PDA

View Full Version : Vermeil Isn't Sure Holmes Is The Answer...


NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 03:08 PM
This is anything but a positive article about Holmes...I hate to say I told you so before they hit the field so I will hold off but this is starting to smell a lot like my earlier predictions about the Priest:


According to Adam Teicher of the Kansas City Star, after watching newly signed running back Priest Holmes go through the paces during last week's mini-camp, Chiefs head coach Dick Vermeil and isn't convinced the 205-pounder is capable of carrying the entire load. And even though they'd love to see the former Raven to emerge as a legitimate feature back, the Chiefs are already planning on giving 235-pound fullback Tony Richardson a whole lot of carries.
"Tony will be a fullback and a halfback," Vermeil said, adding that Richardson is the likely candidate to play in the one-back formations his team is expected to rely on more than half the time. ...

The Chiefs are also said to be working on ways to get rookie Derrick Blaylock, Frank Moreau and Mike Cloud involved too, if need be.

Hmmm. ... Sounds suspiciously like a "committee" if you ask me. ...

And my guess says that ain't what the Chiefs had in mind when they handed Holmes a five-year, $8 million deal -- including a $2 million signing bonus -- last month.

It's certainly not what Vermeil had in mind.

"Anytime you have somebody you think is the best at his position, when you take him out of the game you shift into a second gear," the coach explained recently. "As I did with Wilbur Montgomery (in Philadelphia) and Marshall Faulk (in St. Louis), I leave them in the game and let them play. If they get tired, we take them out for a snap, then put them back in."

According to offensive coordinator Al Saunders, "The best teams that I have been associated with in the running game have had a marquee back who's been able to rush for 1,200 to 1,300 yards. ...

"Chuck Muncie rushed for over 1,000 yards (in San Diego) and Christian Okoye here in the early '90s was a tremendous rusher for us. When you look around the league, the teams that have been very successful have a back that they can count on to deliver the goods."

Yeah. ... Just like Holmes did as a Raven in 1998 when he rushed for 1,008 yards and seven touchdowns and caught 43 passes.

So. ... How long did it take the Chiefs to realize their expectations might be less-than-realistic?

I'd say Vermeil caught on right away.

"None of this will fully define itself until we get in full pads and go through training camp and get into the preseason games," he told reporters after the team's first workout last week. "If there's one clearly better, he'll carry the load. The other one gives him a breather if he needs it.

"I think we've added a high-quality football player. I think he brings a lot to the table and will be very tough to beat out. But if it happens, it happens. That will only make us a better football team."

Which is "coachspeak" for "Why did we give this guy a $2 million signing bonus?"

In fact, the only person who sounded more disappointed than Vermeil was Holmes. ... After all, he could have stayed in Baltimore and backed up Jamal Lewis as the Ravens defended their Super Bowl title this season. ... Or he could have gone to Philadelphia as well-paid insurance policy for Duce Staley.

But he went with the Chiefs -- in large part because he saw a gaping hole at running back in Kansas City.

"That's one reason I had my eye on this situation," Holmes said. "I wrote down goals on a piece of paper and matched them up to this situation. It wasn't a matter of me going out and just saying, `This is where I want to play.' I compared the teams to the goals, and KC came out on top.

"But it's not just that. This offense really complements the type of back I am. We're going inside, we're going outside. Right now, I'm just concentrating on running the ball, knowing the formations and getting the system down. Once that's done, I'll really get in the routine."

But that was then; this is now. ... And all the former University of Texas star can do now is put up a brave front. ...

"In the last couple years you've seen how successful teams have slowly switched the load as far as having two runners who can pull the load," Holmes explained. "As coach Vermeil stated, we'll have different types of attacks that we can come at teams with. The key is having a number of different players who can pull the load at any time.

"I think we can be hot because of what we call the three-headed monster. When you have a quarterback, some good receivers and running backs, you can kill (an opponent) slow or kill them fast. I think with the receivers and quarterback we have here, we can kill them fast. At the same time, we can kill them slow with Tony Richardson and myself."

Positives?

Here's the best I can do: Holmes racked up his 1,000 yards in 1998 on an average of 15 carries per game. ...

In the meantime, Vermeil continues to talk up Richardson, whose 5.7-yard per touch average ranked third in the league behind Faulk and Tiki Barber.

"He's a different-style runner and a very good football player," the former UCLA boss noted. "I don't think people hold Tony in as high esteem as they should. I think the combination of these two guys in the same backfield, or any one of these guys in the backfield, makes our running game better."

Bottom line?

"We'll be in a lot of one-back," Vermeil said.

What about the other guys?

According to SportsLine.com senior writer Len Pasquarelli, Blaylock, a fifth-round pick from Stephen F. Austin, posted the fastest 40 time at this year's scouting combine in Indianapolis (he was clocked at a blistering 4.34 second).

The 5-10, 190-pounder catches the ball well and could make an excellent change-of-pace back. Blaylock could also contribute as a punt returner.

Assessing the youngster's first mini-camp, Vermeil told reporters: "They're not wearing pads this weekend, so we won't learn anything we don't already know about Blaylock. ... We know he can run and has good hands. We'll see that again. But we don't know how his running instincts will be. You can't see those kinds of things in this environment."

