PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Garner/Priest Holmes


NaptownChief
04-16-2001, 06:47 PM
If we end up paying as much or more money for Priest Holmes as the Raiders paid for Garner I will throw up...I can't freaking believe we didn't sign Garner considering how little he settled for...Holmes is worth 1/2 of what Garner received at most....


Garner was a great fit for our new offensive scheme...Holmes would give us a solid backup but he has proven that he is nothing more than that or else Baltimore would not have been tapping Jamal Lewis at the top of last years draft board....

Sometimes I just don't get it...Ok, let me re-phrase that....When it comes to the Chiefs, I often times don't get it...And unfortunately, neither do they...

Cormac
04-16-2001, 06:50 PM
I couldn't agree more.

tommykat
04-16-2001, 06:56 PM
I don't think any of us get it right now.........BUT, give them time. Something good will come out of this. When we are rebuilding as we are, no one is going to be happy. However, in a year or two happy???<<OH YEAH we will be. But I will continue to stand behind my team no matter what!

RJ
04-16-2001, 06:58 PM
I doubt that we failed to sign Garner because of money. I think he just chose to play for the Raiders. And while I hate to admit it, I can't blame him.

Pacific coast vs. midwest. AFC Championship game vs. missed the playoffs. Lots of media attention vs. ..... you get the point. Holmes is probably more of a Chiefs type player anyway and should come a little cheaper.

tommykat
04-16-2001, 07:07 PM
Why are some againist Holmes? Garner actually fits the Raiders better than the Chiefs. He has that attitude that goes with a Raider.....LOL. But true. We don't need attitudes like that again. Anyone heard if they resigned Rison either? <<Another tude.

hawaiianboy
04-16-2001, 07:08 PM
hehe....

joejoe!

Nice how that Garner thing played out, huh?... minimal cap hit.... 4 years/10 mill backloaded with a 2 mill signing bonus
... Nap gave us an out on his contract... I think we even get to differ Naps cap hit ($250,000) till next season if he files his retirement papers after June 1 ...

Other than that brutal schedule Tags, the vengeful ***** gave us.... I'm pretty happy....

You guys?... seems ever since you started playing footsies with the Rams... you've been jinxed....
It's time to sacrifice that virgin sheep (if there is such a thing in your neck of the world, hehe)... to appease the football Gods...

BTW, Leighty... Sportstalk is done.. Jason is starting from scratch at:

www.bootlegsports.com

NaptownChief
04-16-2001, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by rjintx
Holmes is probably more of a Chiefs type player anyway and should come a little cheaper.

What do you mean by that? Cause he is $hittier?

There is no reason why Garner would not have wanted to come here...I know he doesn't have to move his family by staying in the bay area but outside of that this was a very attractive opportunity for him...

He would be the sole feature back instead of RBBC with Wheatly....But most importantly is that he could have been easily sold on the position because all they had to do is say "you see how we used Marshall?...That is how we will use you...."

Slam dunk. There is no way in hell he would have passed up the opportunity to play the role of Marshall Faulk in our wide open offense...If they couldn't sell him on that then they need to hire some new salesman cause that should have been the biggest gimme of the offseason....

RJ
04-16-2001, 07:51 PM
Holmes, from what I've read, is very T-Rich like in demeanor. Like it or not, Chiefs fans prefer the blue-collar, humble approach from their players. Holmes is said to be a "team first" kind of guy.

While I agree with what you said about the pitch to Garner being an easy sale, consider this. What if Garner, coming back from an injury, doesn't want to be the feature guy? Perhaps physically he would be better off playing primarily as a 3rd down back behind Wheatley. Again, I just can't see the $$$'s being the stumbling block on this deal.

NaptownChief
04-16-2001, 07:59 PM
rinjtx,

He definitely wanted to be the full time feature back. That is why he orignally targeted Cleveland and us cause we were the only two teams that had no starting RB in place...

