own No. 1 back.

If Flanagan says it, it must be true! *sarcasm off*


Pitt Gorilla
03-15-2001, 12:44 AM
"Holmes is nothing different from Richardson. In fact, he;s not even as good as a HB as Richardson is. Garner gives you a Faulk-like back. He is NOT Faulk, but he can do things akin to Faulk. Holmes has RBBC written ALL OVER HIM!"
Where in the world do you get your info. from? In FACT?

03-15-2001, 01:01 AM

If Holmes was any good, why in the world was a great young RB like Priest Holmes, freah after a 1000 yard season in 1998 and healthy, was STILL:

(FACT #1) Benched in favor of Errict Rhett the VERY NEXT YEAR, who has been at best (and this is really stretching it) an above average RB. Holmes got 1008 yards in 1998, you say? Happen to see what his numbers were in 1999? Jamal Lewis was still playing for the Vols in 1999.


(FACT #2) Holmes was never even given a thought about getting his starting RB job back in 2000 after Rhett left via free agency to go to Cleveland. In fact, Billick was so much in love with Priest Holmes that he couldn't wait to get his hands on Jamal Lewis with the # 5 pick.

Meanwhile, over in San Francisco, Charlie Garner complies back to back 1000 yard seasons in 1999 & 2000, with 50+ catches for two poor 49ers teams. That's FACT # 3.

This is where in the world I get my info from...

03-15-2001, 01:23 AM
Da Wolf:

Yeah. I know... we better get a contract drawn up for Priest Holmes right away. I said right away, don't walk... RUN to get the nearest pen you can find and let's sign on the dotted line! Jeffrey Flanagan has spoken!

Garner gets back to back 1000 yards seasons on a losing team, not to mention a team which displayed little to no defense. The 49ers were often trailing early and still Garner got his 1000.

I don't know about you, but to me, being able to accomplish that with the weaknesses the 49ers had (and I haven't even mentioned a subpar OL the 49ers have), wins me over. Garner may not be the long-term answer but if they really want to address defense in the draft and get a free agent RB, look no further than Charlie Garner.

Priest Holmes is also a 1000 yard rusher in the same time period as Garner... such a shame he gets to 1000 spread out over two years. He's an undrafted kid, 28 years old this October, smallish (5'9, 205), who became good with the Ravens because they just didn't have a RB who they could turn to so they gave Holmes a chance. That, and a couple of games aginst the Bengals in 1998 gave Holmes 400 of those 1000 yards.

So, let me get this straight. The Chiefs will escape the RBBC by handing the RB job to a guy who hasn't started in 2 years and when he made a name for himself, it was because of being fortunate to start against the Bengals twice.

Preist Holmes comes to KC and I can guarantee everyone he will never see a 1000 yard season in Chiefs Red. Never! The only way he arrives at 1000 yards at Arrowhead is if he decides to run from end zone to end zone 10 straight times after practice...

03-15-2001, 02:20 AM
I hear ya RE Garner. I've been impressed with him. He makes things happen. But the funny thing is, Vermiel got to play against him twice a year, so I would assume he knows all about Charlie.

To be honest, I know next to nothing about Holmes. I do recall Billick saying before the Oakland game he was going to play Holmes more because he felt he was more "patient" and "disciplined" at this point than Lewis was in finding his blockers and hitting the hole. Of course, Holmes did next to nothing in that game, but that's what I recall him saying.

I think Garner would actually be a great compliment to TRich. We may yet get him, as interest in him has not been high (another thing that has me asking why)...

03-15-2001, 02:30 AM
There was a story released by Garners agent today that there is mutual interest by Garner and Gruden to reunite them in Oakland as a replacement for Nap Kaufman who may be traded or retire to persue the ministy....

It's probably a ploy to generate interest but frankly, Garner does nothing for me... I'd prefer Ricky Watters myself... who the Hawk's supposedly will let go for a 3rd or 4th.....

03-15-2001, 08:05 AM
Hawaiian Boy:

Great! That's just what the Chiefs have to worry about now. Trying to stop a Garner-Wheatley backfield. If you get him, you'll take a giant step towards stretching this mini-dominant streak against us. That is right... they both were Eagles guys from way back... f*ck!!

Da Wolf:

That is strange. Perhaps Garner's asking price is too high for the Chiefs taste and they're having this "interest" in Priest Holmes just to make Garner come off his high salary demands to a salary more in line with the Chiefs' wishes. Garner knows how great this situation would be if he came here. He just could not ask for much more.. other than a Szott and Grunhard in their prime to open holes.