Teicher wrote last week that the new staff is impressed with Moreau; but the second-year man will have to prove he's capable of protecting the ball before they give him many carries. ... After opening camp as the starting halfback last season, spot duty appears to be the best Cloud can hope for. ...

One last note out of Kansas City tonight. ...

According to Pro Football Weekly, Trent Green says he would like to be ready to go by the teamís June 11 mini-camp, but nothing has been etched in stone.

The fact is, Green continues to experience pain and swelling in his left knee after undergoing surgery earlier this year to remove scar tissue left over from reconstructive surgery performed in 1999. His failure to bounce back from this latest procedure kept him from working out for team officials in Kansas City prior to the trade from the Rams.

But Vermeil says he knows what he has in Green after coaching him in St. Louis, and heís prepared to give him as long as he needs to get back to 100 percent. ... Green figures to assume an advisory role during mini-camps in an attempt to pick up the intricacies of the system and his new teammates.

milkman
05-30-2001, 03:18 PM
I've been saying all along, also, that I didn't think Holmes was all that he was advertised to be when signed, and that I expected that he and T-Rich will share the load.
I just hope that the committe will not become what it has been for years under Marty and Goonther.
Let's keep it a small committe and give those guys a chance to perform before we add to it.

htismaqe
05-30-2001, 03:18 PM
I don't see anything in here that indicates that they don't think Priest can carry the load.

Saying that Tony will get carries does not equal "Priest can't hack it."

"I think we've added a high-quality football player. I think he brings a lot to the table and will be very tough to beat out. But if it happens, it happens. That will only make us a better football team." That sounds an awful lot like he's gonna be the starter to me. It most certainly doesn't mean what you said...

Right now, they're exploring they're options and figuring out what is best for the team. Much of the most negative comments aren't in quotes, and I'm trying to figure out if they came from you or Teicher.

Gather what you want from DV's quotes, it's entirely speculation. The heading said "Vermeil isn't sure Holmes is the answer..."

"I think Vermeil isn't sure Holmes is the answer" would be entirely more accurate...

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 03:20 PM
I'm betting that TRich ends up the primary back and Holmes will be given the 3rd down back role in attempt to feel better about blowing a 2 million dollar signing bonus on a back up RB...

We should have coughed up slightly more money and signed Garner....

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 03:21 PM
Link please?

And as far as the article goes, sounds to me more like a lot of subjective interpreting and guessing than actual facts. Brave front? Coachspeak? Disappointed? I didn't get any of that from any of those quotes when they were actually made. We won't know a thing about how this thing will take shape until we are well into the preseason. Besides, they didn't go through the entire offseason claiming that Holmes was the best back available only to change their minds after one minicamp without pads. I don't buy it. Sounds like the writer is just pulling stuff out of nowhere...

The Bad Guy
05-30-2001, 03:22 PM
I think this is old news from Teicher.

Yes Holmes is undersized, but how could Vermeil know what he can fully do until they throw pads on and go at it in River Falls?

I don't think he is backtracking, or even insisting that RBBC could happen. He is gonna look at every back we got, and make his decision on what to do after that.

We knew Richardson would get some carries, but I guarantee Holmes will get his share.

"I think we've added a high-quality football player. I think he brings a lot to the table and will be very tough to beat out. But if it happens, it happens. That will only make us a better football team."

That says it all. The best guy will win the job. Whether it is Holmes, Blaylock, Cloud or Richardson.

But as it stands right now Holmes enters training camp as the #1 guy, and I'm willing to bet he leaves camp as the #1 guy as well.

HC_Chief
05-30-2001, 03:23 PM
I agree with htmis - nowhere does Vermeil make any allusion to Priest NOT starting at HB. He says Priest is a fine player and will be given the chance to compete. ADAM TEICHER(WHB cronie) translates this as: "he's not what we're looking for". "Put up a brave front..."? WTF are you babbling about, Teicher?

To me, this article resembles more of a 'TRich for starting RB' rant on some opinion forum(such as this one), than it does a serious journalistic piece. Of course, he <i>is</i> a sportswriter after all...

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 03:25 PM
I didn't write any of that. Here is the article:

http://www.fspnet.com/headlines/news_story.cfm?ID=538

When we went out into the FA market they went out to get a feature back...The fact that Vermeil is on the record multiple times that he prefers a feature back over a committee proves that he is disappointed with Holmes ability to step up and become that "feature back" because he is now singing a different tune about the fact that we will be splitting up the carries...

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 03:32 PM
That's just making an interpretation. Perception is not always reality. Maybe it says less about "disappointment" in Holmes and more about the quality of a guy like Richardson and Blaylock whose talents should also be used. Take Garner for example. He's playing behind Wheatley. You have to use the talent you have on your team, that is more important sometimes than having "the man."

But again, we won't have a difinitive answer until the pads are on...

HC_Chief
05-30-2001, 03:33 PM
nap - I respectfully disagree. Teicher is trying to paint that picture, but I'm not buying it. BEFORE KC even started speaking with Holmes and his agent, Vermeil was talking about giving TRich the ball. As a matter of fact, I remember Vermeil commenting on TRich in his very first news conference as the Chiefs' HC.