Now I do agree with you that Holmes is more of a KC type of RB cause if we have Holmes instead of Garner then it means we still don't have a good RB thus making it feel much more like KC....

RJ
04-16-2001, 08:28 PM
Perhaps the Chiefs and Browns were simply leverage.

I do love a good conspiracy theory.

What I hate is seeing him land with Oakland. If he comes back to where he was before his injury the Raiders will have improved their backfield despite Kaufmann's retirement.

Out of curiosity, anyone know how long the Raiders have Kaufmann's rights? It's not like it's unusual for a pro athlete to retire and then change his mind.

NaptownChief
04-17-2001, 08:53 AM
Here is our answer:

Chiefs | Holmes Signing - Somewhere? - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com)
0:29 ET: The Kansas City Star reports an agent representing free agent RB Priest Holmes said he expects the running back to sign somewhere this week. One team on his list, the Kansas City Chiefs have yet to offer Holmes a contract. The two sides have reportedly discussed a five-year contract averaging about $1.7 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. James Bowie, one of Holmes' agents said that's not close to what Holmes is seeking. Bowie said for a five-year deal they want a bigger signing bonus and a higher average salary. Bowie said he was using the five-year contract worth slightly more than $10 million, including a signing bonus of $2.4 million the Chiefs gave to RB Tony Richardson last year, as a model for a Holmes' deal.


WTF, they are going to end up giving him more money than Garner...This guy is a fuggin back up RB for Gawd Sakes....UHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

DaWolf
04-17-2001, 10:17 AM
jl80,
We do not know the Chiefs are going to pay him more. The agent wants them to, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Frankly, Garner, while he looked good in SF on the surface, there was probably more to it than met the eye. Consider that the 49ers basically told him they weren't going to resign him and in the process Bill Walsh started badmouthing him. So word came out that Garner basically "quit" the last half of the season and was a pain to work with during the week leading up to games.

OK, that aside, assuming it was untrue, you still have no teams seriously interested in him except the Raiders. Garner got, if I recall correctly, one visit, and that was with Butch Davis and the Browns, and that was only aftr they initially cancelled his visit. No deal was offered. Carolina never offered a deal or a visit. New england never sniffed in his direction.

As far as us, Carl saw him play against us firsthand last year. Vermiel played against him twice in '99. So they knew who they were dealing with. And they never invited him in for a visit. And then Vermiel comes out and says that Holmes is more the type of back they need for this offense than Garner. So IMO, one of two things is happening: we have a front office that has no idea how to judge talent, or there is more to this thing behind the scenes than we see on the surface.

Not to say Garner won't be good in Oakland, he will be. But would he have been right for us? Who knows?

NaptownChief
04-17-2001, 02:44 PM
Wolf,

Good points...

But if we are willing to gamble on flawed characters like Horne in the name of production then we sure the heck shouldn't stop that program when it comes to RB...

Garner has produced at the very highest level the past two seasons as a feature back...IMO it is crazy not to pursue him for such a low cap figure...I hope I turn out wrong since how he is a Raider...

NaptownChief
04-17-2001, 08:33 PM
I have thought about this some more and it flat out does not make a bit of sense unless they are saving the position and cap room for C.Dillon which I highly doubt...

When you have a glaring need for a feature back like we do, it make absolutely no sense to let Garner get away...When you can get a Pro Bowl RB that is probably the best runner/receiver combo in the league behind Faulk and James for a very low cap number you have to jump at that opportunity...Plus Garner has low mileage on him cause he has only been used as a full time feature back for the past two years...

Like I said, this will only make sense if we end up signing Dillon in a few weeks...But even then, as much as I like Dillon, I would prefer Garner over Dillon considering he will only cost about 1/3rd as much money....

If I have to watch Garner kick our a$$ twice a year while watching us struggle along with a grossly overpriced journeyman like Priest Holmes I will blow my top...

