PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Where does the Chiefs RB situation rank in 2012?


Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:43 PM
Take some time this offseason to evaluate where the Chiefs are at each positional grouping.

Today, RBs.

The rule is, you gotta rank just the RB talent, but keep in mind injuries, problems with the law, and contract situations and whatever.

Patriots: Addai, Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead
Jets: Greene, Ganaway, McKnight, Bilal Powell
Dolphins: Bush, Thomas, Slaton, Lamar Miller
Bills: Jackson, Spiller, Choice

Steelers: Mendenhall, Redman, Dwyer, John Clay, Chris Rainey
Ravens: Rice, Bernard Pierce
Browns: Richardson, Hardesty, Ogbonnaya
Bengals: Green-Ellis, Leonard, Bernard Scott

Texans: Foster, Tate, basically nobody else
Colts: Delone Carter, Ballard, Donald Brown
Jaguars: Jones-Drew, Jennings
Titans: Johnson, Javon Ringer, Jamie Harper

Raiders: McFadden, Taiwan Jones, Owen Schmitt
Chargers: Mathews, Curtis Brinkley
Broncos: McGahee, Moreno, Hillman, Ball, Fannin
Chiefs: Charles, Hillis, Gray, McCluster

Cowboys: Murray, Felix Jones
Giants: Bradshaw, David Wilson, Da'Rel Scott
Redskins: Helu, Hightower, Royster
Eagles: McCoy, Chris Polk, Dion Lewis

Packers: Starks, Alex Green, Marc Tyler
Lions: Best, Leshoure, Kevin Smith, Harrison
Vikings: Peterson, Gerhart, Jordan Todman
Bears: Forte, Bush, Kahlil Bell

Panthers: Williams, Stewart, Tolbert, Tauren Poole
Falcons: Turner, Snelling, Rodgers
Saints: Thomas, Ingram, Sproles, Ivory
Buccaneers: Martin, Blount, Robert Hughes

Rams: Jackson, Pead, Brit Miller
Seahawks: Lynch, Turbin, Leon Washington
49ers: Gore, Jacobs, Hunter, LaMichael James, Dixon
Cardinals: Wells, Ryan Williams, Stephens-Howling

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:44 PM
Teams I'd trade RB corps with:

Texans, Panthers, 49ers, Saints

That's it.

Count Zarth
05-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Good post, and you know why.

whoman69
05-29-2012, 12:47 PM
With the QB under center, it better be one of the strengths of the team. So many teams cannot grind out a game any longer. The biggest strike against the team is that other teams are going to be trying to box in our run game knowing the QB cannot really hurt them despite improvements on the line and in the receiving corps.

Sofa King
05-29-2012, 12:50 PM
Teams I'd trade RB corps with:

Texans, Panthers, 49ers, Saints

That's it.

Texans = I dunno. Maybe.

Panthers= Williams was terrible last year. Tolbert and Stewart are alright, but not better than what we have.

49ers= Gore is never healthy... I don't know why you'd want someone who is hurt that much.

Saints= Why?

Ceej
05-29-2012, 12:52 PM
Teams I'd trade RB corps with:

Texans, Panthers, 49ers, Saints

That's it.

That's fair.

As you mentioned; it's tough to say right now.

Depends on how well JC returns and if Hillis plays with a chip on his shoulder this year.

Big "if's" so far.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 12:54 PM
Texans = I dunno. Maybe.

I think Foster and Tate are both top 15 runners in this league. I'd take Wade/LeBron over the whole Celtics team.

Panthers= Williams was terrible last year. Tolbert and Stewart are alright, but not better than what we have.

Williams/Stewart/Tolbert lacks Jamaal's game breaking skill but that is a fantastic grind it out run game. I think all three are gifted runners.

49ers= Gore is never healthy... I don't know why you'd want someone who is hurt that much.

Agreed. I just love the depth and versatility of their RB corps. Probably the best in the league.

Saints= Why?

I just like them a lot better. What the Saints lose from Charles to Sproles, they more than make up for with Thomas and Ingram over Hillis.

