"Even with Jared Allen, the Chiefs only won four games..."

[Mama Hip Rockets]

I don't understand why people keep saying that, like it's Jared Allen's fault that the Chiefs sucked. They won four games because their offensive line sucked and their QBs sucked and their wide receivers sucked and their cornerbacks sucked and their defensive tackles sucked, etc. etc.

It's not like because they sucked one year, Jared Allen will never be a difference-maker. If they keep Allen, and build a defense around him, and actually used some of their ridiculously unused cap money on some offense, the Chiefs could be a contending team within a couple of years.

I just don't understand this widespread logic of "Oh, since the Chiefs only won four games last year, Jared Allen is completely useless to this team."

[OnTheWarpath15]

I can think of three games off the top of my head that if Allen had shown up in the second half, we might very well have won.

Being a difference maker means just that, for all sixty minutes of a game.

[keg in kc]

I can see that argument as more of a justification for "we sucked with him, so we can't suck that much more without him".

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I can think of three games off the top of my head that if Allen had shown up in the second half, we might very well have won.

Being a difference maker means just that, for all sixty minutes of a game.

We didn't have a 3rd DE, though. Wilkerson applied zero pressure, so he didn't get a lot of playing time.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

We didn't have a 3rd DE, though. Wilkerson applied zero pressure, so he didn't get a lot of playing time.

Who is the Colts 3rd DE again?

[Mama Hip Rockets]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I can think of three games off the top of my head that if Allen had shown up in the second half, we might very well have won.

Being a difference maker means just that, for all sixty minutes of a game.

i can think of several games that he single-handedly won in his time with the chiefs, too.

[BigChiefFan]

It's funny to see how many turn on their own, because a player wants to get paid. This happens every ****ing year with mutiple teams-I'm surprised so many are taking the FOs side, when the track record of Carl is highly documented. Sorry, but Carl's a prick and he has handled this as unprofessionally as possible.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by thurman merman

i can think of several games that he single-handedly won in his time with the chiefs, too.

First, I'd love to see which games you are considering that Allen won all by himself.

Second, I'm talking about 2007, because YOU'RE talking about 2007. 4 wins.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Who is the Colts 3rd DE again?

Yeah, that's fair.

But Allen is not the gaping liability against the run like Freeney is.

But yeah, I get you.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

It's funny to see how many turn on their own, because a player wants to get paid. This happens every ****ing year with mutiple teams-I'm surprised so many are taking the FOs side, when the track record of Carl is highly documented. Sorry, but Carl's a prick and he has handled this as unprofessionally as possible.

If he wanted to get paid, he should have learned from the first or second DWI, not the third.

And that's assuming he's learned his lesson at all.

If you're naive enough to think that him being (supposedly) clean for one whole year mean he'll never make that mistake again (after making it 3 times in the past) then by all means, continue to bash Carl.

Allen isn't worth Freeney money WITHOUT all the off the field issues.

[Deberg_1990]

Its a team game. There are not many positions on a football team where a single man can make huge difference in the outcome of a game.

QB is the biggest impact maker.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I can think of three games off the top of my head that if Allen had shown up in the second half, we might very well have won.

Being a difference maker means just that, for all sixty minutes of a game.

There is an argument to be made for his second half disappearances, and a pretty strong one. He never seems to make the late, game-changing plays that Thomas did, that guy had some kind of switch.

Nevertheless, the guy is a young franchise player at a position where you can play at your apex for a long, long time.

He is worth the risk.

[el borracho]

We will be lucky to win 3 games this year if we trade him.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

There is an argument to be made for his second half disappearances, and a pretty strong one. He never seems to make the late, game-changing plays that Thomas did, that guy had some kind of switch.

Nevertheless, the guy is a young franchise player at a position where you can play at your apex for a long, long time.

He is worth the risk.

He can only play for a long time if he keeps himself clean and sober.

He performed like a superstar for one season, which happened to be a contract year. Sorry, but history shows that player will never outperform that season.

Does anyone here REALLY think that Allen is going to CONSISTENTLY put up 14 sacks a year for the next 5 years?

I don't.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

If he wanted to get paid, he should have learned from the first or second DWI, not the third.

And that's assuming he's learned his lesson at all.

If you're naive enough to think that him being (supposedly) clean for one whole year mean he'll never make that mistake again (after making it 3 times in the past) then by all means, continue to bash Carl.

Allen isn't worth Freeney money WITHOUT all the off the field issues.

JA is a more COMPLETE player than Freeney and besides that, the money being talked about is LESS than Freeney's contract. So you can throw that argument out the window.


I also understand the DUI thing, I really do, but I'm also smart enough to know you can put stipulations in contracts-it happens all the time-so whose the one being naive?l