DaneMcCloud
04-17-2001, 09:00 PM
JQ, I know that you're glad that the Raiders signed Garner, I'm surprised (but not really, I guess) that you aren't turning on the Raiders much like many of my friends in the Bay area. Davis has humiliated the city of Oakland, held them for ransom, belittled the die-hard fans and is suing the NFL. He has publicly stated that he would rather be in Los Angeles than in Oakland. If Lamar Hunt were to make those kinds of comments, you wouldn't see 10 people at Arrowhead. Maybe since you're in Hawaii, the impact of such statements isn't as great, but it has sure hurt a lot of people in the East Bay area, and I bet the crowds shrink even more this season, regardless of their record.

hawaiianboy
04-18-2001, 12:01 AM
Dane....
Completely stoked with the versatility Garner brings to the table..... I will be a fan no matter where home base is....
Unlike any other team... the fan base stretches far and wide...

Though I don't want to get into another Al vs Oakland vs the NFL discussion... let me assure you, its not as black and white as the NFL press releases would lead you to believe... The politics of Oakland and the double standards of the NFL have just as much responsibility in this situation....

Can you imagine the backlash if KC had wanted to build a new stadium and the NFL had stated they would only chip in their agreed share if the Chiefs would share the arena with the expansion Rams?.... Or if Kansas City told Lamar they would not chip in towards box seats?.... In my trips to Oakland, the sentiment you decribe does not exist... alot of the population know whats going on with the trial and seem to side with AL..

JMO though... I do question how an intelligent man like Tags can state the line "I do not recall" 47 times in one day when he was, in fact, the $1000 an hour attorney representing the NFL in the first lawsuit....
This is one time I hope Al sticks it to the Teflon commish...

milkman
04-18-2001, 12:04 AM
Tagliabue sure makes a guy miss Roselle.

hawaiianboy
04-18-2001, 01:14 PM
Official numbers for Garner came out... It's basically a 2 year deal dressed up as a 4 year.... Garners cap hit this year.... exactly 1 million heads of cabbage!...

Nap = 2.5 mil salary - bonus cap excelleration of 250,000....= 2.25 saved...
minus
Garner 1 million cap hit
------------------------
1.25 added to the Raiders cap by adding Garner and subtracting Nap.

ROYC75
04-18-2001, 01:18 PM
I would rather stay with TRich ! Anybody that carries a 4.8 ypc needs to touch the ball more.

JQ.....How's the Sun in Hula land ? Looks like the Seachickens are out for blood this next year !

hawaiianboy
04-18-2001, 01:30 PM
Everything here is cool Roy...

Not saying this with disrespect but I don't view Richardson as a 250 carry back... he seems more of a threat as a spot up guy.... I had Garner slotted to KC and teamed with Richardson to give Saunders the Chuck Muncie/ Lionl James type combo he had in SD.. or to use Faulk-like as VeeDee did in Ramtown... Either way it made sense..

ROYC75
04-18-2001, 01:35 PM
True Tony doesn't have the speed or the cuts to shift around tackles....but he does a pretty good job of going forward when tackled. I believe we will be OK with him as a feature back and use a speedster as a 3rd down back. Who knows....maybe Cloud will finally arrive in the mix.... The QB is a need to address !

ExtremeChief
04-18-2001, 03:38 PM
I'd like to see our stable of running backs at least given a chance...our playcalling totally lacked vision. Lets see if Cloud can make yards NOT running up the middle. With a spread offense, maybe our current backs can be productive.


ahhhhh....Stoogless

nmt1
12-14-2002, 11:05 AM
bump

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by nmt1
bump


Concerned Bo is going to make you look bad this weekend eh?

Ugly Duck
12-14-2002, 11:10 AM
OK, OK. You're right. It just wasn't fair. Lets make up for it and trade em. Priest for Garner, straight up. Al Davis is a fair man, a good man..... he'd make up for the wrong by trading Garner for Holmes. Peace.

