Very telling quote from Pioli on Charles' future with the Chiefs

[Quesadilla Joe]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...95/3/index.htm


Each season from 2003 to '06, a different back led the Broncos in rushing, and each gained at least 1,000 yards. That established the economic blueprint for managing the position: A team can succeed, sometimes even win the Super Bowl, without a great running back, provided there is ample talent at quarterback and offensive line. Hence management will economize at the position, moving out highly paid, established backs in favor of cheaper up-and-comers or journeymen.

"I am of that mind-set," says Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli, who came over from Bill Belichick's Patriots regime in 2009. "That special guy [Payton, Smith, Dickerson] has always been rare. Generally speaking, you need a good season out of the position. In New England, Antowain Smith was not a great back, but he had a great season [rushing for 1,157 yards in 2001, a Super Bowl--winning year]. Corey Dillon was not a great back, but he had a great season [1,635 yards in 2004, another Super Bowl year]."

It is also a guessing game. Every running back comes stamped with an unknown expiration date. "You don't know how many times they've been hit in high school, hit in college," says Pioli. "Or how well they've taken care of themselves."

Shanahan, who orchestrated the revolving door of rushers at Denver in the early 2000s, says, "There are places on the field where you need a great player. I don't think running back is one of them. I look for overachievers."

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BCD

The players will vote to decertify the Union. That means they will play under the current CBA. It could be several yrs before a new CBA is in place. So, if this yr is uncapped, why would next yr be capped if there is no new CBA?

The owners are not going to allow this scenerio to unfold. There wil be a cap or no football.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The owners are not going to allow this scenerio to unfold. There wil be a cap or no football.

That's not what I'm hearing.

Most of the players in the NFL have voted to decertify, which is what happened in 1988. Once that happens, IF the owners choose to lockout the players, each NFL player can sue the NFL and its owners for as much as they'd like. The NFL would be tied up for years in court and would lose billions and billions of dollars.

The most likely scenario is that there is no CBA, the players decertify and continue to play under the 2010 rules.

[KCBOSS1]

If that happens, it will be devastating for football. Both sides need to see this. There is a significant percentage of fans that never returned to watch baseball after the last strike. Present company included.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I have to agree with Dane - it's hard to even discuss this given that we don't know what the situation will be when it becomes an issue.

Here's what we do know:

1. If there is no salary cap, there is no excuse for not signing Charles.
2. If there is a salary cap, we will be nowhere near it.

Just not seeing any scenario, short the Chiefs adding a bunch of high-priced free agents, that we would not have room for an extremely talented, game-changing RB. People like to sit back and stroke their beards and act all wise saying things like, "well, running backs are not as valuable as shutdown corners", etc. It's like we're talking about some crappy small-market baseball team with no ambition of actually winning anything, so we gotta pick and choose. We don't.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

If that happens, it will be devastating for football. Both sides need to see this. There is a significant percentage of fans that never returned to watch baseball after the last strike. Present company included.

It's NOT going to happen. The NFL would be opening itself up to lose billions and billions of dollars and the owners won't let that happen.

As I stated earlier, the NFL played without a CBA from 1988-1993 and the league was fine. With so many issues on the table, it could be years before they have a new CBA in place.

[Param]

Originally Posted by KnowMo2724

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...95/3/index.htm


Each season from 2003 to '06, a different back led the Broncos in rushing, and each gained at least 1,000 yards. That established the economic blueprint for managing the position: A team can succeed, sometimes even win the Super Bowl, without a great running back, provided there is ample talent at quarterback and offensive line. Hence management will economize at the position, moving out highly paid, established backs in favor of cheaper up-and-comers or journeymen.

"I am of that mind-set," says Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli, who came over from Bill Belichick's Patriots regime in 2009. "That special guy [Payton, Smith, Dickerson] has always been rare. Generally speaking, you need a good season out of the position. In New England, Antowain Smith was not a great back, but he had a great season [rushing for 1,157 yards in 2001, a Super Bowl--winning year]. Corey Dillon was not a great back, but he had a great season [1,635 yards in 2004, another Super Bowl year]."

It is also a guessing game. Every running back comes stamped with an unknown expiration date. "You don't know how many times they've been hit in high school, hit in college," says Pioli. "Or how well they've taken care of themselves."

Shanahan, who orchestrated the revolving door of rushers at Denver in the early 2000s, says, "There are places on the field where you need a great player. I don't think running back is one of them. I look for overachievers."

I'm not sure what is wrong this? What is even more telling is why would Denver take a running back #12 overall who doesn't exhibit elite talent.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's not what I'm hearing.

Most of the players in the NFL have voted to decertify, which is what happened in 1988. Once that happens, IF the owners choose to lockout the players, each NFL player can sue the NFL and its owners for as much as they'd like. The NFL would be tied up for years in court and would lose billions and billions of dollars.

The most likely scenario is that there is no CBA, the players decertify and continue to play under the 2010 rules.

I hope you are right, but I do not think so. Anyone can sue anyone at any time, but that does not mean the lawsuit has merit or will be successful. The owners may be willing to have no football and some lawsuits to get their way. I hope something happens soon to change this because I fear the worst, just at a time when The Chiefs are building something too.. 8-(

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I hope you are right, but I do not think so. Anyone can sue anyone at any time, but that does not mean the lawsuit has merit or will be successful. The owners may be willing to have no football and some lawsuits to get their way. I hope something happens soon to change this because I fear the worst, just at a time when The Chiefs are building something too.. 8-(

If the owners didnt stop it 20 yrs ago, they wont stop it now.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I hope you are right, but I do not think so. Anyone can sue anyone at any time, but that does not mean the lawsuit has merit or will be successful. The owners may be willing to have no football and some lawsuits to get their way. I hope something happens soon to change this because I fear the worst, just at a time when The Chiefs are building something too.. 8-(

Dude, the NFL currently has Anti-Trust status. They cannot be sued by the NFLPA.

But, once the NFLPA decertifies, the NFL loses its Anti-Trust exemption and can be sued. The NFL will lose that battle to the players if they attempt to lock them out with no union in place.

And any suit would absolutely have merit.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by KnowMo2724

Uhh dude you are wrong. A player is available for RFA after three seasons seasons in the league.

tell that to DJ who is in his 6th year.

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

If that happens, it will be devastating for football. Both sides need to see this. There is a significant percentage of fans that never returned to watch baseball after the last strike. Present company included.

me too

I still haven't watched a whole baseball game or spent a dime on even so much as a hat. I used to LOVE the Dodgers and I LOVED Griffey almost as much as them.

They totally ****ed baseball.

The system in football needed a little tweaking, but it is working very well. The quality across the board of teams is as good as its ever been in history and any team can turn it all around in a couple years if they manage their resources correctly.

[KCrockaholic]

I mean seriously, if the NFL did have a lock-out, who would stop watching football?

I won't leave this sport if it tried to poke out my eyes and kick me to the curb. I ****ing love football itself. Nothing will change that for me.

[BossChief]

I likely wouldn't quit watching football like I do now, but I would immediately stop paying money for products and financially supporting the sport. I would probably miss some games because I wouldn't pay for NFL Sunday ticket anymore and I'm not really a bar person.