Chiefs Revisiting the Jared Allen Trade - Page 2

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 02-13-2010, 04:20 PM

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post...ed-allen-trade

Bill Williamson

The image of a purple-clad Jared Allen celebrating over fallen quarterbacks can’t be fun for Kansas City Chiefs fans. (NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert took a look at the Allen deal from the Vikings' perspective.)

They were used to seeing the mulleted one celebrating sacks as a Chief. Since Allen was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2008, the Chiefs have been listless on defense.

But two seasons into the blockbuster trade, it is not necessarily fair to say Kansas City was a loser in the trade.

Kansas City sent Allen and a sixth-round draft pick in 2008 for the No. 17 overall pick, two third-round picks and a sixth-round pick. Kansas City turned the picks into tackle Branden Albert, running back Jamaal Charles, safety DaJuan Morgan and sixth-round pick Kevin Robinson. The Vikings turned the Chiefs’ sixth-round pick into center John Sullivan.

“Kansas City really can’t worry about what Allen is doing in Minnesota and that Sullivan is a starter,” Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said. “The Chiefs knew Allen was going to be good in Minnesota. But they didn’t want to pay him so they got very good value. That’s why the trade was good. It was a good trade because the value was good. Let’s see what Kansas City is going to do with it. It still can be a very good trade for the Chiefs.”

The following is a look at the key aspects of the trade two seasons later:

Jamaal Charles: Charles is the key player in the deal from the Chiefs’ perspective. If he can build upon his fantastic finish in 2009, this trade will be great for Kansas City.

Charles was taken with the first of the two third-rounders the Chiefs got from Minnesota. The speedster ran for 1,120 yards after taking over as the starter in November, including 259 yards in the season finale against Denver. He averaged a whopping 5.9 yards per carry for the season and represents hope for Kansas City’s offense.

“I still think Kansas City needs to pick up a 230-pound back to run the ball 10 times to keep Charles fresh, but he looks like the real deal,” Williamson said. “He can be special. If Charles can get better and become a legit 1,500-yard back, then the Chiefs will really have something. It looks promising.”

Branden Albert: Albert was expected to be the centerpiece of this trade because he was the No. 15 overall pick (the Chiefs swapped the No. 17 pick to Detroit), but he has been slow to get his career going.

Albert, who has dealt with injuries, has been inconsistent at left tackle. Many league observers believe Albert will excel at either right tackle or left guard. The Chiefs might select a left tackle with the No. 5 pick in the 2010 draft and then move Albert to right tackle. Or, when Brian Waters (who turns 33 on Feb. 18) retires, Albert could move to left guard -- the position he played in college. Williamson thinks Albert could be a near-Pro Bowl-caliber guard.

Jared Allen posted a career-high 15.5 sacks in his final season in Kansas City.

If Kansas City does find a new left tackle and Albert plays right tackle in 2010, he should improve and be a solid contributor.

The Chiefs do miss Allen: There is no doubt Kansas City misses the talented Allen, but it was clear they would. He is a special pass-rusher.

Allen had 14.5 sacks in each of his seasons in Minnesota. He had 43 sacks in his four seasons in Kansas City, and the Chiefs have had little pass-rush presence since Allen was traded. In 2008, in fact, Kansas City set a record for the fewest sacks in a season with 10.

“The Chiefs don’t have a pass rush without Allen,” said Gary Horton of Scouts Inc. “They lost a lot by giving him up. Special, game-changing pass-rushers, which he is, are difficult to lose. They miss him, there’s no doubt.”

He wouldn’t fit Kansas City’s defense right now: Ironically, Allen wouldn’t be a great fit for the current Chiefs scheme. He was traded before the final season of the Carl Peterson-Herm Edwards era.

Last year, when Scott Pioli took over as general manager and hired Todd Haley as coach, Kansas City moved from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 scheme. Allen wouldn’t have had an obvious position in the 3-4, a problem the Chiefs also encountered with defensive lineman Glenn Dorsey and linebacker Derrick Johnson.

“He’d be a total waste in Kansas City’s new scheme,” Williamson said. “He is not a 3-4 guy. He’s a classic 4-3 guy. So, it’s funny; Allen wouldn’t be right for the Chiefs. Maybe they would have stuck to a 4-3 if he stayed.”