SNR
05-29-2012, 12:56 PM
Teams I'd trade RB corps with:

Texans, Panthers, 49ers, Saints

That's it.
49ers- no.

The other teams I agree with.

Priest31kc
05-29-2012, 12:57 PM
If Charles returns to his old form, I wouldn't trade ours with anybody.

Ceej
05-29-2012, 12:59 PM
I would probably also put the Bears up near the top.*


* Assuming Forte signs and plays like last year, not the year prior.

scho63
05-29-2012, 12:59 PM
Take some time this offseason to evaluate where the Chiefs are at each positional grouping.

Today, RBs.

The rule is, you gotta rank just the RB talent, but keep in mind injuries, problems with the law, and contract situations and whatever.

Chiefs: Charles, Hillis, Gray, McCluster


I'm not so sure McCluster will be in the backfield this year is Charles is healthy
:hmmm:

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 12:59 PM
If JC and Hillis remain healthy, it'll be the best.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:00 PM
49ers- no.

The other teams I agree with.

The 49ers give you crushing power (Jacobs), elite gamebreaking speed (James), a workhorse (Gore) and a change of pace scatback (Hunter).

I love it.

The Chiefs don't quite have that complete a package, but it's pretty dang close.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:01 PM
I would probably also put the Bears up near the top.*


* Assuming Forte signs and plays like last year, not the year prior.

I would not. Holdouts don't bode well for RBs.

Think CJ2k last year.

Ceej
05-29-2012, 01:02 PM
I would not. Holdouts don't bode well for RBs.

Think CJ2k last year.

I thought referring to "talent" was located in the directions, sir.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:03 PM
I thought referring to "talent" was located in the directions, sir.

Talent in 2012. You gotta take in factors unique to RBs like injuries and contract situations.

In other words, I'm isolating the position group, but trying to keep real life factors in mind on their play.

Ceej
05-29-2012, 01:05 PM
Talent in 2012. You gotta take in factors unique to RBs like injuries and contract situations.

In other words, I'm isolating the position group, but trying to keep real life factors in mind on their play.

Strange.

I don't think Forte's contract problems make them a lesser talented RB core. Unless he holds out, obviously.

If he signs and plays -- they'll be a top group for sure.

mcaj22
05-29-2012, 01:06 PM
only two I'd take over the Chiefs is the Eagles and Texans

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:07 PM
Texans = I dunno. Maybe.

Panthers= Williams was terrible last year. Tolbert and Stewart are alright, but not better than what we have.

49ers= Gore is never healthy... I don't know why you'd want someone who is hurt that much.

Saints= Why?

Agree with you on everything except for this. Gore ran for 1200 yards last year, kendall hunter's explosive and a good 3rd down back, and adding James to that mix is deadly. I would definitely take their rb's over ours.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Strange.

I don't think Forte's contract problems make them a lesser talented RB core. Unless he holds out, obviously.

If he signs and plays -- they'll be a top group for sure.

Fair point -- I'm just assuming he holds out.

Has all the telltale signs that he will. This situation reeks of Larry Johnson.

Ceej
05-29-2012, 01:09 PM
Fair point -- I'm just assuming he holds out.

Has all the telltale signs that he will.

While I do agree with your premise; it's just an assumption at this point. Until he verbally, or physically says he's holding out I'll just assume he's playing for da Bears.

And I'm a sucker for brusing backs. The one-two punch of Forte/Bush would sure be fun to watch.

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 01:10 PM
Agree with you on everything except for this. Gore ran for 1200 yards last year, kendall hunter's explosive and a good 3rd down back, and adding James to that mix is deadly. I would definitely take their rb's over ours.

No fucking way would I trade JC for Gore.

Gore just turned 29. JC doesnt turn 26 until Dec.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:10 PM
The 49ers give you crushing power (Jacobs), elite gamebreaking speed (James), a workhorse (Gore) and a change of pace scatback (Hunter).

I love it.

The Chiefs don't quite have that complete a package, but it's pretty dang close.

