Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
I agree, as well they should.
But here we have to weight risk/reward. With LJ we had a broke-dick, unproductive back. With Charles, we've had production second only to Chris ****ing Johnson.
The difference couldn't be more stark. Yet Charles was not only NOT used frequently, but he was also inactive.
When these kinds of decisions are made, in addition to the most woeful game management that I've ever seen from a Chiefs HC, there should be serious talk about whether or not the HC should be retained.
|
I don't buy your assertions about game management but, as I've said, you've got a valid point of contention with regards to Charles. They should have gotten rid of Johnson when they won the grievance.