Albert may not be done here !

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Branden Albert, Chiefs hoping to work out contract0By Chris Wesseling
Around the League Writer

Published: Feb. 22, 2014 at 12:08 p.m.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Despite rampant speculation to the contrary, the Kansas City Chiefs have not decided to let left tackle Branden Albert walk in free agency.

General manager John Dorsey told NFL Media's Steve Wyche on Friday that the Chiefs are still hoping to work out a deal for Albert before free agency begins in March.


Dorsey declined to say if the franchise tag would be an option should the sides fail to reach an accord. Because he was tagged last year, Albert would merit a 120 percent raise on his $9.828 million contract from 2013.

More proof that Albert remains in the team's plans? Dorsey told reporters at the NFL Scouting Combine on Friday that 2013 No. 1 overall draft pick Eric Fisher is still penciled in as a right tackle, not a left tackle.

Albert is one of this year's top 10 free agents. If he's kept off the market, tackle-needy teams such as the Arizona Cardinals will be disappointed.

As for quarterback Alex Smith, Dorsey confirmed to Wyche that an extension is on the agenda, but there is no rush to complete a deal.

Neither Albert nor Smith can be blamed for the Chiefs' late-season collapse. This offense scored 35 points in five of their last seven games, including four games with more than 40 points.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

When did I say Albert was irreplaceable, zilla? He's a valuable part of this team; he's not irreplaceable, but he's certainly not something to be celebrated when he leaves like Matt Cassel or Kendrick Lewis (hopefully). I said fans around here don't give him enough credit for the quality of player that he is. He was by far our best offensive lineman last season, yet whenever a conversation about Fisher/Albert is had on this forum, it usually devolves into, "Branden Albert just isn't that great of a LT because penalties/was a guard in college/injuries/etc." And that becomes an overreaction to biting the bullet and letting him walk to justify letting Fisher take over.

Ok, well there we're on the same page. I like Albert.

But I think you're wrong on what people are overreacting to. I think most people are okay with Albert leaving because of Stephenson, not Fisher.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And no, I don't have a problem with continually pumping draft picks into offensive linemen, if it means that a few years from now when Stephenson is up for a new contract, you aren't obligated to pay him $10M.

Last year's line was all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks that the team drafted. Two 1sts on the bookends, two 2nd at LG and C, and a 3rd at RG. Given the expectations a team needs to have when they invest that much draft stock in offensive linemen, those guys underperformed woefully. Albert's the only guy out there who has shown any kind of consistency from year to year. And now he's gone.

Yes, the line improved as the year went on. Is that now what they're going to play at? Can we actually count on Allen, Hudson, and Fisher to not suck balls? Is Stephenson actually ready? What happens when Hudson's contract is up next year?

And if any of those offensive linemen falter and don't meet those expectations, what are we going to do? Casually look for bargain free agents and low-round draft picks? No. We're going to keep spending valuable draft stock for that ****ing shit. That's what Reid does, and it's what the Chiefs do.

I'm getting pretty sick of it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

Last year's line was all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks that the team drafted. Two 1sts on the bookends, two 2nd at LG and C, and a 3rd at RG. Given the expectations a team needs to have when they invest that much draft stock in offensive linemen, those guys underperformed woefully. Albert's the only guy out there who has shown any kind of consistency from year to year. And now he's gone.

Yes, the line improved as the year went on. Is that now what they're going to play at? Can we actually count on Allen, Hudson, and Fisher to not suck balls? Is Stephenson actually ready? What happens when Hudson's contract is up next year?

And if any of those offensive linemen falter and don't meet those expectations, what are we going to do? Casually look for bargain free agents and low-round draft picks? No. We're going to keep spending valuable draft stock for that ****ing shit. That's what Reid does, and it's what the Chiefs do.

I'm getting pretty sick of it.

Something to worry about given Reid's history. I don't like using first rounders on offensive linemen. But I also hate overpaying linemen unless they are really, really good.

The way the Chiefs got Stephenson, Kush, and Watkins... that's the way to go. Keep doing a lot of that.

[OrtonsPiercedTaint]

Was the line successful with out Albert because his replacements were good enough. Or because the defense wasn't prepared for a mobile Alex. That had not shown up in KC prior.

I wonder if you(defense in this case) can over rely on film work and not adjust.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by milkman

So, let's review.

SNR is not wrong about Albert's value as a "solidly good" LT, IYO.
A "solidly good" LT is worth about 8 to 11 mil a year, IYO.