Agree 100% with this statement. Their group is deadly.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:10 PM
While I do agree with your premise; it's just an assumption at this point. Until he verbally, or physically says he's holding out I'll just assume he's playing for da Bears.

And I'm a sucker for brusing backs. The one-two punch of Forte/Bush would sure be fun to watch.

I am too. I've been starving for a back like Hillis on this team.

I'm with most people, though. I want him to bring back that nasty facemask he wore in Cleveland.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:11 PM
No ****ing way would I trade JC for Gore.

Gore just turned 29. JC doesnt turn 26 until Dec.

A healthy Gore is also merely really good, while a healthy JC is elite.

Ceej
05-29-2012, 01:11 PM
I am too. I've been starving for a back like Hillis on this team.

I'm with most people, though. I want him to bring back that nasty facemask he wore in Cleveland.

If he can play like the old, "normal" Hillis it'll be fun to watch.

Fingers crossed.

I'm finally antsy for goal line situations with this team!

Molitoth
05-29-2012, 01:11 PM
I'd take the Chiefs, and that is not Homer-Talk.

Although the 49er's is pretty beast.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:12 PM
No ****ing way would I trade JC for Gore.

Gore just turned 29. JC doesnt turn 26 until Dec.

Cuz I said that...

I would take their group over ours. Of course I would take JC over Gore, but they have better versatility and much better depth.

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 01:13 PM
The 49ers give you crushing power (Jacobs), elite gamebreaking speed (James), a workhorse (Gore) and a change of pace scatback (Hunter).

I love it.

The Chiefs don't quite have that complete a package, but it's pretty dang close.

Gore is 3.5 yrs older than JC. Absolutely NOT.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:15 PM
Gore is 3.5 yrs older than JC. Absolutely NOT.

Jesus, man. Nobody said that.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 01:16 PM
NAZI!

LET'S GET HIM

SNR
05-29-2012, 01:16 PM
The 49ers give you a brokedick (Jacobs), elite gamebreaking speed from an unproven rookie (James), a slight upgrade over Eddie George (Gore) and a change of pace scatback (Hunter).

I love it.

The Chiefs don't quite have that complete a package, but it's pretty dang close.FYP.

To me a top backfield needs to have somebody elite at the top. The only name on that list who does that is Frank Gore, and I've never really been a fan of him. Maybe it's because I don't watch too many Niners games. He kind of reminds me of Larry Johnson in that 2006 Herm season where we made the playoffs. He does a little bit of everything really well, but in the end a large portion of his carries wind up being 2 yards and a vat of jizz. I realize that's the nature of a workhorse back, but I can think of far greater workhorse guys than Gore. The names who come to mind off the top of my head: AP, Foster, Forte, McFadden, Fred Jackson, Michael Turner, and Marshawn Lynch. All of them I'd rather have doing what Frank Gore does on my 49er team than Frank Gore. And I'm not even talking about the other RBs I'd rather have who aren't workhorse types: McCoy, Charles, Ray Rice, CJ, and Sproles.

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 01:17 PM
Cuz I said that...

I would take their group over ours. Of course I would take JC over Gore, but they have better versatility and much better depth.

Gore and JC are each team's #1s and will handle the bulk of the load, are they not?

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 01:18 PM
Jesus, man. Nobody said that.

Trading the entire fucking group isnt worth it because of this.

Hog Farmer
05-29-2012, 01:21 PM
Chiefs have the best if everyones healthy, hands down.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:28 PM
FYP.

To me a top backfield needs to have somebody elite at the top. The only name on that list who does that is Frank Gore, and I've never really been a fan of him. Maybe it's because I don't watch too many Niners games. He kind of reminds me of Larry Johnson in that 2006 Herm season where we made the playoffs. He does a little bit of everything really well, but in the end a large portion of his carries wind up being 2 yards and a vat of jizz. I realize that's the nature of a workhorse back, but I can think of far greater workhorse guys than Gore. The names who come to mind off the top of my head: AP, Foster, Forte, McFadden, Fred Jackson, Michael Turner, and Marshawn Lynch. All of them I'd rather have doing what Frank Gore does on my 49er team than Frank Gore. And I'm not even talking about the other RBs I'd rather have who aren't workhorse types: McCoy, Charles, Ray Rice, CJ, and Sproles.