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 03:37 PM
Just to be fair, Teicher didn't write the article. The author takes Teicher's articles and the quotes in his article and draws his interpretations from them. I don't even know if the guy has been to training camp himself to see what he is talking about. I don't believe Teicher has ever made those comments in any article...

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 03:40 PM
That article is a month old, nap, based completely on one of the weekly short pieces Teicher does for The Sporting News:

Questions linger about Holmes' ability to carry load

MAY 4, 2001

The days of running back by committee at Arrowhead Stadium may not be finished despite the signing of free agent Priest Holmes. The Chiefs like what Holmes brings to the mix but since he's only 205 pounds, they wonder whether he's too small to carry the entire load.

Coach Dick Vermeil and offensive coordinator Al Saunders would prefer to have one featured back but also want to use 235-pound fullback Tony Richardson as a battering ram to wear out a defense. Richardson also could get the majority of work in the one-back formations the Chiefs plan to use more than half of the time. The Chiefs may also look for situations in which to feature rookie Derrick Blaylock and perhaps even Mike Cloud or Frank Moreau. The Chiefs haven't had a back with a majority of the team's carries since Christian Okoye in 1989.

Some more recent stuff includes:

Impressions of (RB) Priest Holmes ?

VERMEIL: "Priest Holmes is a player. The best way to evaluate Priest Holmes is with the ball in his hand on game-day. He's a game-day-type guy. He is best evaluated in his contribution during the game both as a player in contribution to the scheme and also in his leadership.

"I keep hearing about (RB/FB) Tony Richardson's limitations but I just don't see them."

(from a May 14 Q&A session)

This is a copy from my earlier thread detailing what Greg Robinson had to say on the radio a week or two ago:

There will be times where we'll have two backs in the backfield. Sometimes three backs and sometimes no backs depending on how we attack a particular defense.

Priest Holmes is playing well, has picked-up the offense quickly and we think he is going to be a very good player for us. As is Tony Richardson. And Frank Moreau has had a real nice offseason. Mike Cloud has impressed us with his quickness and change of direction. We think we're going to have a very, very good group of running back.

But, out of that group there will be one primary runner and the other guys will fill in roles that they need to fill in.

Our backs will, number one, have to be able to run the ball. Second quality is to be able to catch the ball and make something happen after. Third is being a pass-blocker.


I wouldn't put much stock in the month-old fantasy football report. From what it looks like where I'm sitting, every indication is that Priest will have the opportunity to earn the job in training camp (as will T-Rich, Moreau and maybe even Cloud), which is the way it should be anyway, IMHO. And I don't see anything in any comments that would indicate that the staff is disappointed with his performance so far.

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 03:46 PM
Sorry, I left out the link to the TSN article I quoted: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/chiefs/20010504.html

And I meant to say one last thing: the staff has stated repeatedly to the media here (on TV, radio, etc.) over the last month that we're going to have a single featured runner, and I see no reason why we won't.

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 03:50 PM
I don't have a clue how it will all shake out...But I do know this. When Vermiel got to KC he said the committee approach was over and that he prefers to have a feature back carrying the load. He is on record as saying that TRich will most likely be the back used in our 1 back sets...

That much is fact...

As for drawing conclusions, it is pretty easy to say that since how TRich is going to be our guy in the 1 back sets and that Saunders offense will have us in the 1 back set the majority of the time then TRich will be our primary back...

With Vermeil being on the record saying that he prefers having a feature back means that if we have anything less than a feature back then Vermeil didn't end up with the type of talent he wanted.

So the scenarios that I see playing out is TRich will be our feature back, thus making the Holmes signing an expense mistake or the two of them will end up running a committee thus meaning we don't have the talent Vermeil wanted in order to avoid a committee.

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 04:06 PM
Nap, where is Vermeil on record saying that T-Rich will be the primary back in singleback sets?

It's not in the TSN article from which your link took Teicher's information and I don't recall reading anything like that in any of his articles in the Star in the last month. There's also no indication of it anywhere on the Chiefs website.

In any case, we should find out some more in a couple of weeks at the second mini-camp, and eventually when these guys actually do some work in pads. The way it look right now, everything points to a position where the best guy earns the job, regardless of whether it's Holmes or Richardson, or Moreau or me. Well, me if I could run more than 6 feet without hyper-ventilating. ;)

Like I said before, that's the way it should be...

Holmes wasn't wasted money unless he doesn't pan out, so that's a moot discussion at this point. Garner was never a real option, at least the way it looks to me. I doubt he would have been willing to move to the midwest without more $$$$ being involved: this ain't the bay area, Gruden doesn't coach here and we're sure as heck not coming off a trip to the AFC Championship.

Let's see what we have before we waste time lamenting what could'a been...

BIG_DADDY
05-30-2001, 04:10 PM
Great, just what we need another expensive mistake. What is it with RBs on this team? Is it really THAT hard to get someone signed in that position? Denver seems to pick up GREAT backs consistently without much effort at all. For that matter, everyone in our freaking division doesn't seem to have a problem picking up good backs.

BIG DADDY

If Preist sucks I am going to be pissed.:mad:

HC_Chief
05-30-2001, 04:16 PM
BD - well, everyone else in our division was smart enough to know you pick ONE guy to carry the load. If he cannot do it, then you find someone who can. The key: players given the OPPORTUNITY to succeed or fail.