Conclusion: By no means does this trade seem like a disaster for Kansas City. Yes, Minnesota is tickled with the deal and it should be. Allen is a great player.

But if Charles and Albert become solid fixtures in the offense, the deal will be good for Kansas City. It’d be nice if Morgan (whom the previous Kansas City regime loved as a rookie) bounces back from a poor second season and becomes a solid contributor, the trade will even be better. Robinson was cut as a rookie.

“On paper, it was a good trade then for Kansas City and it still can be very good,” Horton said. “Allen was going to be a good player on a bad team. The Chiefs needed to get younger. They seem to be on the right track with this trade.”

Titty Meat · 02-13-2010, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

He'd fit at least as well as Hali.

Truth is there are not many 3-4 OLBs who are good in coverage.

If you want to know how Allen would play in a 3-4 just watch Kampman who sucked.

wild1 · 02-13-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Oh, and your and ****ing idiot for saying Matt Cassel is one of the 3 best players on this team. Your opinions just became irrelevant.

A quarterback, a left tackle, a running back who would have been in the pro bowl if he'd started the whole season, and a GM who was named the professional sports executive of the decade. You think Jared Allen is worth more than all of that?

Hammock Parties · 02-13-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

If you want to know how Allen would play in a 3-4 just watch Kampman who sucked.

Except Allen is a hell of a lot better than Kampman.

Do you seriously think Allen wouldn't have made Hali look like a chump playing the same role last year?

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 02-13-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild1

A quarterback, a left tackle, a running back who would have been in the pro bowl if he'd started the whole season, and a GM who was named the professional sports executive of the decade. You think Jared Allen is worth more than all of that?

Until they win, none of that matters. And what if the QB looks like he did this year for the next 3? That alone would have us screwed. The GM may, or may not be worth his weight in salt. Let's see what he does without BB. The left tackle may have to be shifted to another part of the line. The RB looks pretty money.

I'd take the best DE in the game over a rising RB superstar and a bunch of question marks yes.

We start winning, and I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. And you have my apologies for those remarks. I don't normally respond to the personal attacks that way. Not my style.

wild1 · 02-13-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Until they win, none of that matters. And what if the QB looks like he did this year for the next 3? That alone would have us screwed. The GM may, or may not be worth his weight in salt. Let's see what he does without BB. The left tackle may have to be shifted to another part of the line. The RB looks pretty money.

I'd take the best DE in the game over a rising RB superstar and a bunch of question marks yes.

We start winning, and I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. And you have my apologies for those remarks. I don't normally respond to the personal attacks that way. Not my style.

The top bid for Allen was a 1st and a 2nd. The players you name were a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, then you add in a coveted executive.

If you look at this season, statistically Allen had another big year... 14.5 sacks, forced a few fumbles. Not bad at all. That will make you a lot of money.

If you break it down, he got 4.5 sacks in one game against Green bay and 3 sacks in the other. In the first game, Green Bay's starting left tackle (a pro bowler last year) was inactive, and his replacement (who normally plays guard) left the game with a knee injury. Allen did play against Clifton in the second game and played well, but regardless, half his sacks this year were piled up in two games against the team that ranked dead last this year in sacks allowed. #32 of 32. Allen had 7 sacks in the other 14 games - respectable, but not world-beating.

He didn't do much in the second half of the year and in the postseason. If he hadn't played in Green Bay's division we might be talking about how Allen fell off this year.

Hammock Parties · 02-13-2010, 05:03 PM

LOL....I love people that tear down Allen by breaking down his sack numbers.

He has 45 in three years. Has anyone else done that?

Sacks ALWAYS come in bunches. DT's sacks came in bunches. He's in the ****ing HOF.

Don't tear down Allen to make the trade look better.

bandwagonjumper · 02-13-2010, 05:06 PM

It may have been at best an okay trade for the Chiefs but it was a great trade for the Vikings. A great pass rusher and a starting center. Still Chiefs one, Vikings zero.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 02-13-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild1

The top bid for Allen was a 1st and a 2nd. The players you name were a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, then you add in a coveted executive.

If you look at this season, statistically Allen had another big year... 14.5 sacks, forced a few fumbles. Not bad at all. That will make you a lot of money.

