Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aturnis
I knew when Herm got rid of him, it was a mistake. Even in his old age and decline he is still better than any option we have.
I understand we are "trying to get younger", but what is the harm in having an older guy fill a spot, better than a TE or LB could do, until you can find a sufficient backup?
Now T-Rich is blocking for the #1 RB in the NFL. I realize Adrian Peterson can make anyone look good (Really wanted to trade Larry and get him, even with all the "?'s" that surrounded him), but still doing a good job, and could have even taught the TE or LB a thing or two.
So why did they come to the stupid decision to let him go?
|
I swear, these kinds of threads should become stickies.
Richardson was 34, almost 35 when he
decided not to re-sign with the Chiefs. He only played in 9 games in 2006 due to injury.
In 2007, he's played in 10 games and only started 2. While the Vikings have an excellent running attack, this has more to do with the offensive line and scheme.
You should be angrier that the Chiefs passed on Bryant McKinnie in 2002 in favor of Ryan Sims.
The Chiefs of 2007 would look MUCH different with McKinnie at left tackle than Damion McIntosh.