If we start f*cking around with another committee approach, I'll go effing postal. I sh*t you not.

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 04:30 PM
Ditto on that, HC.

I can deal with Holmes not panning out if he's given a legit chance. If T-Rich beats him out in TC, that's fine. So long as he was given an opportunity to show his stuff. I can deal with losing 1.6 million next offseason if Holmes doesn't pan out.

What I can't deal with is any more of this bogus RBbC crap. No more unintelligent shuffling of backs in meaningless personnel groupings. No more taking guys out of the game just when they get their rhythm. If Holmes doesn't pan out because he's RB #1, 2, 3 or whatever in the KC committee 2001, then I will destroy things.

Many things.

In other words, the committee dying is infinitely more important to me than whether or not Priest Holmes is our starting RB on opening day.

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 05:18 PM
Now wait. The winner of our division last year used a "committee" and will continue to do so this year. And the other team didn't even have a running back until they traded away the right to draft Michael Vick.

Even had we picked up Charlie Garner we'd be having the same conversation, because frankly TRich is too good to never give him the ball.

And to start drawing conclusions as to what Vermiel and Saunders will have their offense looking like at this point in the offseason is ludicrous.

We have what Vermiel feels are definitely two good backs. In all likelihood Holmes will be the starter, and TRich will be the fullback. When we are in a one back set, Vermiel has stated he feels TRich is best suited for that role, at this point. That may change. Many of those one back sets will be passing plays. TRich is an outstanding blocker. It makes sense. He can catch the ball. His versatility is a good thing. Being able to use both guys, assuming they are effective, is a good thing. If Priest Holmes is doing his thing, we'll probably keep feeding him the ball. If he isn't having a good game but a TRich can do solid things like against a Denveresque team, we feed him the ball. I have no problem with that. The difference between this type of committee and previous incarnations wil be defined in how often these guys get the ball. For example, if it is mainly Holmes and TRich and then they sprinkle some other guys in for a couple of plays, fine, Holmes and TRich can get in a groove and provide their 1-2 punch. If it is like in previous years where Shehee carries it 3 times, then Cloud comes in, then Anders comes in, then they give it to Richardson, then Moreau has to get a carry or two, then they have to pound it with Bennett, that would suck. But we'll have to wait and see. I'm not pushing the panic button just because some fantasy reporter is drawing what I feel are bogus assumptions from some harmless quotes during minicamp where they had zero pad work...

redsurfer11
05-30-2001, 05:38 PM
I have no problems with Tony Richardson sharing the carries with Priest Holmes,throw Blaylock and Cloud into the mix on third downs.The Chiefs will have plenty of running backs to make the offense work.

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 05:41 PM
To compare the committee in Oakland to the one used in Kansas City is ridiculous. Although Oakland did use a number of backs, Wheatley was the clear-cut #1, and the numbers clearly reflect that:

Wheatley 232 carries for 1046 yards (also had 20 receptions)
Kaufman 93 carries for 499 yards (13)
Jordan 46 carries for 213 yards (27)
Crockett 43 carries for 130 yards (10)

A committee like that, where a single runner is the focus and where players are used intelligently is fine. That's not the committee we've seen here lately, though...

I want both the halfback and the fullback to be used. I just don't want to see 5 different guys getting carries every game, and playing in different packages which serve only hinder the offensive flow of the game.

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 05:52 PM
To compare the committee in Oakland to the one used in Kansas City is ridiculous. Although Oakland did use a number of backs, Wheatley was the clear-cut #1, and the numbers clearly reflect that:

Yes I know, I've watched Oakland firsthand for the past 11 years. And to compare our committees of the past to theirs is ludicrous. I'm not doing that. I am saying that if we use our backs in a way like they did, then I don't see the problem. If you go back to when Kaufman was healthy, there would be a bit more of a split in carries I believe. They'll probably go back to that this year with Wheatley and Garner. I'm saying that if we use our backs like that, there is no reason to start bitching about the "committee", and that's why I put the committee in quotation marks, because while it is a committee, that committee has a chairman, a vice chairman, and some other members that sometimes contribute. If we go back to the Gunther committee, we are screwed. But I doubt we'll be going to that mess of running backs we've seen in the past. It will probably be a lot more well defined and streamlined here.

That's not the committee we've seen here lately, though...

This is an entirely different coaching staff, so I'm not basing my view of the committee on the mess we've seen here in the past. Dick Vermiel says that his philosophy is to maximize the touches playmakers get on the field. That means no more screens to a Donnell Bennett type back. Holmes will be fed the ball, TRich will be fed the ball, Blaylock if he proves he can make plays will occasionally get some plays, and the other guys will probably rarely see the field if the main guys are playing the way we need them to play. So until we see the Shehee/Bennett/Anders/Richardson/Cloud/Moreau backfield, I'm not worried...

keg in kc
05-30-2001, 05:59 PM
I assumed as much, but thanks for the clarification. ;)

"Committee" and "Kansas City committee" are separate beasts altogether, although I will go further and say I want a single back to handle the load, no grey area for me in that. The question is, of course, whether or not we have someone who can do it...