But Albert is not worth 8 to 11 mil a year, IYO.

Contradictory much?

Is this gonna be on the midterm or final? I hate proofs, and if so, do we have to show all our work?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

No, your point isn't clear. Mother****er Jones' is saying the same exact thing as me. And he's spot on.

And he's doing the same as you.

You can not say on the one hand that he's worth 10 mil and say, onv theother hand that you don't want to pay it.

If you don't want to pay what you say he's worth, then he's not actually worth whatvyou say he is.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Is this gonna be on the midterm or final? I hate proofs, and if so, do we have to show all our work?

I took a course in philosophical logic in college. The final exam was one question: "Prove that the earth is flat."

I can't remember the process I used or the symbols I used to interpret statements in the proof, but I got an A.

[Mother****erJones]

Originally Posted by milkman

And he's doing the same as you.

You can not say on the one hand that he's worth 10 mil and say, onv theother hand that you don't want to pay it.

If you don't want to pay what you say he's worth, then he's not actually worth whatvyou say he is.

When I say I don't want to pay it, I mean I'd rather spend that on playmakers. That's MY point. Not that I wouldn't necessarily pay it.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by SNR

I took a course in philosophical logic in college. The final exam was one question: "Prove that the earth is flat."

I can't remember the process I used or the symbols I used to interpret statements in the proof, but I got an A.

I would have drawn a crude treasure map, and labeled the edges of the earth or by shading designation. Mentioned this was a true to life, 3D map to portray actual topography.

Signed it By God, and turned it in. 5 minutes. Easy Peasy.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

I would have drawn a crude treasure map, and labeled the edges of the earth or by shading designation. Mentioned this was a true to life, 3D map to portray actual topography.

Signed it By God, and turned it in. 5 minutes. Easy Peasy.

We had to use written arguments coded in logical symbols. For the most part we only learned how to use syllogistic logic in one semester, so the exam was graded on validity, not necessarily being a valuable or a good argument. So for example, you could say "All German Shepherds are dogs. All dogs bark. Therefore, all German Shepherds bark." The proof would be:

G -> D (which means "If G, then D")
D -> B
G
______
G -> B

That's a hugely simplistic example, and there are far more rules and logical syllogistic functions you can use, but yeah. That's basically what you're doing. Reasoning out why the world is flat in words, then showing validity by converting all the statements to symbols and then hashing it out in a proof.

[FringeNC]

Maybe Reid and Dorsey think Albert is just absolutely vital. I don't know. But if you look around the league at teams that are consistently in the playoffs, they don't sign many of their free agents. Signing Albert will eat a lot of cap space and lose us a 3rd round draft pick. Seems to me re-signing Albert means they have no faith in Fisher have the ability to start at either side in this league.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Maybe Reid and Dorsey think Albert is just absolutely vital. I don't know. But if you look around the league at teams that are consistently in the playoffs, they don't sign many of their free agents. Signing Albert will eat a lot of cap space and lose us a 3rd round draft pick. Seems to me re-signing Albert means they have no faith in Fisher have the ability to start at either side in this league.

He's probably ok on the right. Maybe they just want to leave him there.

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by SNR

We had to use written arguments coded in logical symbols. For the most part we only learned how to use syllogistic logic in one semester, so the exam was graded on validity, not necessarily being a valuable or a good argument. So for example, you could say "All German Shepherds are dogs. All dogs bark. Therefore, all German Shepherds bark." The proof would be:

G -> D (which means "If G, then D")
D -> B
G
______
G -> B

That's a hugely simplistic example, and there are far more rules and logical syllogistic functions you can use, but yeah. That's basically what you're doing. Reasoning out why the world is flat in words, then showing validity by converting all the statements to symbols and then hashing it out in a proof.

Formal logic was one of my favorite classes in college

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Formal logic was one of my favorite classes in college

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by SNR

We had to use written arguments coded in logical symbols. For the most part we only learned how to use syllogistic logic in one semester, so the exam was graded on validity, not necessarily being a valuable or a good argument. So for example, you could say "All German Shepherds are dogs. All dogs bark. Therefore, all German Shepherds bark." The proof would be:

G -> D (which means "If G, then D")
D -> B
G
______
G -> B

That's a hugely simplistic example, and there are far more rules and logical syllogistic functions you can use, but yeah. That's basically what you're doing. Reasoning out why the world is flat in words, then showing validity by converting all the statements to symbols and then hashing it out in a proof.

Ya, I know I was just being too cool for school.