Ebolapox
12-14-2002, 11:10 AM
ahhh, hindsight

boy, I'm SOOO glad SOOO many of you were wrong ;)

for what it's worth, I was wrong as well.... thought he could be a solid starter ALONG WITH T-rich, but NEVER thought he could be this good

-EBOLA-

nmt1
12-14-2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by NaptownChief



Concerned Bo is going to make you look bad this weekend eh?

No. I hope he makes Johnny Morton look bad.

I just thought I'd let everyone see some of your wisdom b/c you would, of course, make a better GM than Carl Peterson.

Mr. Laz
12-14-2002, 11:15 AM
Don't get upset


nmt1 and Carl are lovers...


he lives to defend his man :p

SNR
12-14-2002, 11:16 AM
UD:

I don't think Holmes's list of qualities in a team included "selling your soul to Al Davis"

I guess we'll just have to suffer and settle for Holmes for awhile. Darn :rolleyes:

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by nmt1


No. I hope he makes Johnny Morton look bad.

I just thought I'd let everyone see some of your wisdom b/c you would, of course, make a better GM than Carl Peterson.


Yeah right...You are worried that your Chief Homer excuse making style is going to get scared just a few days after the fact. You had to figure that if Bo started to make Morton look like a joke it would be a year later and allow you to add other factors into the mix. You are in jeopary of having you pants pulled down and trying to throw up a side show.

Nice try...Feel free to take me up on my bet offer if you believe what you say.

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 11:20 AM
Would a sideshow include this?

Originally posted by NaptownChief
This is fruggin awesome...I love Morton. He will give us a real #1 WR none of this half ass #3's that we have been trying to stick in the #1 spot.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?threadid=29581

Would a sideshow include betting someone that he would outperform Rod Smith?

Dont take the fact that Morton hasnt produced to your expectations out on the BB. You thought he was a good signing and now you've written him off.

It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth, and you're quite accomplished at it.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus
Would a sideshow include this?



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?threadid=29581

Would a sideshow include betting someone that he would outperform Rod Smith?

Dont take the fact that Morton hasnt produced to your expectations out on the BB. You thought he was a good signing and now you've written him off.

It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth, and you're quite accomplished at it.


I don't follow you? I had high expectations for Morton but he hasn't produce to meet anyones expectations unless they thought he was a complete joke.

Just curious as to how I am talking out of both sides of my mouth? Is that because I actually have opinions that are both positive and negative about Chief acquistions? I guess so as I know that is unfamiliar to your brother as every thing Chief is always a good move.

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 11:28 AM
You're 'opinions' sway in the breeze like reed grass. Holmes was a mistake, now he's awesome, in your opinion. Morton was awesome, now he's a mistake in your opinion. Your opinion on Green has swerved from good to bad to indiffernt depending upon the week he's had.

That's talking out of both sides of your mouth and sometimes out of your ass like when you infer I think every Chiefs transaction is good.

Im suprised you didnt stick with the 'Titus has no opinion' mantra instead.

My opinion is that KC is trying to bring the players they think will take them all the way. Some will work out, some will not. -- Ive shared this opinion with you thousands of times.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus
You're 'opinions' sway in the breeze like reed grass. Holmes was a mistake, now he's awesome, in your opinion. Morton was awesome, now he's a mistake in your opinion. Your opinion on Green has swerved from good to bad to indiffernt depending upon the week he's had.

That's talking out of both sides of your mouth and sometimes out of your ass like when you infer I think every Chiefs transaction is good.




As you know it was coming cause it is true, unlike you I actually state thoughts and opinions ahead of something and more than willing to admit being wrong if proven so.

I guess you are such a stubborn prick that if you said Holmes was a bad signing ahead of time and he played like the best RB in the league you would probably refuse to admit you were wrong eh?

Same with Morton, I thought he was a great signing and was dead wrong. He has proven for 13 weeks to be shit...So should I just be a stubborn prick like you and still claim to be right?

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 11:40 AM
Since my opinion doesnt fit your acceptable 'opinion', I have none, that's quite interesting. Im not a predictions guy and I dont claim to be smarter than the coaching staff. Im merely a humble fan.