A RB like Garner has the opportunity to have Pro-Bowl type numbers in this Chiefs offense they plan to run...

03-15-2001, 08:56 AM

I saw a quote from Garner's agent saying that he would take a one year deal for less than market value, around 1 to 1.5 million. If true you could structure a deal for a cap-hit of about 750,000 this year. Again, if true thats too good to pass up.

03-15-2001, 09:40 AM
I have what is perhaps a naive question...

I've heard it said that Garner doesn't really fit our new style of Offense... why not?

seeking info...

03-15-2001, 10:35 AM

I believe his agent actually said that he presented an offer to the 49ers that was 1 to 1.5 million dollars less than their original asking price, which would put it at around 3 million per season (he initially wanted Tiki Barber money-which is over 4 mil per season); as opposed to your interpretation of 1.5 million as the total value of the contract. If he were willing to sign for 1.5mil, there would be 15 teams lined up to sign him.

03-15-2001, 11:10 AM
The only problem with Garner is really his durability. He gets beaten up real easily and the Niners have to give him a few days off each week in practice to let his body heal up for gameday. I would figure Vermiel is real familiar with him, especially since he and Bill Walsh are such good friends. And I'm pretty surprised the 49ers are not trying to resign him despite the effort from Garner's side to come in way under market value for them...

03-15-2001, 11:17 AM

That makes much more sense. At that price, I can see why our interest may be tepid.

Chiefs Pantalones
03-15-2001, 01:20 PM
he prefers Priest Holmes over Garner simply because Holmes is cheaper, in my opinion.

And to me, thats not doing the best for your team.

03-15-2001, 01:28 PM

Are you bitter about Green? J/K

Honestly, I don't think it's ALL about price. Holmes is a great pass catcher, and runs very well between the tackles. He's also a MUCH better blocker than Garner from what I've seen. DV is talking about the "overall package" and maybe Holmes fits that better. I'm not really a big Priest fan, but I'll be happy to see him come in here at this point.

Archie F. Swin
03-15-2001, 01:45 PM
since Dillon is untouchable, Holmes is probably the best bet.

Someone else will probably get Holmes while we're pondering which one of the "shorter straws" we should draw from the QB cup. :confused:

[Edited by Chief Red Pants on 03-15-2001 at 01:49 PM]

03-15-2001, 02:01 PM
Why dont the Chiefs try to do what successful teams do?? That is, get your key players through the draft! Now, there is an idea! Taking other teams leftovers and garbage has gotten the Chiefs exactly zero playoff wins in the last eight years. One would think that this would turn a light bulb on in Peterson's head. I would think it would turn a light bulp on in some your heads. How many more mediocre seasons do you guys want? If the 49ers dont need Charlie Garner, then chances are, the Chiefs dont need him either.
Last year after Lew Bush was signed, I said the same thing: If the San Diego Chargers, who have done nothing but lose lately, dont want Lew Bush, then why would anybody else want to sign him and plug him into their starting line up? I asked this, and most of you ripped on me.

Once again, the Chiefs should forget free agency for a year or two and concentrate on drafting, developing, and playing thier own players. That would be a first for Peterson. So would a playoff win. Its a proven fact that good drafting is the key to success in the NFL.

03-15-2001, 02:23 PM

Your points are valid. However, many great QBs in the NFL did not become great with the teams that drafted them. Favre, Warner, and Steve Young won Superbowls with teams that did not draft them. I agree with your premise of FAs in general but in many cases someone elses rejects can florish with a change of scenery. The key is not drafting a young QB but developing a young QB.

03-15-2001, 03:38 PM

You and I are on the same page. I am beginning to think that playing fantasy football with free agency justifies a GM's existence and has little to do with creating a better team. NO MO FA HOs

03-15-2001, 04:56 PM
Blond and Oleman,

I think we are saying the same thing. The key word in Free Agency is the word "Free". Carl likes that word. In a case like Favre, the Packers traded for him. San Fran traded for Steve Young. Kurt Warner was a once in a lifetime stroke of good fortune for the Rams. Carl does not understand that in order to get quality, you have to give up something in return. He refuses to do this. The last time he did, his team went to the AFC Championship (Joe Montana trade). Since then, it has been one joke of a free agent after another that have come through Arrowhead. If the 5-11 49ers wont sign Charlie Garner, that ought to tell you something. It tells you that they dont think he is good enough to win with. They basically said the same thing with Grbac and they were right.

