Nick Wright: Chiefs in danger of "losing" Charles

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

getnickwright The #Chiefs are bordering on losing Jamaal Charles... which could lose them the lockerroom... I have the story... I'll explain at 2 sharp

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

How does "not sustaining drives" favor Jones? Wouldn't it be just the opposite? If you're having trouble moving the chains, it's even more imperative to give the ball to your best back early so that he can help the offense get in rhythm.

I think you could argue that Jones is their best back, that Charles is their best playmaker, their home run threat.

Either way, the failure in execution as far as drives go is not a matter of which RB is on the field, it's a matter of Cassel failing to connect on his throws. You'll notice that in the second half friday, when his ducks began to float into the same area code as his receivers, they were able to move the chains.

But, again, I think if it is an intentional decision to not give Charles the ball (and I'm not convinced that it is) I think it has more to do with game situation, and secondarily to do with Charles injury history paired with his history of fumbles. I think, all-in-all, the most feasible reason is that they're protecting him after his chronic shoulder issues last year.

[CaliforniaChief]

If the culture is "accountable" and all but one are subject to accountability, either in verbal thrashing or benching, I can see that would create a problem on a team.

Especially if the majority of people in the locker room thinks the other guy gives them a better chance to win.

[keg in kc]

You know, it occurs to me that the guy we should really be wondering about at this point isn't Charles, it's McCluster. Why isn't he more involved?

[O.city]

OTWP just curious but what should have been said to Cassel. Not implying I don't think something should be said just wondering what you think . I know what I would say but just wondering.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think you could argue that Jones is their best back, that Charles is their best playmaker, their home run threat.

Either way, the failure in execution as far as drives go is not a matter of which RB is on the field, it's a matter of Cassel failing to connect on his throws. You'll notice that in the second half friday, when his ducks began to float into the same area code as his receivers, they were able to move the chains.

But, again, I think if it is an intentional decision to not give Charles the ball (and I'm not convinced that it is) I think it has more to do with game situation, and secondarily to do with Charles injury history paired with his history of fumbles. I think, all-in-all, the most feasible reason is that they're protecting him after his chronic shoulder issues last year.

I don't.

You cannot protect a player if he legitimately has frequent injury concerns. Could be practice, walking to his car, etc., the injuries will find him.

More likely, I could see that it's protecting the wallet of Clark, so that we're not looking down the barrel of a huge second contract if Charles replicates is second half of '09 for a full season. Cause we'd be looking at a certain holdout and/or expensive extension.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

You know, it occurs to me that the guy we should really be wondering about at this point isn't Charles, it's McCluster. Why isn't he more involved?

He's 5'5" and Cassel can throw it only 3 feet. Thus, DMC is too tall.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by O.city

OTWP just curious but what should have been said to Cassel. Not implying I don't think something should be said just wondering what you think . I know what I would say but just wondering.

That he made a poor decision and a worse throw. Bowe was open on the other side of the field.

Hold the SOB accountable, instead of blaming Chambers for the INT.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief

Especially if the majority of people in the locker room thinks the other guy gives them a better chance to win.

Are you saying that the locker room believes Croyle gives them a better chance to win than Cassel?

I'm not going to suggest you're right or wrong, because I don't know one way or the other, but I will ask where you got that idea from. I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that.

[ChiTown]

We're going to need our entire stable of backs against SF's D. Their Backers can bring it against the run, and I feel reasonably confident Cassel won't be airing it out much.

I do agree, a stronger dose of JC would be nice to see, but I won't start complaining until we lose a game(s) because of it. So far, so good.

[O.city]

Thats what I was thinking.

How many times do we just throw one up for Bowe like other big strong recievers. If he is the receiver that the F/O is putting him up to be give him a chance to make a big play. If Cassel can keep it in bounds.

Look at the Texans. I know Bowe is no Johnson but give him a chance to outrun or outjump a smaller corner once in a while.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

I do agree, a stronger dose of JC would be nice to see, but I won't start complaining until we lose a game(s) because of it. So far, so good.

We didn't score a single offensive TD in Cleveland, and our best offensive player had 11 carries. I'd say this raises the worry flag.

The odds of us winning with 0 offensive TDs and a QB with a 46.1 rating are about as impressive as watching old people ****.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Are you saying that the locker room believes Croyle gives them a better chance to win than Cassel?

I'm not going to suggest you're right or wrong, because I don't know one way or the other, but I will ask where you got that idea from. I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that.

I get the impression from the players that Wright spoke to that the locker room resents Cassel, because he's not held to the same standards the rest of the roster is.

Guys like Chambers and Charles are getting railed on, while Captain Checkdown gets a pass.

I can see why the locker room would resent Cassel. He's doing nothing to help the team win, but being treated like a guy that is carrying the team.

[O.city]

LOL my thoughts exactly. Like my previous post why do we never see a jump ball to Bowe in the endzone once we are inside the 25?

And I don't even think Charles needs a ton more touches. Just about 18 carries with a catch or two would be enough

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I don't.

You cannot protect a player if he legitimately has frequent injury concerns. Could be practice, walking to his car, etc., the injuries will find him.

More likely, I could see that it's protecting the wallet of Clark, so that we're not looking down the barrel of a huge second contract if Charles replicates is second half of '09 for a full season. Cause we'd be looking at a certain holdout and/or expensive extension.

I don't think they're protecting him, I was just saying injuries are the most feasible conspiracy theory in my mind. Speaking just for me, I don't think they're intentionally limiting his carries at all, as in going into a game thinking "we're going to run Jones more than Charles". I think it's a matter of game situations the first two weeks that ended up favoring Jones' skillset. I don't think it will be like that every week this season.

But I'm not in the locker room, so I'm just guessing as much as you are...

[CaliforniaChief]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Are you saying that the locker room believes Croyle gives them a better chance to win than Cassel?

I'm not going to suggest you're right or wrong, because I don't know one way or the other, but I will ask where you got that idea from. I haven't seen or heard anything that would indicate that.

I would say that if they all believed Cassel was the guy, they wouldn't throw him under the bus to a reporter on a story unrelated to him.

If this is all true, there must be some guys who feel strongly about it.