Your post shows it. The guy ran for 1200 yards last year, good for 6th in the league. He's had 1000 yard seasons, in 5 of his 7 seasons, and is a threat to catch the ball out of the backfield. Not to mention he's above average in pass blocking. He's easily a top ten back when healthy.

Hunter is Gore-lite when he gets carries.

Regarding James, any rookie is unproven. What's your point? The guy has an enormous amount of potential.

The 49ers are much better as a group.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:31 PM
Gore and JC are each team's #1s and will handle the bulk of the load, are they not?

If you are going to make this about JC vs. Gore, I won't argue. I would take JC hands down. But you can't honestly sit here and tell me that in the modern game you don't need depth at the rb position. Yes, the 1's still get a lot of carries, but the 2's and 3's still get a good number of carries. You have to have a two or three-headed monster in today's game, and I'm not exactly sold on Hillis.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:32 PM
Chiefs have the best if everyones healthy, hands down.

Huge if. We are talking about the NFL, are we not? Rb's get hurt all the time, just ask JC.

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 01:36 PM
Huge if. We are talking about the NFL, are we not? Rb's get hurt all the time, just ask JC.

And so does Gore.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:38 PM
And so does Gore.

Which is another reason why depth is so important.

Hog Farmer
05-29-2012, 01:39 PM
Huge if. We are talking about the NFL, are we not? Rb's get hurt all the time, just ask JC.

Yes we're talking about the fucking NFL shitbag. Jamaal Charles damn near set the record for YPC in 2010. He's the best and our line is better now than then. I'd take him over ANYBODY out there. Oh and by the way HE'S NOT FUCKING INJURED !

Sofa King
05-29-2012, 01:43 PM
The 49ers give you crushing power (Jacobs), elite gamebreaking speed (James), a workhorse (Gore) and a change of pace scatback (Hunter).

I love it.

The Chiefs don't quite have that complete a package, but it's pretty dang close.

Have you watched Jacobs lately? The power he once had is long gone. He's basically Thomas Jones now.

Pawnmower
05-29-2012, 01:46 PM
If Charles can even be 90% we will be top 10 in rushing offense.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 01:50 PM
Yes we're talking about the ****ing NFL shitbag. Jamaal Charles damn near set the record for YPC in 2010. He's the best and our line is better now than then. I'd take him over ANYBODY out there. Oh and by the way HE'S NOT ****ING INJURED !

LMAO

Angry much?

SNR
05-29-2012, 01:50 PM
Your post shows it. The guy ran for 1200 yards last year, good for 6th in the league. He's had 1000 yard seasons, in 5 of his 7 seasons, and is a threat to catch the ball out of the backfield. Not to mention he's above average in pass blocking. He's easily a top ten back when healthy.

Hunter is Gore-lite when he gets carries.

Regarding James, any rookie is unproven. What's your point? The guy has an enormous amount of potential.

The 49ers are much better as a group.
I'd still rather have all those RBs I listed over Gore.

In the game of football, only one guy can carry the football at a time. If both Charles and Gore touch the ball 250 times in a season, the only thing that matters when comparing them is the talent. If Charles is the better back, then a huge chunk of each RB stable's total touches becomes affected.

Charles and Hillis are going to account for 90%+ of the Chiefs touches by RBs. I'd rather have those two guys toting the ball for me than a mixture of Gore, James, Hunter, and Jacobs.

Again, this is based on what we know now. If James or Hunter explode into elite RBs this season, then we're talking a completely different story. But from what we know from years past, Charles and Hillis as a combo are better than those four guys based solely on the distribution between the backs.

SNR
05-29-2012, 01:51 PM
Huge if. We are talking about the NFL, are we not? Rb's get hurt all the time, just ask JC.Jamaal Charles doesn't get injured "all the time" you fucking idiot

Sweet Daddy Hate
05-29-2012, 01:51 PM
Regardless, the good news is that Cassel does not play RB.