Peterson should treat the most important postition on the field (Quarterback) with a little more respect. Just plugging in crap will get crap results. The Chiefs need to look no further than in the mirror as an example. Same at runningback. I am sick and tired of this crap by committee at runningback and musical doufases at Quarterback. I am willing to suffer a few REALLY lean years - such as a 4-12 year in order to better the team in the long run.

Enough of the short term fixes that produce mediocre results.

03-15-2001, 08:33 PM

I'm agreeing with some of what you are saying in this topic.

However, the Chiefs HAVE drafted RB's in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th rounds each of the past 6 years. We haven't found the guy....

How do you explain that?

03-15-2001, 08:56 PM
I don't want to see the Chiefs sign Garner, or Holmes, or trade for Green.
I've been saying throughout this offseason that I would like to see the Chiefs build through the draft.
I'm still pissed about losing the 2nd round pick (and next year's 3rd) as compensation fo hiring Tearmeil, who I still contend is a bad hiring, even had we not lost those picks.
So we still eventually may trade for Green, probably at a price that is too high, might sign Holmes, just signed a journryman center, and these are the kind of moves that are going to turn us into SB contenders?
In three years, with these type of moves, we'll still be a 7 to 9 win season team, still looking for that ever so elusive playoff win.
Just remember guys, in three years when Tearmeil retires once again and we're all bitching about the crappy job he did, that I was alone in warning all of you that it will happen.

03-16-2001, 08:15 AM

Nice post. Its good to see someone agree with me. Vermeil was a poor hire. He is not the man to oversee a rebuilding effort. Plus, he is on the record of not wanting to trade for Marshall Faulk, drafted Lawrence Phillips, fell ***-backwards into Kurt Warner, and finally quit after being "burned out". Let me tell you something, if you get "burned out" coaching a team that just won a super bowl, wait until he suffers his first four game losing streak with the Chiefs!


My initial response is poor drafting by Peterson. But I believe it goes deeper than that. The Chiefs really havent given any of their drafted running backs an opportunity to shine. Running backs need to get into a groove. If I were a college running back, I would pray that the Chiefs wouldnt draft me. Running back by committee is a career killer. There are very good running backs out there. Some just need a chance ie Olandis Gary, Ahman Green, ect. Most teams that draft a RB early, give him a legitimate chance. The Chiefs havent done that. Instead, they go out and trade for bums like Bam Morris and plug them into the starting lineup.

03-16-2001, 08:35 AM

I agree that Vermiel may not have been the best choice to rebuild this team. But it is unfair to minimize his results in STL. 3 seasons after becoming HC of one of the worst teams in the NFL, he won the Superbowl. His flexibility in hiring Martz and giving him the reins of that offense lead to success. His hiring of assistants with HC experiance lead to a well coached team. A lot of coaches would not be secure enough to surrond themselves with former HCs. My memory is that Philips was already there. As for not wanting Faulk, well for someone who didnt want him he made sure that he was used effectivly. He did not let his personal feelings stand in the way of winning. He had the forsight to stick with Warner when Green went down. A lot of pundits were calling for the Rams to trade for this veteran or to sign Jeff Hostetler, etc. Now, I am not Vermiel's biggest fan but no one can take away his accomplishments.

03-16-2001, 08:47 AM
Mr. Blond,

I cant take away Vermeil's super bowl ring. But the Chiefs arent a head coach away from contending. IMO, they are quite a few top five draft picks away from that. The Rams have been drafting in the top five seemingly forever. The Chiefs have not. Vermeil is the wrong man for this type of overhaul that will be required to make the Chiefs contenders, IMO. Plus, he is closing in on 70 years old!

Again, Vermeil got "burned out" winning a super bowl, what will losing do to him?

Mark M
03-16-2001, 08:47 AM
Mr. Blond--
Very good points. I, too, am not a huge DV fan, but his success and Philly and St. Loser speaks for itself. And Lawrence was there before he got there.

Whether its Holmes, Garner or even Cloud, at least DV wil make one of them the starter and stick with it.

Of course, these are facts and you might confuse poor Kenny, so be careful.

~~Will wait and see about DV.

03-16-2001, 09:07 AM
The moves this team has made and not made this off-season have looked like a team that is looking to the future. While flirting with Aikman, he is not signed. They inquired into Green, made a couple of fair offers, found the price too steep and passed. Good call. They did the responsible thing in both targeting their QB, and passing when the cost was too much. They let go of Hasty, Anders, Bennett, and McGlockton. Resigned Shields, signed Weigeman. DV and CP seem to be rebuilding this team. I am going to give them a chance. I would have rather had Jon Gruden, but that didnt happen.