Unlike yourself, I dont feel the need to vest myself in predictions of ultimate failure/success of each player or transaction or hold myself out as some sort of football expert.

And because of this, I guess Im not allowed to poke fun of those that do, because 'Titus doesnt have an opinion'.

I like the stubborn prick thing, it's cute. I guess I am a stubborn prick, stubborn enough to know when someone's talking sh!t about things they have no clue about and just enough of a prick to prove it.

jAZ
12-14-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by tommykat
I don't think any of us get it right now.........BUT, give them time. Something good will come out of this. When we are rebuilding as we are, no one is going to be happy. However, in a year or two happy???
< < OH YEAH we will be. But I will continue to stand behind my team no matter what!

Good call TK! :toast:

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus


I like the stubborn prick thing, it's cute. I guess I am a stubborn prick, stubborn enough to know when someone's talking sh!t about things they have no clue about and just enough of a prick to prove it.


Still waiting for your explination on how admitting your wrong about a player is talking out of both sides of your mouth...

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by NaptownChief
Still waiting for your explination on how admitting your wrong about a player is talking out of both sides of your mouth...

Why would you wait...I have no voice, no opinion...oh, now you want me to explain my opinion--ironic? quite.

Ok, first, right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Admitting you were wrong about your judgement of a player who was signed/drafted by the team means nothing. The inherent stupidity of it is comical.

Second, you 'cheered' the signing, got what you wanted. Now, you dont like him and just because someone else on this BB has the nerve not to agree with your 'new' opinion, they're homers, excuse makers, morons, etc.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus




Ok, first, right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Admitting you were wrong about your judgement of a player who was signed/drafted by the team means nothing. The inherent stupidity of it is comical.




Admitting being wrong is "inherent stupidity"?

Whatever Titus. :rolleyes:

I could put you on ignore and be 100% certain that I wouldn't miss a shred of football chat. I would miss countless barbs of you attempting to jab someone for sharing their football thoughts and comments I am trying to figure out how I could ever make it without that.

Just curious...Do you and your brother live together or does he just call you up to come and help defend him immediately upon engaging in conversation with a board member?

You hadn't posted since 4:30 yesterday and it took all of 6 minutes of me chatting with ntm1 before you come shuffling in.

Very pathetic.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 12:18 PM
Titus,

I have to apologize, I went back and found out that you actually have stated a football opinion before...


Originally posted by KCTitus

Can Priest Holmes deliver, well that is the 64 dollar question. Should KC get a premiere RB next year? definately, if possible.




Seems that you thought we should go get a premiere RB to replace Holmes. I know this will be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" but I will admit that I was wrong about you.

Pitt Gorilla
12-14-2002, 02:02 PM
Very amusing thread. It looks as though Tommycat hit the nail right on the head; maybe you guys could learn a thing or two from her...:D

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Pitt Gorilla
Very amusing thread. It looks as though Tommycat hit the nail right on the head; maybe you guys could learn a thing or two from her...:D


Tommycat says the same thing about every aquistion...

Rumor has it she said the same thing about Blackledge a year after he was let go. :D

I know one thing for certain, as long as you praise everything Chief then you are safe. When you are right you get to brag about it and when your wrong you won't have to hear about it casue all the homers that would otherwise bring it up agreed with you. :D

WarCry!
12-14-2002, 02:17 PM
I guess there an awful lot of us on this board that are "talking out of both sides of our mouth" regarding Dante Hall...

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by WarCry!
I guess there an awful lot of us on this board that are "talking out of both sides of our mouth" regarding Dante Hall...


Yeah...How dare you do that..."The inherent stupidity of it is comical." :D

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:22 PM
I like threads that become about me. Unfortunately for Nap, he has to live with the fact that, yet again, he's proven that he isnt worth his weight in salt about NFL talent.

I would expect better than this nonsense from a person who claims he can do better than the current coaching staff and the GM.