If you break it down, he got 4.5 sacks in one game against Green bay and 3 sacks in the other. In the first game, Green Bay's starting left tackle (a pro bowler last year) was inactive, and his replacement (who normally plays guard) left the game with a knee injury. Allen did play against Clifton in the second game and played well, but regardless, half his sacks this year were piled up in two games against the team that ranked dead last this year in sacks allowed. #32 of 32. Allen had 7 sacks in the other 14 games - respectable, but not world-beating.

He didn't do much in the second half of the year and in the postseason. If he hadn't played in Green Bay's division we might be talking about how Allen fell off this year.

None of that really matters though, because he could've done better or worse on this team. I understand what you're saying, all I'm saying is it's normally a pretty bad idea to trade the best DE in the game as he's going into his prime. It's probably the most coveted position on the field outside of your QB.

I am glad to know that the trade has the potential to take us to a Super Bowl championship. But potential doesn't mean jack shit until it's realized. I will question this trade until we get there. And I seriously question whether we will with Matt Cassel as our QB. I've NEVER been a fan of that move.

I'm not a doom and gloom fan. I'm eternally optimistic. However, that doesn't mean I won't be asking a lot of questions about moves we make until we get there. This is the most glaring one of them all, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the current regime.

wild1 · 02-13-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

LOL....I love people that tear down Allen by breaking down his sack numbers.

He has 45 in three years. Has anyone else done that?

Sacks ALWAYS come in bunches. DT's sacks came in bunches. He's in the ****ing HOF.

Don't tear down Allen to make the trade look better.

I've no interest in defending the trade. I simply stated a fact, that Allen has a tendency to disappear. He did very little in the second half of this year, or after the second Green Bay game which was somewhere near midseason.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 02-13-2010, 05:08 PM

And Cassel had zero to do with this trade. Remove Cassel, and input DeJuan Morgan.

**Gadzooks** · 02-13-2010, 05:09 PM

Any DC worth a shit can find a use for Allen in any kind of D alignment but this was aboot money.

Hammock Parties · 02-13-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild1

I've no interest in defending the trade. I simply stated a fact, that Allen has a tendency to disappear. He did very little in the second half of this year, or after the second Green Bay game which was somewhere near midseason.

Just because a guy is not racking up sacks does not mean he is disappearing. Only three defensive ends had more quarterback pressures than Jared Allen. He led the Vikings in tackles for loss.

He's a great ****ing football player.

Deberg_1990 · 02-13-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

People forget that this defense was actually pretty good in Allen's last year as a Chief

Dude, they only won 4 games. How good could they have been really??

chiefzilla1501 · 02-13-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Dude, they only won 4 games. How good could they have been really??

Oops, you're right. My bad.

wild1 · 02-13-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Just because a guy is not racking up sacks does not mean he is disappearing. Only three defensive ends had more quarterback pressures than Jared Allen. He led the Vikings in tackles for loss.

He's a great ****ing football player.

Never said he wasn't. I just said he didn't do much the second half of this season.