DaWolf
05-30-2001, 06:14 PM
I believe we have someone who can carry the ball 15-20 times a game. And realistically, this someone may wear down as the season goes on if he does have to be the main man, much like Charlie Garner has over the past 2 years. That is why I believe that if TRich does have these skills many of us feel he does have, we should go ahead and utilize him in conjunction with Holmes, and have a two headed monster, IF it is effective. And frankly we just don't know.

I mean sure, I'd prefer to have an Edgerrin James too. But we gotta make due with what we have. No back out there was an Edgerrin James. Heck, even Deuce McAllister, who I would have liked to have drafted, had his durability in question. He'll be splitting time with Ricky Williams.

My bottom line is this though: If we are going to even closely resemble the wide open style of the Rams offense, we are going to be a pass first team anyway. I anticipate while we're trying to score or build a lead, Holmes and TRich will both be in the backfield and Holmes will be the one getting the ball more because he has more moves and can make more plays. When we have a lead, TRich will be the one in there late in games in our one back set trying to use his strength against a hopefully worn down defense trying to protect the lead. If we can effectively use our backs in that capacity, then I'll be happy. We need to give our players their role and let them perform. The problem with Dumbther is that most times he kept guys in the dark as to what exactly they were supposed to be doing, and that leads to confused, unhappy players who will not perform as well.

But as with all things, we'll have to wait and see what actually materializes out there. Who knows, maybe both Holmes and TRuch suck and we'll be back to throwing it 50 times a game...

Recker24
05-30-2001, 06:29 PM
This article says nothing we didn't already know about our running back situation. Your title for this thread is very misleading. We all knew that Tony Richardson would be getting carries out of the one back set. This article that starts the thread, is a couple of different article jumbled together. The part about Holmes talking about the 3 headed monster is from www.KCchiefs.com. It had nothing to do with Vermiel saying he didn't believe in Holmes this early. CHIEFS FANS, don't read in to this one. Holmes will be our featured back, who gets 20+ carries a game, with Richardson getting a handful as well. Richardson deserves some carries. The part in the article about Vermiel meaning that he spent to much money on Holmes is ridiculous. This thread is garbage. Sorry for being negative.

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Recker24
Your title for this thread is very misleading.

The title of the thread is the title of the article....and again I say, I didn't write the damn article...

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 06:46 PM
Kegger,

Here is the news wire item that said Vermeil wants TRich running the 1 back set:

Chiefs | Team Notes - from KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com)
April 28, 2001 4:34:05 ET The Kansas City Star reports the Kansas City Chiefs running game for the 2001 season, despite the recent signing of Priest Holmes, remains uncertain at this time. The team would still like to keep FB Tony Richardson involved in the running game and could mix in another back as a third-down specialist. However, head coach Dick Vermeil noted that if one running back steps up and shows he can get the job done, then he'll be the team's featured back and carry the load for the squad. Vermeil stated nothing will be shown for sure until the players go through training camp and pre-season games. The team plans to run a lot of one-back sets this year and Vermeil said they'd like to work Richardson into that formation.

NaptownChief
05-30-2001, 07:16 PM
I will say this, if Holmes doesn't win the feature back role then it was mistake signing him...He was given starter money and 8 mil is way too much for a back up RB...Granted it wasn't franchise back type money, thank god, but it was a substantial chunk of change that could have bought some nice defensive FA's that will hit the market this week.

My gut feeling is that he is not as good as TRich...If TRich ends up our feature back it won't be a bad thing...He can play at a very high level with his size and speed...As most of you know, when I was busy pounding my Dan Morgan drum I said we would be in good shape with TRich as our feature back as long as they get rid of the stupid a$$ committee. He may not have the "wiggle" that everyone was quick to point out, but he has everything else. Okoye didn't have "wiggle"either but he worked out just fine when he was healthy and on the field.

Mark M
05-31-2001, 06:01 AM
This doesn't make me nearly as upset as I thought it would. Why?

1. If either TRich or Holmes gets hurt, there is a backup waiting. This is a good insurance policy.
2. $8 million isn't chump change, but the signing bonus is relatively small in NFL terms, thus we can cut him without a huge cap hit. It's not as expensive as we think.
3. The team hasn't even taken the field yet. Let's not get our panties in a bunch until the games begin. Some players are different in practice than they are on the field. The guy may emerge as a heckuva player.

Now, I still like the idea of TRich in 1-back sets, mainly due to his catching ability (somewhere Blaylock shines as well) and his ability to pick-up the blitz. But Holmes can work in that capacity as well. The guy is a 1,000 yard rusher afterall ... and that was when Baltimore sucked.

Just my thoughts. Hate to hit and run, but need to get before I get caught. :(

MM
~~Refining the art of the hit-and-run post.

keg in kc
05-31-2001, 08:15 AM
Nap,
I've gotta say there's a big difference between Vermeil being on record as saying T-Rich will "most likely be the back used in our 1 back sets" to what I read in that statement. All that says is that they want to "work Richardson into that formation" and Vermeil "noted that if one running back steps up and shows he can get the job done, then he'll be the team's featured back and carry the load for the squad" followed up by a statement that "nothing will be shown for sure until the players go through training camp and pre-season games."