Hog Farmer
05-29-2012, 01:56 PM
LMAO

Angry much?

Not really ! It's been a bad week , a tornado took the top off one of my farrowing barns Saturday night, a stupid fucking truck driver broke the hydraulic arm on my security gate that has a huge fucking stop sign that reads "STOP, AUTHORIZED PERSONELL ONLY" as he tried to enter the premises and boar #743 died today! Bitch!

Pestilence
05-29-2012, 01:59 PM
Jonathan Stewart is underrated it's funny.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 02:04 PM
Not really ! It's been a bad week , a tornado took the top off one of my farrowing barns Saturday night, a stupid ****ing truck driver broke the hydraulic arm on my security gate that has a huge ****ing stop sign that reads "STOP, AUTHORIZED PERSONELL ONLY" as he tried to enter the premises and boar #743 died today! Bitch!

ROFL

Not laughing at your misfortunes (sorry to hear all that, btw), but your post was pretty funny. It's all good. Hope everything gets better.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 02:08 PM
Jamaal Charles doesn't get injured "all the time" you ****ing idiot

I didn't say he did. I said running backs, collectively, get injured all the time. JC is an example of a running back getting hurt (for a season, I might add). Sorry that was unclear to you.

BigMeatballDave
05-29-2012, 02:10 PM
Jonathan Stewart is underrated it's funny.

He doesnt get many carries for some reason.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 02:16 PM
I'd still rather have all those RBs I listed over Gore.

In the game of football, only one guy can carry the football at a time. If both Charles and Gore touch the ball 250 times in a season, the only thing that matters when comparing them is the talent. If Charles is the better back, then a huge chunk of each RB stable's total touches becomes affected.

Charles and Hillis are going to account for 90%+ of the Chiefs touches by RBs. I'd rather have those two guys toting the ball for me than a mixture of Gore, James, Hunter, and Jacobs.

Again, this is based on what we know now. If James or Hunter explode into elite RBs this season, then we're talking a completely different story. But from what we know from years past, Charles and Hillis as a combo are better than those four guys based solely on the distribution between the backs.

Jacobs will only be in on short-yardage situations. The majority of the carries will go to Gore/Hunter, with James being the change of pace guy. Hunter isn't elite, but he's not much of a drop-off from Gore (and we've already established he's pretty damn good).

Hillis is not a sure thing btw. Your post implies that he is. He's had one good year, and he was far from elite last year. I really hope he returns to 2010 form, but that's not a guarantee. Is Charles better than Gore? Yes. But the ability and versatility of Hunter/James is exponentially better than just having Hillis as your 2.

SNR
05-29-2012, 02:56 PM
Jacobs will only be in on short-yardage situations. The majority of the carries will go to Gore/Hunter, with James being the change of pace guy. Hunter isn't elite, but he's not much of a drop-off from Gore (and we've already established he's pretty damn good).

Hillis is not a sure thing btw. Your post implies that he is. He's had one good year, and he was far from elite last year. I really hope he returns to 2010 form, but that's not a guarantee. Is Charles better than Gore? Yes. But the ability and versatility of Hunter/James is exponentially better than just having Hillis as your 2.I was actually pretty pissed that we were courting both Hillis and Tolbert this offseason and went this Hillis over Tolbert. I don't think Hillis is great at all, but I realized that for what we need him, he'll do a pretty damn good job. We're not going to ask him to be the offense. We're not even going to ask him to be our entire backfield. If he even plays at 80% of his 2010 level, he will be EXCELLENT in the Thomas Jones role. Everything else he can do is just icing.

So Hunter is far from elite but he's not much of a dropoff from Gore? Then you just made my point. Gore is not elite. Charles IS elite. The 49ers would have an advantage if either team sustained injury to their starters. But if we do that, now we're not just bringing injury into the equation, we're making it an entire side of the equation. We're saying, "There is a case where the 49ers have better RBs, and that's if there's an injury to both teams' starters. So let's make that a preliminary assumption when comparing these teams."