02-13-2010, 04:20 PM
Mr. Flopnuts FINALLY! The wait is over. Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Future Is Now!!! Casino cash: $19947565	Revisiting the Jared Allen Trade http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post...ed-allen-trade Bill Williamson The image of a purple-clad Jared Allen celebrating over fallen quarterbacks can’t be fun for Kansas City Chiefs fans. (NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert took a look at the Allen deal from the Vikings' perspective.) They were used to seeing the mulleted one celebrating sacks as a Chief. Since Allen was traded to the Minnesota Vikings in 2008, the Chiefs have been listless on defense. But two seasons into the blockbuster trade, it is not necessarily fair to say Kansas City was a loser in the trade. Kansas City sent Allen and a sixth-round draft pick in 2008 for the No. 17 overall pick, two third-round picks and a sixth-round pick. Kansas City turned the picks into tackle Branden Albert, running back Jamaal Charles, safety DaJuan Morgan and sixth-round pick Kevin Robinson. The Vikings turned the Chiefs’ sixth-round pick into center John Sullivan. “Kansas City really can’t worry about what Allen is doing in Minnesota and that Sullivan is a starter,” Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said. “The Chiefs knew Allen was going to be good in Minnesota. But they didn’t want to pay him so they got very good value. That’s why the trade was good. It was a good trade because the value was good. Let’s see what Kansas City is going to do with it. It still can be a very good trade for the Chiefs.” The following is a look at the key aspects of the trade two seasons later: Jamaal Charles: Charles is the key player in the deal from the Chiefs’ perspective. If he can build upon his fantastic finish in 2009, this trade will be great for Kansas City. Charles was taken with the first of the two third-rounders the Chiefs got from Minnesota. The speedster ran for 1,120 yards after taking over as the starter in November, including 259 yards in the season finale against Denver. He averaged a whopping 5.9 yards per carry for the season and represents hope for Kansas City’s offense. “I still think Kansas City needs to pick up a 230-pound back to run the ball 10 times to keep Charles fresh, but he looks like the real deal,” Williamson said. “He can be special. If Charles can get better and become a legit 1,500-yard back, then the Chiefs will really have something. It looks promising.” Branden Albert: Albert was expected to be the centerpiece of this trade because he was the No. 15 overall pick (the Chiefs swapped the No. 17 pick to Detroit), but he has been slow to get his career going. Albert, who has dealt with injuries, has been inconsistent at left tackle. Many league observers believe Albert will excel at either right tackle or left guard. The Chiefs might select a left tackle with the No. 5 pick in the 2010 draft and then move Albert to right tackle. Or, when Brian Waters (who turns 33 on Feb. 18) retires, Albert could move to left guard -- the position he played in college. Williamson thinks Albert could be a near-Pro Bowl-caliber guard. Jared Allen posted a career-high 15.5 sacks in his final season in Kansas City. If Kansas City does find a new left tackle and Albert plays right tackle in 2010, he should improve and be a solid contributor. The Chiefs do miss Allen: There is no doubt Kansas City misses the talented Allen, but it was clear they would. He is a special pass-rusher. Allen had 14.5 sacks in each of his seasons in Minnesota. He had 43 sacks in his four seasons in Kansas City, and the Chiefs have had little pass-rush presence since Allen was traded. In 2008, in fact, Kansas City set a record for the fewest sacks in a season with 10. “The Chiefs don’t have a pass rush without Allen,” said Gary Horton of Scouts Inc. “They lost a lot by giving him up. Special, game-changing pass-rushers, which he is, are difficult to lose. They miss him, there’s no doubt.” He wouldn’t fit Kansas City’s defense right now: Ironically, Allen wouldn’t be a great fit for the current Chiefs scheme. He was traded before the final season of the Carl Peterson-Herm Edwards era. Last year, when Scott Pioli took over as general manager and hired Todd Haley as coach, Kansas City moved from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 scheme. Allen wouldn’t have had an obvious position in the 3-4, a problem the Chiefs also encountered with defensive lineman Glenn Dorsey and linebacker Derrick Johnson. “He’d be a total waste in Kansas City’s new scheme,” Williamson said. “He is not a 3-4 guy. He’s a classic 4-3 guy. So, it’s funny; Allen wouldn’t be right for the Chiefs. Maybe they would have stuck to a 4-3 if he stayed.” Conclusion: By no means does this trade seem like a disaster for Kansas City. Yes, Minnesota is tickled with the deal and it should be. Allen is a great player. But if Charles and Albert become solid fixtures in the offense, the deal will be good for Kansas City. It’d be nice if Morgan (whom the previous Kansas City regime loved as a rookie) bounces back from a poor second season and becomes a solid contributor, the trade will even be better. Robinson was cut as a rookie. “On paper, it was a good trade then for Kansas City and it still can be very good,” Horton said. “Allen was going to be a good player on a bad team. The Chiefs needed to get younger. They seem to be on the right track with this trade.”
Posts: 56,649

02-13-2010, 05:03 PM	#21
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4430478	LOL....I love people that tear down Allen by breaking down his sack numbers. He has 45 in three years. Has anyone else done that? Sacks ALWAYS come in bunches. DT's sacks came in bunches. He's in the ****ing HOF. Don't tear down Allen to make the trade look better. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 278,674

02-13-2010, 05:06 PM	#22
bandwagonjumper Starter Join Date: Apr 2009 Casino cash: $10009659	It may have been at best an okay trade for the Chiefs but it was a great trade for the Vikings. A great pass rusher and a starting center. Still Chiefs one, Vikings zero.
Posts: 389

02-13-2010, 05:09 PM	#26
Gadzooks MFIC Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Casino cash: $3819219	Any DC worth a shit can find a use for Allen in any kind of D alignment but this was aboot money.
Posts: 7,771