Looks like to me it's just more of the statements to the effect of Vermeil seeing that Richardson is better than he thought (i.e. the one about "Everyone says T-Rich has weaknesses but I don't see one" or something like that). Nothing in there says that Holmes doesn't look good, etc., and more recent statements seem to indicate that Priest is looking good to the coaching staff, but that the job will be won by the guy who shows he can play at the highest level, which I see no problem with.

DaWolf's assessment in the third paragraph of reply 24 pretty much covers what I think, by the way, about how this will all shape out, and Mark's right, too, as much as folks complain about paying for Holmes, we have at worst a quality backup for roughly the same amount we're paying T-Rich, and combined that's less than what some teams are paying for a single back. We really could have a 2 headed monster here if things pan out. And, at worst, if Holmes doesn't pan out, then we're out 1.6 million against next year's salary cap (or that amount divided between 2002 and 2003), so it's not really that huge of a hit. We're not exactly talking about a Chet-type screw-up here...

htismaqe
05-31-2001, 08:34 AM
If we made a mistake signing Holmes, who is the slated #1, to that contract, JESUS CHRIST did the Raiders make a mistake. Garner is the designated #2 back and look at the salary difference.

Holmes
2005 1600000
2004 1400000
2003 1200000
2002 750000
2001 448000

Garner
2004 4227000
2003 3627000
2002 1977000
2001 500000


Boy am I glad we didn't sign Garner...

Cormac
05-31-2001, 08:51 AM
Without having read all of the replies......Just because one back might not get 80% of the carries doesn't mean we are back to the committee approach IMO. T-Rich and Priest might split the carries and that's OK. What won't happen is, if one of them breaks off a 10 yard gain, he will NOT be sent to the bench only to be brought back into the game ice-cold (a la Gunther's regime). That is what killed us the last couple of seasons. If both T-Rich and Holmes get 200+ carries each this season we'll be OK IMO. Whoever starts the game will only be taken out if he's ineffective or for a breather, not because of personnel groupings. And it doesn't seem bad to me that we have options in case that happens. Yeah, it would be nice to have Fred Taylor instead, but none of us expected quite that much from Holmes.

Just my interpretation.

TEX
05-31-2001, 07:05 PM
IMHO, as long as the Chiefs keep kidding themselves about the RB situation, they will go nowhere. It's been about 5 years since the Chiefs had a legit HB and even longer since KC has had a legit game breaker. T Richardson is an awesome FB and Priest Holmes and the rest of the committee are AVERAGE Rb's. The more things change the more they stay the SAME...

keg in kc
05-31-2001, 07:31 PM
as long as the Chiefs keep kidding themselves about the RB situation, they will go nowhere

What exactly would you have wanted them to do this offseason?

We had to get Trent Green. Like him or not, that's fact #1. Elvis left of his own volition, and at that point it was relatively clear that Green was coming. When your coach and OC both say "I want that guy" you get him, no questions asked. And, at least so far, it looks like the right move. The guy says the right things, and he has a sort of presence that was missing here, although I, for one, didn't realize it. Come September, the QB will be the voice of this team...

We signed Holmes as soon as we got Green. We paid very little money for him. Who else could we have gotten? Garner? Sorry, he wasn't leaving the Bay Area and he knows Gruden well. We would have had to pay a king's ransom to pry him from the west coast and that's not even touching on his size and the fact that he slows down over the course of a 16 game season. Would it have been worth it?

A rookie maybe?

Well, would we have been any better going into the season with Michael Bennett or Deuce getting handoffs from Collins or even Beuerlein? I don't know, it's a tough call. Again, the staff wanted Green, apparently above all. Let's hope there's a reason for it...

The more things change the more they stay the SAME...

No way.

First, we're an attacking team now. Second, there will be a featured back in 2001 (FINALLY!!!). Sure, it won't be James or Faulk or Taylor, but it's a start. As the saying goes, you have to walk before you run, and it appears to me we're taking the first baby steps this offseason. And I'd bet you now that once we have Gonzo under a new long-term contract, the franchise running back will be the next piece added to the puzzle, be that a rookie or a trade.

We can't do it all overnight, and there was no feasible way to re-build this team in one offseason, especially when we started 30 million dollars over the cap...

I think we've done okay so far, and I think the roots for something good are there.

KCJohnny
05-31-2001, 08:53 PM
1. Naptown, KCJ salutes you for the courage and integrity to get out on a limb, post your opinions (the only actual commodity on this BB) and break with the planet party line, damn the torpedoes. Don't quit speaking your mind!
2. Trent Green is the biggest reason we will see Tony Richardson in the majority of 1-back sets. Green has a fragile knee and a career sack ratio of being dropped one in every 10 attempts. Unless Holmes can block DEs better than the 235 lb hulk Richardson, look for the insurance TR can provide in pass protect.
3. Vermiel is on the record saying he wants to jump out in front in the 1st quarter with pass-pass-pass and then grind/pound with his RBs. That sounds a LOT like TR to me, especially with Vermiel's constant references to TR's size, speed, hands and strength.
4. Finally, in 41 years of franchise history, one, only ONE RB has come up with more than 51% of the team's total rushing attempts, and that was under MARTY SHOTTENHEIMER (Okoye, '89). Vermiel is no lock to break the tradition.
5. In December, in the cold, wet and wind of Arrowhead, Vermiel will turn to a noth-South runner with good hands, great blocking and brute power. That will be ___________________________.


