Tait and Richardson

oldandslow · 09-11-2006, 07:25 AM

We keep mourning the loss of Roaf and Welborne, but the Chiefs' front office brought some of this on themselves.

I was one of the few who argued that losing Tait was a mistake and I felt the same way about Tony R.

Those two players alone cut the sack numbers in half yesterday.

The defense we faced yesterday was not Pitt, or Chicago, or Baltimore. It was the friggin Bengals.

You can't let players like this walk away.

jspchief · 09-11-2006, 07:27 AM

Tait's price was just too much. Period. Anyone that thinks we should have paid that kind of money for a RT is on drugs.

Agree on Richardson though. It was stupid to not keep him for as cheap as he was.

PastorMikH · 09-11-2006, 07:29 AM

I have no idea what went through Carl's mind on Tony. ALl he had to do was match the offer (which wasn't all that much) and Tony would have been here blocking for Trent and LJ again. We let one of the best FBs in the NFL go because Carl was too cheap to sign him for less than what he was really worth.

**petegz28** · 09-11-2006, 07:31 AM

Tait wanted LT moey to play RT

Richardson wanted to be where he would play more. It had nothing to do with money

rageeumr · 09-11-2006, 07:33 AM

I thought Cruz made som nice blocks yesterday. I would have to say the play of Cruz had very little to do with yesterday's drubbing.

jidar · 09-11-2006, 07:37 AM

Last I checked Richardson didn't play on the O-line. I don't think he would have made that much of a difference.

Brock · 09-11-2006, 07:38 AM

They shouldn't have kept Tait, but they should have addressed Roaf's imminent departure in the draft. Not that I think it would have made a lot of difference at this point.

ILChief · 09-11-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

They shouldn't have kept Tait, but they should have addressed Roaf's imminent departure in the draft. Not that I think it would have made a lot of difference at this point.

I beg to differ on Tait. He'd be earning his left tackle $$ for us and it would allow Turley to play RT and I-65 to take I-70 out of town.

jspchief · 09-11-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILChief

I beg to differ on Tait. He'd be earning his left tackle $$ for us and it would allow Turley to play RT and I-65 to take I-70 out of town.

That ignores that he's a crappy LT.

**Mr. Kotter** · 09-11-2006, 07:57 AM

I agree completely. Letting Tait go was a mistake--but he did command too much money; letting Richardson go was simply beyond stupidity.

trndobrd · 09-11-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rageeumr

I thought Cruz made som nice blocks yesterday. I would have to say the play of Cruz had very little to do with yesterday's drubbing.

Agreed. I saw nothing from Cruz yesterday that would have changed the course of the game, except picking up Huard's fumble and preventing another turnover.

oldandslow · 09-11-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

Tait's price was just too much. Period. Anyone that thinks we should have paid that kind of money for a RT is on drugs.

Agree on Richardson though. It was stupid to not keep him for as cheap as he was.

I just don't agree. Look at what the Vikings paid for a GUARD (Hutchison).

Tait is now working for one of the best lines in the NFC. You put him in Jordan Black's spot and much of yesterday's problem is solved.

We can pay TG and LJ a bazillion dollars, but if you got no OL, it really doesn't matter.

Cruz should not be in the same sentence as TR.

**HemiEd** · 09-11-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

Tait's price was just too much. Period. Anyone that thinks we should have paid that kind of money for a RT is on drugs.

Agree on Richardson though. It was stupid to not keep him for as cheap as he was.

I can not understand why we put the transition tag on big John Tait instead of the franchise tag. Can someone enlighten me?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-11-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I can not understand why we put the transition tag on big John Tait instead of the franchise tag. Can someone enlighten me?

Do you want to pay him top 5 money? He would be lumped in with tackles, not right tackles, otherwise teams would use this designation all the time to screw over the system.

John Tait is not Walter Jones

**Mr. Kotter** · 09-11-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I can not understand why we put the transition tag on big John Tait instead of the franchise tag. Can someone enlighten me?

Franchise tag would've obligated us to paying him an average of the the top salaries at his position. FO didn't think he was worth that (think Roaf, Jones, or Ogden type salary.) Although I do think he's good, I can see why some would balk at that.....

Transition tag gave Chiefs the chance to match any offer, which they declined.

09-11-2006, 07:25 AM
oldandslow Veteran Join Date: Apr 2004 Casino cash: $5533149	Tait and Richardson We keep mourning the loss of Roaf and Welborne, but the Chiefs' front office brought some of this on themselves. I was one of the few who argued that losing Tait was a mistake and I felt the same way about Tony R. Those two players alone cut the sack numbers in half yesterday. The defense we faced yesterday was not Pitt, or Chicago, or Baltimore. It was the friggin Bengals. You can't let players like this walk away.
Posts: 4,562

09-11-2006, 07:27 AM	#2
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	Tait's price was just too much. Period. Anyone that thinks we should have paid that kind of money for a RT is on drugs. Agree on Richardson though. It was stupid to not keep him for as cheap as he was. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

09-11-2006, 07:29 AM	#3
PastorMikH Will KC ever be better? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Land of Red Dirt & Necks Casino cash: $9945087	I have no idea what went through Carl's mind on Tony. ALl he had to do was match the offer (which wasn't all that much) and Tony would have been here blocking for Trent and LJ again. We let one of the best FBs in the NFL go because Carl was too cheap to sign him for less than what he was really worth. __________________
Posts: 20,454

09-11-2006, 07:31 AM	#4
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $2804127	Tait wanted LT moey to play RT Richardson wanted to be where he would play more. It had nothing to do with money
Posts: 128,000

09-11-2006, 07:33 AM	#5
rageeumr Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: St. Louis :( Casino cash: $9989900	I thought Cruz made som nice blocks yesterday. I would have to say the play of Cruz had very little to do with yesterday's drubbing.
Posts: 2,313

09-11-2006, 07:37 AM	#6
jidar MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: a Casino cash: $10004900	Last I checked Richardson didn't play on the O-line. I don't think he would have made that much of a difference.
Posts: 5,502

09-11-2006, 07:38 AM	#7
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	They shouldn't have kept Tait, but they should have addressed Roaf's imminent departure in the draft. Not that I think it would have made a lot of difference at this point.
Posts: 47,314

09-11-2006, 07:57 AM	#10
Mr. Kotter The Dude Abides Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Dakota Country Casino cash: $5885285	I agree completely. Letting Tait go was a mistake--but he did command too much money; letting Richardson go was simply beyond stupidity. __________________ "I've always said I worry about legacy and winning rings more than making money at this moment...We see what's going on around the league, but at the same time, I'll never do anything that's going to hurt us from keeping the great players around me.”
Posts: 46,350