Tait and Richardson [Archive]

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-11-2006, 08:18 AM

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

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.

jspchief

09-11-2006, 08:20 AM

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.Hutchinson is one of the best guards in the game, and the Vikings had tons of room under the cap from years of Red McCombs not spending. It's not comparable.

Tait was not worth that salary. Period.

donkhater

09-11-2006, 08:21 AM

If you aren't going to stock your team with All-Pro skill players, you'd better damn well spend money on the O-line.

oldandslow

09-11-2006, 08:24 AM

Hutchinson is one of the best guards in the game, and the Vikings had tons of room under the cap from years of Red McCombs not spending. It's not comparable.

Tait was not worth that salary. Period.

The Chiefs have also not spent up to the cap. Certainly it's comparable.

The Bears thought he was worth the salary and you tell me which team is more apt to be in the SB over the next 2 or 3 years.

The lines are where great teams are made.

HemiEd

09-11-2006, 08:32 AM

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

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

Thanks for the answer, that makes sense. Of course the Bears offered him rediculous money.

FloridaMan88

09-11-2006, 08:32 AM

The problem isn't necessarily letting Tait leave... after all at the time he was a decent right tackle who struggled playing the left tackle position and he was asking for too much $$$ relative to his value.

The problem is the Chiefs lack of emphasis on the offensive line over the past 5 years or so. I go back to the fact the Chiefs haven't drafted an offensive linemen in the first 3 rounds of the draft since drafting Tait in the first round back in 1999.

jspchief

09-11-2006, 08:37 AM

The problem is the Chiefs lack of emphasis on the offensive line over the past 5 years or so. I go back to the fact the Chiefs haven't drafted an offensive linemen in the first 3 rounds of the draft since drafting Tait in the first round back in 1999.Yea, the need for defensive talent and alreay having an all pro O-line probably plays a part in that. Other than Kris wilson, I challenge you to find a draft pick in the first 3 rounds that was used on a position that wasn't a need.

PastorMikH

09-11-2006, 08:37 AM

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.

I know it was probably asking too much from a young FB, but I was yelling "Throw the Ball" to him. Not losing the 10-15 yards on that play could have made a difference in Tynes and the FG attempt.

Which, BTW, on Tynes kick, was I the only one just hoping he didn't slip on the wet turf and getting injured as well while he was getting ready to kick?

oldandslow

09-11-2006, 08:40 AM

Yea, the need for defensive talent and alreay having an all pro O-line probably plays a part in that. Other than Kris wilson, I challenge you to find a draft pick in the first 3 rounds that was used on a position that wasn't a need.

js...

I am in a bad mood today and seem to be arguing with a guy I tend to agree with, but....

Eddie Freeman and Junior Savai could have been OL...not to mention the "secret weapon."

jspchief

09-11-2006, 08:45 AM

js...

I am in a bad mood today and seem to be arguing with a guy I tend to agree with, but....

Eddie Freeman and Junior Savai could have been OL...not to mention the "secret weapon."That's using hindsight to judge those picks. It's an entirely different argument. It's a difference betweening evaluating talent and evaluating team needs.

Both of those picks addressed positions of need. You can't use hindsight and say we should have taken an O-lineman instead of Siavii, you have say we should have taken an O-lineman instead of a DT. And at the time the pick was made, DT was clearly a much bigger need than O-line. It probably still is.

gblowfish

09-11-2006, 09:06 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.
You'd have to go back and look at the salary cap numbers when Tait was a free agent, but if memory serves, the Bears ended up paying Tait more than the Chiefs paid to re-sign Priest Holmes. At the time it was a choice between the two players, not hard to fault them for that.

In the Chiefs "Al Saunders" offense, T-Rich was only on the field about one in every three or four plays, and he was demanding big bucks. Granted, he's an all-pro lead blocker, but again, you have salary cap issues with keeping other players. Plus T-Rich's age is an issue. The Chiefs have had a pretty good track record coming up with quality fullbacks. T-Rich was a cast off from the Cowboys, Kimball Anders before him was a walk on. Give Ronnie Cruz a chance, he could be a decent player.