Tait and Richardson
 

We keep mourning the loss of Roaf and Welborne, but the Chiefs' front office brought some of this on themselves.

I was one of the few who argued that losing Tait was a mistake and I felt the same way about Tony R.

Those two players alone cut the sack numbers in half yesterday.

The defense we faced yesterday was not Pitt, or Chicago, or Baltimore. It was the friggin Bengals.

You can't let players like this walk away.

Tait's price was just too much. Period. Anyone that thinks we should have paid that kind of money for a RT is on drugs.

Agree on Richardson though. It was stupid to not keep him for as cheap as he was.

I have no idea what went through Carl's mind on Tony. ALl he had to do was match the offer (which wasn't all that much) and Tony would have been here blocking for Trent and LJ again. We let one of the best FBs in the NFL go because Carl was too cheap to sign him for less than what he was really worth.

Tait wanted LT moey to play RT

Richardson wanted to be where he would play more. It had nothing to do with money

I thought Cruz made som nice blocks yesterday. I would have to say the play of Cruz had very little to do with yesterday's drubbing.

Last I checked Richardson didn't play on the O-line. I don't think he would have made that much of a difference.

They shouldn't have kept Tait, but they should have addressed Roaf's imminent departure in the draft. Not that I think it would have made a lot of difference at this point.

I beg to differ on Tait. He'd be earning his left tackle $$ for us and it would allow Turley to play RT and I-65 to take I-70 out of town.

That ignores that he's a crappy LT.

I agree completely. Letting Tait go was a mistake--but he did command too much money; letting Richardson go was simply beyond stupidity.

Agreed. I saw nothing from Cruz yesterday that would have changed the course of the game, except picking up Huard's fumble and preventing another turnover.

I just don't agree. Look at what the Vikings paid for a GUARD (Hutchison).

Tait is now working for one of the best lines in the NFC. You put him in Jordan Black's spot and much of yesterday's problem is solved.

We can pay TG and LJ a bazillion dollars, but if you got no OL, it really doesn't matter.

Cruz should not be in the same sentence as TR.

I can not understand why we put the transition tag on big John Tait instead of the franchise tag. Can someone enlighten me?

Do you want to pay him top 5 money? He would be lumped in with tackles, not right tackles, otherwise teams would use this designation all the time to screw over the system.

John Tait is not Walter Jones

Franchise tag would've obligated us to paying him an average of the the top salaries at his position. FO didn't think he was worth that (think Roaf, Jones, or Ogden type salary.) Although I do think he's good, I can see why some would balk at that.....

Transition tag gave Chiefs the chance to match any offer, which they declined.