Thanks, Nap, for the wonderful stroll down memory lane. As I look back on it, I was willing to see what Holmes could do. You, on the other hand, with your football genious (chiefsplanet spelling) had already decided him a failure.

Sure, it's ok to be 'wrong', we all are. But an 'expert' or one who claims to be, like yourself, should be right more times than not.

Of course, it's predictable that you're once again pitching a fit about KC and the fact that they actually have a chance to succeed.

Clint in Wichita
12-14-2002, 04:31 PM
Nobody thought Holmes would be as good as he's been in KC. Probably not even Priest himself.

DaWolf
12-14-2002, 04:33 PM
I just hope next year and beyond that my Warfield sucks threads come back and bite me in the ass because he turned into a consistent playmaking corner. Some things you pray you are dead wrong about... :toast:

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:33 PM
Exactly, Clint.

Clint in Wichita
12-14-2002, 04:33 PM
Sure, it's ok to be 'wrong', we all are. But an 'expert' or one who claims to be, like yourself, should be right more times than not.

So what's Carl's excuse?

keg in kc
12-14-2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by DaWolf
I just hope next year and beyond that my Warfield sucks threads come back and bite me in the ass because he turned into a consistent playmaking corner. Some things you pray you are dead wrong about... :toast: Darn tootin'. I hope you're wrong about that, too.

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by DaWolf
I just hope next year and beyond that my Warfield sucks threads come back and bite me in the ass because he turned into a consistent playmaking corner. Some things you pray you are dead wrong about... :toast:

Yep, that's true. Hoping for the best is never a bad thing. Will Warfield turn it around remains to be seen, but when and if it happens, should you start calling BB members out for differing on your 'new' opinion of Warfield, I would say to expect the original thread to come back.

FloridaChief
12-14-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by DaWolf
I just hope next year and beyond that my Warfield sucks threads come back and bite me in the ass...

Ditto my previous claims about the Chiefs having no chance to win the Super Bowl in 2002....

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
So what's Carl's excuse?

Well, let see...does he come on the BB not working in the NFL and claim to be smarter than whoever currently has the job? No, he has the GM job and he, unlike our resident experts, signed Holmes.

Good thing he didnt listen to those that are 'smarter' on this BB.

Clint in Wichita
12-14-2002, 04:39 PM
He just has to listen to the right members!

We could've avoided wasting roster spots on few guys.

Williams, Crock, Cloud and Grbac come to mind.

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:41 PM
LOL...he has to listen at the right times to the right members...

Once again, I will have to re-iterate my 'non opinion' that it's not Carl that makes most personnel decisions it's the HC and his staff, probably to his dismay.

keg in kc
12-14-2002, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by KCTitus

Once again, I will have to re-iterate my 'non opinion' that it's not Carl that makes most personnel decisions it's the HC and his staff, probably to his dismay. Hey, that's the same 'non opinion' that I have! Err, or is that don't have? I always get so confused when talking about 'non opinions'...

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:49 PM
Welcome to the Homer Club, Keg...

I will say that based upon press accounts that Greg Hill was a CP pick, and was part of the reason that Marty refused to let him play regularly in the playoff game of 97.

I dont think it's coincidence that when Marty got more and more control of player personnel that the team started to go backwards.

I do blame Carl for his obscene contracts with many players including Glock, Williams and even Warfields--even though Warfields isnt a huge cap hit.

If anything has been self evident since Gunther left, it's that the players that KC has gone after has definately changed and for the most part have been good acquisitions.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by KCTitus
I like threads that become about me. Unfortunately for Nap, he has to live with the fact that, yet again, he's proven that he isnt worth his weight in salt about NFL talent.

I would expect better than this nonsense from a person who claims he can do better than the current coaching staff and the GM.




Yeah the Chiefs would really be in a mess had they gone with Garner. :rolleyes:

They would be stuck with a guy that has the 2nd best ypc of all feature backs in the league. And based on NTM1's theory of "accounting" for a player I guess it is fair to say that Garner might be the best back in the league since how the Raiders have the #1 passing game.