SNR
05-29-2012, 02:59 PM
Also, I'm not even sure if Jacobs has a purpose as a short-yardage guy. His power is gone. It's just fucking gone. There's nothing left. In my opinion, unless a team's short-yardage guy has the leg-churning tackler-carrying ability of Mike Tolbert or Zack Crockett a few years ago, you may as well go with your best RB in goal line situations.

Think back to the 2001-2005 Chiefs. Tony Richardson was far from washed up, but he still wasn't all that much of a short yardage back. We just went with the hot hand on those carries-- little ol' Priest himself. Worked out pretty damn well.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 03:29 PM
I was actually pretty pissed that we were courting both Hillis and Tolbert this offseason and went this Hillis over Tolbert. I don't think Hillis is great at all, but I realized that for what we need him, he'll do a pretty damn good job. We're not going to ask him to be the offense. We're not even going to ask him to be our entire backfield. If he even plays at 80% of his 2010 level, he will be EXCELLENT in the Thomas Jones role. Everything else he can do is just icing.

So Hunter is far from elite but he's not much of a dropoff from Gore? Then you just made my point. Gore is not elite. Charles IS elite. The 49ers would have an advantage if either team sustained injury to their starters. But if we do that, now we're not just bringing injury into the equation, we're making it an entire side of the equation. We're saying, "There is a case where the 49ers have better RBs, and that's if there's an injury to both teams' starters. So let's make that a preliminary assumption when comparing these teams."

I agree with your entire first paragraph. If the chiefs had tolbert, this would be a completely different story. But they don't, so we have to go with Hillis. And you know just as well as I do that Hillis is not a sure thing. Maybe he can be 80% of what he was, and that would be great, but he was ****ing awful last year.

I don't think Hunter is "far from" elite. He just isn't elite. But I guarantee anybody who watched the niners last year knows how special he is in a complimentary role to a workhorse back like Gore. He's a damn solid #2, and adding James to that mix is scary. If you watched him in college, you know James has JC-like potential that can be utilized in many different ways.*

I'm not a huge fan of Jacobs either, but he is an upgrade over Dixon. I think the 49er FO is just trying to see if he can provide some power, and if not, they have a really good FB in Brit Miller or Gore will take those carries.

*I'm not saying he's JC (you may take it that way judging by the way you've been reading my posts). I'm simply saying he's giving the niners a home-run threat like JC with his ceiling being like JC.

At this point, let's agree to disagree. I don't think we'll ever agree on this. I'm a Chiefs fan, and really hope our rb's are better next year, but I just can't get over the 49ers' depth.

Rams Fan
05-29-2012, 03:37 PM
Steven Jackson-Only RB in the NFL to have 1,000+ yards every season since 2005.

Direckshun
05-29-2012, 03:39 PM
Steven Jackson-Only RB in the NFL to have 1,000+ yards every season since 2005.

Amazing, considering how awful that team has been during that run.

SNR
05-29-2012, 03:40 PM
Steven Jackson-Only RB in the NFL to have 1,000+ yards every season since 2005.Another guy I'd take over Frank Gore

Rams Fan
05-29-2012, 03:41 PM
Amazing, considering how awful that team has been during that run.

I know.

I just want the Rams to have a winning season once, as Jackson has never been on a team that has finished better than 8-8 nor has he been to the POs since his rookie year.

Dude brings it every Sunday.

People say he misses too much time. You know what? He misses games, sure, but he has never ended a season on IR.

Cephalic Trauma
05-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Another guy I'd take over Frank Gore

Jesus, just drop it man.

Just because there are other guys who may be better does not detract from Gore's worth. He was 6th in the league in yards last year, and he has had 1000 yard seasons in 5 of his 7 seasons (One season he played 11 games, and the other he was a rookie and only had 120 carries). That's all that needs to be said when considering his worth. The guy is ****ing good.

SNR
05-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Jesus, just drop it man.