KCJ
The man you love to hate

AustinChief
05-31-2001, 09:05 PM
KCJohnny,

Wait until you see Holmes on the field before you judge his blocking ability... I used to watch him at Texas and he was a REALLY good blocker. TRich may be better... but until I see them both next year ... I'll reserve judgement. The point being that we are NOT lacking good blocking from whichever back (of the two) that is on the field.

--Kyle

donte'
05-31-2001, 09:25 PM
After trying and failing with fitting rookies in as possible
featured RBs, ie Cloud and Moreau, at least give Blaylock
a shot. With the fastest feet in the combine, and good
hands to boot, he just might be the next R.O.Y. With his
size he can hide behind the offensive linemen and get
around the corner to out run any DE or LB that might be
lurking around. With proper guidance from the RB coach,
we could have the next Barry Sanders. :D

keg in kc
06-01-2001, 08:17 AM
Funny, I wasn't aware that there was a "planet party line". And seeing how Nap has posted more than 1500 times over here, it's not like he isn't one of the many voices heard and respected by all...

As for Holmes, his blocking ability is one of his strong points.

You'd know that if you took the time to look into his background instead of just condemning every move made this offseason.

HC_Chief
06-01-2001, 08:19 AM
Keg - that's asking for way too much from a limited mind. Just grin and bear it... like the rest of us ;)

keg in kc
06-01-2001, 08:20 AM
That's true, meister hardcore.

Chalk it up to boredom and some early morning procrastination... ;)

KCJohnny
06-01-2001, 02:18 PM
You smug critics sure have a talent for putting words in my mouth.

Show me where I said Holmes couldn't block???????


What I said was, Green is susceptible to pass rushers, Richardson is bigger and as a FB his first trade skill is blocking, and that meant that IMO, Vermiel would go with Richardson in crunch time. But who cares what I actually said? Have fun twisting my words!

No Planet party line? Notice how many of the sarcastic remarks aimed at me have the same theme? Nevermind. I can't wait for the StarBB to get back up. Dissenting opinions are allowed there.

KCJ
Small minded idiot racing to judgment before the season starts

HC_Chief
06-01-2001, 02:22 PM
Gee Johnny (aka Mr righteous indignation), I saw the exact same response to your takes at the Park too! Does that mean the Park members are following the Planet's 'party line'?

Methinks it has something to do with the message - not the responses generated. (probably that snide passive aggressive attitude prevalent in every post)

keg in kc
06-01-2001, 02:40 PM
"Smug critics"? Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I sure as heck don't know what is...

Vermiel would go with Richardson in crunch time. But who cares what I actually said? Have fun twisting my words

Well, considering that what you said there was entirely different from the original statement ("we will see Tony Richardson in the majority of 1-back sets"), how exactly were we twisting your words. You're the one who was talking about "the majority of 1-back sets" not "go with Richardson in crunch time".


It's not your opinions that are the problems, my friend, it's the way you choose to voice them and the way you always react to anyone who, god forbid, happens to have a different opinion. Maybe if you were a little bit less "packfan" and a little bit more "logical" then maybe people would respond to you more positive way. I know I would.

Like my mamma used to say, "I don't care if you disagree, just don't be disagreeable".

milkman
06-01-2001, 07:54 PM
John,
This martyrdom is getting old.
People are going to disagree with you. It happens. Get over it.

tommykat
06-01-2001, 11:28 PM
:confused: Whoa....I tried to read most of this, but it is all over the place. We will see Tony Richardson play as well as Holmes. Good grief, they haven't even really started a real practice and this guy is all over the place.

I haven't posted for awhile, just been reading but I think I am understanding why I haven't. I can't keep up with all the I think this and that.

WE are going to have a great team this year! Let's chill and have fun watching the new events unfold. I hope this makes some since to you all.

__________________________________________________
Kat is still waiting for Tony to help her over the goal post..:D

TEX
06-01-2001, 11:47 PM
keg,

"The more things change the more they stay the SAME..."

I'll stand by that statement. Reason - KC STILL has NO legit feature back. KC is still trying to convert an AWESOME FB into a HB. We'l;l just see if RB is a priority again next season. Then maybe you will understand my statement.

What would I have done you ask? For the record, I WANTED Green and that was a great move IMHO, but I definately would NOT have signed Holmes. I would seriously consider signing Ricky Watters if he is available.

Rausch
06-02-2001, 12:08 AM
I don't know if Holmes is or isn't the answer, but I'll wait to pass judgement until week 8...That's fair. Barring injury.

I trust Carl, and I'm willing to give DV a chance. But if Holmes ISN'T the featured back we need, and Green ISN'T the second comming of Christ like he's been pepped up to be by the CP/DV combo, I'll be #$%@!&* p!$$#& off beyond words...

I want to see Carl ride off with a roar, not slink off in a whimper. And Lamar DESERVES his trophy!

California Injun
06-02-2001, 12:24 AM
Chiefs open up against the Raiders when?

September 9th you say?

And today's date is what?

June 1st?

The first pre-season game is scheduled on?

Chiefs already suck?

PURE GENIUS!!!!!!

Rausch
06-02-2001, 12:30 AM
Injun,


a little harsh, no?


