PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Darren Sproles or Thomas Jones?


BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 11:25 AM
Let's say you can sign either player to the Chiefs this year(obviously you can't now). Which one do you pick?

ArrowheadHawk
05-05-2010, 11:28 AM
T Jones.

CHENZ A!
05-05-2010, 11:29 AM
Sproles. He's younger, and he's from here.
Posted via Mobile Device

Consistent1
05-05-2010, 11:30 AM
The way this team is presently set up,Jones no question.Good combo with Charles and we are gonna have McCluster to do a lot of the Sproles type stuff on top of the already speedy Charles.Not even close to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 11:33 AM
I'll take the 27 year old playmaker over the 32 year old grinder. You can never have enough game changers on the field at once for me.

Mr. Laz
05-05-2010, 11:33 AM
we got both

Thomas Jones in free agency
Dexter McCluster in the Draft

TrebMaxx
05-05-2010, 11:35 AM
Jones is my pick. His importance will show up in short yardage and goal line situations.

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 11:36 AM
we got both

Thomas Jones in free agency
Dexter McCluster in the Draft

Right, I wonder if this was asked predraft and presigning of Jones if the results wouldn't be different. I love having speed all over the field and not just limiting it and saying well we need one slow player because we have 1 fast one.

Gadzooks
05-05-2010, 11:36 AM
I'd rather that you guys have Jones.

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 11:38 AM
I'd rather that you guys have Jones.

I'd rather face Jones then Sproles as well. I guess CP sees it differently.

HotRoute
05-05-2010, 11:40 AM
Jones is a better back no doubt just look at their numbers, sproles shows a lot of promise though

Consistent1
05-05-2010, 11:43 AM
One big thing you guys that say Sproles over Jones forget is that if there was some type of injury to Charles that Jones has better experience at having to be "the guy".
Posted via Mobile Device

ChiTown
05-05-2010, 11:46 AM
As a running back -Jones

As an all-around play maker - Sproles

For our immediate needs, give me Jones, but only slightly

CoMoChief
05-05-2010, 11:47 AM
Sproles, younger and he would be valuable in the KR game in case someone goes down and he's probably better catching from the backfield.

Mr. Laz
05-05-2010, 11:48 AM
Right, I wonder if this was asked predraft and presigning of Jones if the results wouldn't be different. I love having speed all over the field and not just limiting it and saying well we need one slow player because we have 1 fast one.
i think most people are basing their pick on that fact that we have a speed type guy in Charles already.

Thomas Jones is a better complement to Jamaal Charles than Sproles would be.

Gadzooks
05-05-2010, 11:49 AM
I'd rather face Jones then Sproles as well. I guess CP sees it differently.

Well at least we agree.
IMO, Sproles has more game changing playmaking ability. Jones is a workhorse who’ll give you 3 or 4 yds per play.
Of course Jones has better numbers he carried the ball a jillion times last year. :rolleyes: but I'd still rather have Sproles on the receiving end of a screen pass.

doomy3
05-05-2010, 11:50 AM
Right, I wonder if this was asked predraft and presigning of Jones if the results wouldn't be different. I love having speed all over the field and not just limiting it and saying well we need one slow player because we have 1 fast one.

Yeah, I think the way the draft went is important to this question. Before the draft, I probably would have went with Sproles, but with McCluster and Arenas in the fold, I would go with the more traditional back in Jones.

Von Dumbass
05-05-2010, 11:51 AM
If the Chiefs didn't draft McCluster than I would say Sproles, but McCluster can do a lot of the same things Sproles can do and Thomas Jones will help on 3rd down with his blocking and in short yardage.

mcaj22
05-05-2010, 11:51 AM
if we could have signed Sproles in FA back in March prior to SD putting the tender on I believe KC would have then addressed an actual need with the 36 pick and not have picked McClunker, maybe they would have went with the "mystery guy" they wanted @ 50 but was taken before the pick.

sedated
05-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Given that we have a small, quick RB already, and drafted another, the consistent bruising-type RB is probably a better fit right now.

If we had Charles, Sproles, and McCluster, short-yardage situations might get a little tough.

Consistent1
05-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Of course Sproles is better on a screen play.No doubt.The Chiefs damn well better have that covered though with Charles and McCluster being able to be used that way.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sure-Oz
05-05-2010, 11:55 AM
IF we had sproles maybe our 2nd round woul've been different

Jethopper
05-05-2010, 12:07 PM
AhhhhhAhhh Sexy Girlllllllllllllllfriend.....

Bwana
05-05-2010, 12:11 PM
Jones

suds79
05-05-2010, 12:24 PM
easy question. Jones.

He's the type of back we need right now. We already have more of a Sproles running style in Charles & McCluster.

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 12:26 PM
I should have just phrased the questions who is the better back right now. My bad.

alanm
05-05-2010, 12:32 PM
I should have just phrased the questions who is the better back right now. My bad.It would still be Thomas Jones.

CHENZ A!
05-05-2010, 12:36 PM
These poll results are very surprising to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 12:38 PM
It would still be Thomas Jones.

That's why they are paying Sproles 3 times as much.

BigCatDaddy
05-05-2010, 12:39 PM
These poll results are very surprising to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's skewed by homerism do to the fact Jones is a Chief. Post the same question in Feb it goes the other way.

doomy3
05-05-2010, 12:49 PM
It's skewed by homerism do to the fact Jones is a Chief. Post the same question in Feb it goes the other way.

There's definitely some truth to this, but they are completely different backs. Jones is a more complete back, while Sproles is an awesome home run threat. But, Sproles is terrible in short yardage situations, and that is important. With Charles, who is a similar but better player and home run threat than Sproles already on the team, Jones was honestly probably the better fit back in Feb as well. Especially at a third of the cost.