Just because there are other guys who may be better does not detract from Gore's worth. He was 6th in the league in yards last year, and he has had 1000 yard seasons in 5 of his 7 seasons (One season he played 11 games, and the other he was a rookie and only had 120 carries). That's all that needs to be said when considering his worth. The guy is ****ing good.Never said he was bad. The Niners have a good backfield. A great backfield. A for-sure top 10 backfield. Possibly even top 5. But I'll still take Charles and Hillis as my starters over Gore and solid depth. It's just a matter of preference, that's all.

I know my posts sound like I'm trashing Gore. I'm not trying to. I know he's really fucking good. He just doesn't hit my clit like he hits yours, though. That's fine. And in order to explain my preferences when it comes to RB squads, I have to talk about what the Chiefs have that the Niners don't have. That will involve me saying a few negative things about Gore. It's a necessity.

Sorter
05-29-2012, 10:58 PM
He just doesn't hit my clit like he hits yours, though

LMAO

Count Zarth
05-29-2012, 10:59 PM
Teams I'd trade RB corps with:

Texans, Panthers, 49ers, Saints

That's it.

That's a good commentary on how little the RB position means.

Ugly Duck
05-29-2012, 11:12 PM
HE'S NOT ****ING INJURED !

NFL.com on why Charles will probably be OK:

Here's the data on RB performance drop-off after ACL surgery: http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story/09000d5d826d092c/article/acl-surgery-research-shows-decline-in-running-back-stats

"The older a running back is at the time of an ACL tear, the worse his chances are to be productive the following season. We have also learned that suffering the ailment early in a season can be an advantage, as it allows more time to rehab and recover. That's the reason I'm not as worried about Charles. While a decrease in production should be expected compared to his 2010 totals, he'll have had far more time than Peterson and Mendenhall to come back. Charles is also just 25 years old, so he clearly has youth on this side.

Mendenhall, who tore up his knee in the Steelers' regular-season finale, will have a long road ahead. The fact that he's young at the age of 24 is an advantage, but he suffered his ACL injury so late that he could be in danger of missing the start of the 2012 campaign. Based on the fact that his numbers were already down compared to his 2010 totals, it's going to be tough to consider the Illinois product more than a low-end No. 2 fantasy runner or flex starter at this point. He could move up a bit as the offseason rolls on, but he's not a No. 1 option.

In the case of Peterson, I think he's going to be hard pressed to be the elite fantasy back he's been -- at least in 2012. Remember, he ripped up his knee in the next to last week of the regular season, meaning he's in danger of landing on the Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) list. When you also consider the huge workload he's endured over the last four years, I'd struggle to build an argument for Peterson being ranked as a No. 1 back in fantasy land next season. Instead, barring setbacks in his rehab, he'll be more of a No. 2 option across the board.

milkman
05-30-2012, 09:20 AM
That's a good commentary on how little the RB position means.

If Matt Shaub was healthy for the playoffs, I would have bet on the Texan getting to the SB.

If the Saints defense was as good as thier reputation, I'd have bet on them.

Sorter
05-30-2012, 02:06 PM
If the Saints were playing at home, they'd have won it

fyp

Demonpenz
05-30-2012, 03:55 PM
charles is off the chain when he was going good. I've never watched hillis that much.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-30-2012, 03:57 PM
Waiting for the Donkey homers to state thier claim how brokedick and slowshon are better

Tombstone RJ
06-01-2012, 10:57 PM
Waiting for the Donkey homers to state thier claim how brokedick and slowshon are better

:clap:

I guess we'll find out soon enough... the thing I luv about kc fans is you all always win the SB in June of every new season...

KC Tattoo
06-02-2012, 06:43 AM
Having Hillis is a sure upgrade over Jones & we get Charles back. Charles will be the most exciting to watch but he doesn't have to do it all & Hillis will do better than 2 yards a carry. I'm thinking we will be fine as long as Charles can stay healthy this season.

Rausch
06-02-2012, 07:06 AM
:clap:

I guess we'll find out soon enough... the thing I luv about kc fans is you all always win the SB in June of every new season...

You must be new.