Chiefs Fargas will visit Chiefs

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

He's 32 years old.

I doubt anybody's looking at this as anything more than a 2-year stopgap.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I doubt anybody's looking at this as anything more than a 2-year stopgap.

When we could sign a guy for the same price who will produce for another 5 years?

Micjones · 03-07-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

When we could sign a guy for the same price who will produce for another 5 years?

We're sure that Kevin Walter is going to produce until he's 34?
Come on...

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

We're sure that Kevin Walter is going to produce until he's 34?
Come on...

That's funny considering you're pimping a player that has had one productive season in his last five, yet seems to think he'll be fine for the next two years.

Micjones · 03-07-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

That's funny considering you're pimping a player that has had one productive season in his last five, yet seems to think he'll be fine for the next two years.

He outplayed the younger WR...just last year.
Not sure why you keep glossing over that fact.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

He outplayed the younger WR...just last year.
Not sure why you keep glossing over that fact.

You keep overlooking the fact that Chambers was the #1 option Walters wasn't.

And Walters outplayed Chambers the 2 years before.

Micjones · 03-07-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

You keep overlooking the fact that Chambers was the #1 option Walters wasn't.

And Walters outplayed Chambers the 2 years before.

He was the #1 option for 4 games while Bowe was out.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

When we could sign a guy for the same price who will produce for another 5 years?

Neither of these guys are long-term options. Both Chambers and Walters are effective, but not stud receivers. Chambers at 35 and Walters at 33 aren't exactly the guys I want on this receiver corps when we're hopefully making a playoff push several years from now.

This isn't a signing I'm crushed about. Both of them are stopgaps. Nobody should look at either of these guys as being even close to a 5-year solution.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Neither of these guys are long-term options. Both Chambers and Walters are effective, but not stud receivers. Chambers at 35 and Walters at 33 aren't exactly the guys I want on this receiver corps when we're hopefully making a playoff push several years from now.

This isn't a signing I'm crushed about. Both of them are stopgaps. Nobody should look at either of these guys as being even close to a 5-year solution.

Walters isn't a long term option? You're a ****ing dumbass. Please go to Jonestown and see if theres anymore Kool Aid left to drink.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

Walters isn't a long term option? You're a ****ing dumbass. Please go to Jonestown and see if theres anymore Kool Aid left to drink.

Give me a ****ing break.

Walter is a good receiver and he would have been a nice add. I would have rather have had him than Chambers.

But let's not treat him like he's some kind of a messiah. He's a guy who can give us a few good years until you find someone younger to replace him. Not a whole lot different than Chambers, except that you have a little more time.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Give me a ****ing break.

Walter is a good receiver and he would have been a nice add. I would have rather have had him than Chambers.

But let's not treat him like he's some kind of a messiah. He's a guy who can give us a few good years until you find someone younger to replace him. Not a whole lot different than Chambers, except that you have a little more time.

You keep saying theres not alot of difference besides one being 32 the other being 28. Thats a huge ****ing difference in the NFL.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Give me a ****ing break.

Walter is a good receiver and he would have been a nice add. I would have rather have had him than Chambers.

But let's not treat him like he's some kind of a messiah. He's a guy who can give us a few good years until you find someone younger to replace him. Not a whole lot different than Chambers, except that you have a little more time.

I don't think neither myself nor billay are painting Walter as the messiah.

He produces consistently, and buys you more time.

Chambers has produced once in five years, and you might get another year or two out of him.

I guess he really wowed people pulling in those punts from Cassel.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I don't think neither myself nor billay are painting Walter as the messiah.

He produces consistently, and buys you more time.

Chambers has produced once in five years, and you might get another year or two out of him.

I guess he really wowed people pulling in those punts from Cassel.

Well, I think it does speak volumes that he was finding ways to come down with the ball on very poorly thrown balls. Pretty consistently last year.

All you really need is 1-2 years. Keep in mind that next season, the free agent market is going to be a whole lot better. And you have 2-3 years of drafts to try to find Chambers' successor. I'd rather go after a cream of the crop receiver in the 2011 offseason than to just settle for a long-term option in 2010 because he was the best we could get.

Walter, like Chambers, is a stopgap at best. The only main advantage is that he buys you maybe an extra year or 2 to find his eventual replacement.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I doubt anybody's looking at this as anything more than a 2-year stopgap.

That's the ****ing problem, Zilla.

People are content with stopgaps, instead of going out an actually, you know, improving the team.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-07-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

That's the ****ing problem, Zilla.

People are content with stopgaps, instead of going out an actually, you know, improving the team.

When you're rebuilding, you have to have stopgaps. I don't see any kind of problem here. If you see a WR you really like in the draft, you take him and you let him learn either behind Chambers or in the slot. The last thing you want is to walk into the draft with a bunch of urgent needs you need to fill right away.

I'd rather a 2-year stopgap than give a 5-year deal to an average second-contract guy who'd just be stealing playing time from someone better. From that standpoint, Chambers is a better option than Walter, because at least Chambers and the Chiefs probably both know that he'll be there for 2-3 years max.