TheGuardian
05-05-2010, 12:58 PM
There's a lot of ways to ask that question.

If you ask who is a better fit for the Chiefs this year, it's Jones easily. If Charles goes down I don't like Sproles as my full time back. He isn't a full time back. He's a change of pace back only. He's not a 20 carry per game back.

If you had asked which back you'd want for just 1 season, it's still Jones. As noted, Sproles isn't a full time back.

If you asked which back you'd prefer to sign long term then it's Sproles. So anything that has to do with connecting that back to your team for 5 years, then Sproles wins. Every way else, Jones does.

Do you think the Chargers would have rather had Jones or sproles toting that goal line carry against the Ravens at home last year when Sproles got his dick knocked in the dirt on 4th down? Sproles is a nice little player but he's not a back you're going to get 1400-1500 yards out of.

chiefsnorth
05-05-2010, 01:45 PM
I agree, Jones would be my preference for one season - discounting the age difference.

We also have McCluster now who should help from a playmaking standpoint.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCChiefsMan
05-05-2010, 01:59 PM
for our team, I'll take Jones. We have charles and he will have a glorious season and Jones will pick up 1st downs hopefully. It's like every goalline blitz team, you have a powerback and an elusive back. Maybe 2 powerbacks if your o-line is built for run blocking.

lostcause
05-05-2010, 02:07 PM
It would still be Thomas Jones.

I agree.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-05-2010, 02:08 PM
if we could have signed Sproles in FA back in March prior to SD putting the tender on I believe KC would have then addressed an actual need with the 36 pick and not have picked McClunker, maybe they would have went with the "mystery guy" they wanted @ 50 but was taken before the pick.


:spock:

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-05-2010, 02:10 PM
Easily Sproles. He does all of things people hope McCluster can do, and we could have picked up someone like Ben Tate, Hardesty, or Dixon in the mid rounds, while using that 2a pick to address a more glaring hole.

DeezNutz
05-05-2010, 02:11 PM
Easily Sproles. He does all of things people hope McCluster can do, and we could have picked up someone like Ben Tate, Hardesty, or Dixon in the mid rounds, while using that 2a pick to address a more glaring hole.

Sproles is Wes Welker?

Pablo
05-05-2010, 03:33 PM
Sproles.

I don't seem to remember Charles have much difficulty carrying the ball in ANY circumstances last year; so with an improved offensive line I don't quite understand the "short-yardage" situation mindset. If need be, line up in the I and let the FB clear a path.

keg in kc
05-05-2010, 03:42 PM
After listen to Jones' interview with Wright today, I'm going to say Jones. I think that guy's going to be a tremendous addition to the locker room as well as the field.

milkman
05-05-2010, 04:47 PM
Never been a fan, but I think Sproles is a great change of pace back for a back like LdT when he was in his prime.

He's not an every down back, and not a change of pace to Charles.

I question whether Jones, at his age, can continue to produce at the pace he has for the last 5-6 years, but he does provide a better complement to Charles.

In the end, my answer is, I don't honestly know.

Neither were guys I would have gone after.

kstater
05-05-2010, 04:50 PM
I'm on the fence...

Detoxing
05-05-2010, 04:55 PM
I'd say Sproles. I think this whole "change of pace back" thing is overrated. I'd rather have a stable of similar backs that have home run potential every time they touch the ball.

IMO, if you have a guy like Charles out there and players have to over pursue and run their asses off to stop them, why give them a breather by plugging in a slower back? If JC is running all over a D, and he gets pulled for a Thomas Jones, the D is probably going to be thinking, "thank god", vs plugging in a Sproles in which case the D may be thinking, "oh fuck, no more, im gassed already"

Keep your foot on the throat and the pedal to the metal, man.

Chiefs Rool
05-05-2010, 05:07 PM
Sproles, cause he's from K-State

TheGuardian
05-05-2010, 05:18 PM
I'd say Sproles. I think this whole "change of pace back" thing is overrated. I'd rather have a stable of similar backs that have home run potential every time they touch the ball.

IMO, if you have a guy like Charles out there and players have to over pursue and run their asses off to stop them, why give them a breather by plugging in a slower back? If JC is running all over a D, and he gets pulled for a Thomas Jones, the D is probably going to be thinking, "thank god", vs plugging in a Sproles in which case the D may be thinking, "oh ****, no more, im gassed already"

Keep your foot on the throat and the pedal to the metal, man.

There isn't anything overrated about it. When you get into a short yardage situation guys like Sproles aren't going to truck a mike linebacker and get that extra foot or two. Ask Ray Lewis. A mix-up of speed and power running constantly gives defenses fits. One reason is because it makes you change your front and how you're going to play that offense. Change of pace backs make the defenses job harder. Preparing for two backs that do the same shit or two completely different style runners that run out of two different set of offenses? Which one would you rather prepare for?

boogblaster
05-05-2010, 05:22 PM
Always liked Sproles ...

milkman
05-05-2010, 05:32 PM
Sproles, cause he's from K-State

I don't give a rat's ass where a player played his college ball.

Gadzooks
05-05-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't give a rat's ass where a player played his college ball.

True. If you fielded a team entirely made up of K-Staters would they win a game?
Sproles, Leber, Newman, Mcintosh, Weiner, Beisel... uh... did I mention Sproles

Hydrae
05-05-2010, 05:48 PM
Speed kills.

Given that, put me in the Jones camp. I think Sproles would be a case of too much speed leaves you dead.