I just stated I'd be enraged if TOTAL failure consumed us. If Holmes and Green fair well, I'm happy. Them alone playing well doesn't gaurantee wins, but it DOES gaurantee that the CP/DV duo have potential and are making the right moves in year 1!

tommykat
06-02-2001, 12:38 AM
California_Injun

Maybe for the time you should stay with the Lakers??
:p

Rausch
06-02-2001, 03:28 AM
You are a bad, bad man...

keg in kc
06-02-2001, 09:56 AM
KC Chiefs fan TX:
KC STILL has NO legit feature back. KC is still trying to convert an AWESOME FB into a HB. We'l;l just see if RB is a priority again next season.

You might wanna re-read what I said in my last post:

First, we're an attacking team now. Second, there will be a featured back in 2001 (FINALLY!!!). Sure, it won't be James or Faulk or Taylor, but it's a start. As the saying goes, you have to walk before you run, and it appears to me we're taking the first baby steps this offseason. And I'd bet you now that once we have Gonzo under a new long-term contract, the franchise running back will be the next piece added to the puzzle, be that a rookie or a trade.

We can't do it all overnight, and there was no feasible way to re-build this team in one offseason, especially when we started 30 million dollars over the cap...

I think we've done okay so far, and I think the roots for something good are there.

Unless I'm mistaken, I said we'd be getting a franchise back next season...

Anyway, we signed Holmes for chump change. If he doesn't work out, no big deal. The worst that can happen is that we take a 1.6 million dollar cap hit in 2002, and that can even be divided in half over 2002 and 2003. I say a vehement NO! to Ricky Watters, because IMHO the last thing we need to add to this team is aging veterans for big money and/or draft picks.

TEX
06-02-2001, 11:57 AM
keg,
I agree that we can't do it over night. My point was that the Chiefs have had a lot longer than over night. They have not made RB a priority in about 5-6 years now when it was obvious to EVERYONE that KC needed a RB. I agree this year, not much could have been done, but that's because the Chiefs had many problems, and one of them was STILL no legit RB. It is the same situation, attack or no attack. Remember all the "big chunks" talk? No RB then and no RB now. I'd say that's the same and I also bet that the lack of a legit HB will stifle the Chiefs options. Let's just see...

Why do you always quote people in all your posts?

keg in kc
06-02-2001, 12:02 PM
I quote for 2 reasons:

1) I post a lot of articles on here, and I want there to be no question that it's someone else's work, not mine.

2) If I quote a previous post, it's usually so I remember what it is I'm talking about. I'm one of the most absent-minded people you'll ever meet. :(

redsurfer11
01-20-2002, 08:29 AM
what?

Rausch
01-20-2002, 09:11 AM
Whoa, this is old.....


LOoking back at what I posted then makes me glad i reserved judgement for later!:D

KCJohnny
01-20-2002, 09:23 AM
Reply #40 is not posted by John Proctor, aka the 'real' KCJohnny.
I ask the moderators (Hi Parker) to please police up this trouble maker. I have not posted on this BB since December. I have one BB I post on, Pigskin Park. There is also another imposter posting under my name(s) on the KCStar BB. This is evil and I condemn it roundly.
John W. Proctor
Fort Bragg

milkman
01-20-2002, 09:29 AM
Johnny,
Post #40 is from June '01, when you were posting here.
That is not a fake, that is you.

NaptownChief
01-20-2002, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by KCJohnny
Reply #40 is not posted by John Proctor, aka the 'real' KCJohnny.
I ask the moderators (Hi Parker) to please police up this trouble maker. I have not posted on this BB since December. I have one BB I post on, Pigskin Park. There is also another imposter posting under my name(s) on the KCStar BB. This is evil and I condemn it roundly.
John W. Proctor
Fort Bragg


KCJ,

That was posted back in June.

NaptownChief
01-20-2002, 09:40 AM
You know what they say, "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't really after you...":D :D

ROYC75
01-20-2002, 10:08 AM
Many times I was going to post,held off. I only knew what Holmes had done for 1 season . Glad I did hold off on this one !

Lzen
01-20-2002, 02:29 PM
Whoa! Isn't this amusing?:D

Pitt Gorilla
01-20-2002, 02:55 PM
T Richardson is an awesome FB and Priest Holmes and the rest of the committee are AVERAGE Rb's

Notice he says "are" and not "might be." Dude is actually LYING. We need some sort of code of conduct.:D

BCD
01-20-2002, 06:02 PM
Priest Holmes is a perfect example of judging a book by its cover.

jl80 - are you sure that was a "GUT" feeling, or did you just have some Taco Bell before you said that? - LOL

NaptownChief
01-20-2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by kchiefs30
Priest Holmes is a perfect example of judging a book by its cover.

jl80 - are you sure that was a "GUT" feeling, or did you just have some Taco Bell before you said that? - LOL

I've happily admitted being way wrong on Holmes many times. But I do contend that the coaching staff thought about the same of Holmes as I did or else they would have made him the 20-25 carry per game feature back right out of the gates. Especially when he could have easily been the difference maker in the in first two games against the Raiders and Giants.

And throw in the fact that I was right about trINT and I guess you could say I had a better offseason evaluation than the coaching staff. :)