Garner is also averaging more per reception than Priest...I'm not looking to slight Priest, as I am sure you will do your best to try and spin it that way but it is very easily argued that the only reason Garners numbers aren't at the top of the leagues is that Oakland leans to the pass first.

So while I was wrong about Priest, probably not much more than most, it sure isn't certain that I was wrong about Garner. Behind the Chiefs O Line and a offense that leaned on him the majority of the time and we very well could be sitting here talking about how all the people that wanted Charlie were correct in doing so.

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 04:54 PM
Yes! I knew you had it in you, Nap. Pride alone wouldnt let you admit you're wrong.

Good show! Keeping proving your NFL talent intellect!

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by KCTitus
Yes! I knew you had it in you, Nap. Pride alone wouldnt let you admit you're wrong.

Good show! Keeping proving your NFL talent intellect!


Aren't you suppose to be baby sitting ntm1? Or is he sitting on your lap?

DaWolf
12-14-2002, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by NaptownChief



Yeah the Chiefs would really be in a mess had they gone with Garner. :rolleyes:

They would be stuck with a guy that has the 2nd best ypc of all feature backs in the league. And based on NTM1's theory of "accounting" for a player I guess it is fair to say that Garner might be the best back in the league since how the Raiders have the #1 passing game.

Garner is also averaging more per reception than Priest...I'm not looking to slight Priest, as I am sure you will do your best to try and spin it that way but it is very easily argued that the only reason Garners numbers aren't at the top of the leagues is that Oakland leans to the pass first.

So while I was wrong about Priest, probably not much more than most, it sure isn't certain that I was wrong about Garner. Behind the Chiefs O Line and a offense that leaned on him the majority of the time and we very well could be sitting here talking about how all the people that wanted Charlie were correct in doing so.

There's one problem with that argument. Holmes has 363 touches and Garner has 217. This takes me back to my earlier point abou how Garner used to wear out in the 2nd half of the season when he was "the man" with the 49ers. The Raiders have enough good weapons that they can limit Garner's touches and keep him relatively fresh. If we had gone with Garner, he would have had to be the "man." I don't know that he could have handled that as well as Holmes has.

I will say though, to your credit, when you and I were discussing the scenario of had we not traded the NO 1 pick for Green, we would have signed Dilfer and drafted Deuce McAllister, you did point out that Deuce is going to be a stud in this league... :)

KCTitus
12-14-2002, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by NaptownChief
Aren't you suppose to be baby sitting ntm1? Or is he sitting on your lap?

LOL! That's cute.

I guess there is one thing you cant do better than a real NFL GM, and that's take criticism.

Im going to sign off now, but feel free to keep talking about me, Nap.

I'll try to find it on Monday.

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by DaWolf


There's one problem with that argument. Holmes has 363 touches and Garner has 217. This takes me back to my earlier point abou how Garner used to wear out in the 2nd half of the season when he was "the man" with the 49ers. The Raiders have enough good weapons that they can limit Garner's touches and keep him relatively fresh. If we had gone with Garner, he would have had to be the "man." I don't know that he could have handled that as well as Holmes has.

I will say though, to your credit, when you and I were discussing the scenario of had we not traded the NO 1 pick for Green, we would have signed Dilfer and drafted Deuce McAllister, you did point out that Deuce is going to be a stud in this league... :)


I agree that is very possible...Holmes appears to be stronger and more durable but it's hard to say what he would have done if given the same opportunities.

As for McCallister, you aren't allowed to talk about that. Or Donte Stallworth who I hand picked long before got a seconds worth of ink for the talking heads. We are just here to talk about my misses. ;)

NaptownChief
12-14-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by KCTitus



Im going to sign off now, but feel free to keep talking about me, Nap.

I'll try to find it on Monday.


I have no doubt...I'm sure searching my posts are probably your first daily activity upon signing on...