ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Whitlocks Gambling advice: Take the Browns minus-2 (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=233600)

Hootie 09-16-2010 12:31 PM

save Charles?

what are we saving him for?

THE NFL IS A TODAY SPORT...not a tomorrow

The Franchise 09-16-2010 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7010237)
Save Charles (youth/talent) until this team actually has a QB and all the pieces that can succeed.

In the mean time use Thomas Jones like a rental car, as he is about done.

Makes sense to me.

We're never going to win shit with that plan.

Let's save Brandon Flowers until we have a pass rush. We wouldn't want to use him up.

'Hamas' Jenkins 09-16-2010 12:31 PM

I picked up an SI in the Dr's office on Monday and the cover story was on RBs and how quickly they are burned out.

I can see both sides. With Charles, we have a bird in hand. We might as well use him while we know he's good.

However, he's so dynamic that using him up now rather than sparing him so that we can get 7 years of productivity instead of 3 seems a bit foolish, especially given the fact that we aren't yet a contender.

'Hamas' Jenkins 09-16-2010 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 7010246)
We're never going to win shit with that plan.

Let's save Brandon Flowers until we have a pass rush. We wouldn't want to use him up.

This is disanalogous. CBs have a very long shelf life in comparison to RBs.

DeezNutz 09-16-2010 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7010237)
Save Charles (youth/talent) until this team actually has a QB and all the pieces that can succeed.

In the mean time use Thomas Jones like a rental car, as he is about done.

Makes sense to me.

Let's say we draft a QB this Spring. LMAO. Ok, let's just say.

At best, we'd be two years away from making a legit push for a SB with a n00b, and that's if he's ****ing great from the start. Could be 3 years, most likely.

And Charles might be out of the league.

Use RBs when you have them because they don't last.

Reerun_KC 09-16-2010 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7010216)
He needs 20 touches per game.

And if we're already worried about "the long haul" with Charles, it's a pretty safe bet that he won't see this, no matter the bubble we try to place around him.

Turn and burn with RBs. It's not like we can magically stop the clock on the period of time of when he'll be elite, which I think Charles can be.

I can live with that...

screens, passes, runs... 15-20 would be nice...

DeezNutz 09-16-2010 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7010249)
This is disanalogous. CBs have a very long shelf life in comparison to RBs.

That's fine and true enough. But I made it with the intention of trying to equal the absurd. For this, I believe the point works well.

dirk digler 09-16-2010 12:34 PM

I am thinking it was more about the conditions and Jamal's habit of fumbling more than anything else.

Now this Sunday if the conditions are fine and he doesn't play then we might have problem.

Molitoth 09-16-2010 12:40 PM

Quote:

Kansas City’s victory over the Chargers was a total fluke.
Not with the 12th man in action.

Quote:

Todd Haley and Scott Pioli refuse to showcase Jamaal Charles solely because Herm Edwards drafted him.
I don't know if that is the reason, although they do need to give him the ball more.

Quote:

KC’s front seven can’t pressure the quarterback.
I thought they did a decent job against the chargers... unlucky for them, Rivers is a great QB with excellent pocket presence and a great eye for finding open receivers and getting them the ball quickly. Seneca Wallace nor Dake Delhomme are near this good.

Quote:

The rain and the sloppiness of Arrowhead Stadium’s grass stopped the Chargers.
Bullshit. The front 7 stopped the run game, and Rivers was still completing passes all over the field. This was the most ignorant statement of the article.

Quote:

The Chiefs have no No. 1 receiver or quarterback
They have #1's.... they just happen to suck. =P

suds79 09-16-2010 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 7010259)
I am thinking it was more about the conditions and Jamal's habit of fumbling more than anything else.

Now this Sunday if the conditions are fine and he doesn't play then we might have problem.

To me there's just no way you can excuse it. There's no reason that makes sense. Jamaal routinely out performs everybody else on a weekly basis and the guy just can't get any love from Todd.

I think Jason is probably right with his assessment on what the deal is.

Hootie 09-16-2010 12:40 PM

here's my gambling advice:

go put all of your money on the Pats (-3) before the move the line up...

and they will

so hurry while it's still a good line

PunkinDrublic 09-16-2010 12:40 PM

Might as well get used to it. Whitlock is going to try and discredit any success the Chiefs have because of his bitterness toward Pioli.

wutamess 09-16-2010 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic (Post 7010138)
Wow the whole idea that Pioli has anything to do with the playcalling is beyond reeruned. The weather wasn't even a factor the entire game. Another example of Whitlocks bitterness against Pioli getting in the way of having a common sense take.

Uh... What game were you watching? If it was perfect weather. we get our asses handed to us.

The Franchise 09-16-2010 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wutamess (Post 7010282)
Uh... What game were you watching? If it was perfect weather. we get our asses handed to us.

This.

beach tribe 09-16-2010 12:45 PM

I can't believe some of you people actually think this guy is a good writer.
He rewords the same stupid shit over, and over, and you eat it up.
Whitlock has true fans.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.