Chiefs Fargas will visit Chiefs - Page 11

**chiefforlife** · 03-07-2010, 06:25 PM

Fargas will visit the Chiefs
Posted by Mike Florio on March 7, 2010 7:17 PM ET
Running back Justin Fargas, who was cut by the Raiders for supposedly failing a physical but who claims he didn't, could be getting a chance to take another physical soon.

David White of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Fargas will be visiting the Chiefs.

"I was told by [Raiders coach Tom Cable] that they were moving in a different direction," Fargas told White. "They said it was strictly about money. . . . I know some things were put out there, I guess they said I didn't ass [unfortunate typo not narrowly averted] a physical. I'm a little disappointed by the way it happened but I understand it's a business."

He told White that he won't be retiring, and while he says he won't return to the Raiders his agent has been in touch with the 49ers.

And if Fargas is willing to move north, his former college coach could be interested, too.

As to the notion that it was "strictly about money," Fargas was due to earn a base salary of only $755,000 in 2010. That said, there's a chance that he had a roster bonus due.

Per NFLPA records, Fargas was under contract with the Raiders through 2014, with a base salary maxing out at $1.775 million in the final year.

Micjones · 03-07-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

Mic did you jerk off in your tears when Roaf retired?

I'm honestly not even sure what the **** this means, but to spare you the the awkward virtual silence...

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

At the end of the day, all we're saying is this team needs to get off it's ass and stop sitting on th esidelines in free agency.

We're not asking them to sign high priced big name players.

We're just asking them to sign some decent role players instead of the useless ****ing scrubs that they've been parading through here.

That's the thing, Milk.

The guys I've been advocating are younger guys that WOULD start on this team.

OJ Otogwe
Ryan Clark
Dwan Edwards
Kevin Walter
Chester Pitts (stopgap, but at least talented)

This fanbase is content with not only stopgaps, but stopgaps that are marginal players.

LeKevin Smith? Justin Fargas?

Get the **** out of here.

And FTR, I won't be upset if they sign Thomas Jones, I just think it's a ridiculous waste considering RB's are a dime-a-dozen, and we all know what happens to RB's after they hit 30.

This franchise should take a page from the Colts draft playbook. Draft a back. Use him up. Release him. Rinse, repeat.

Signing RB's in FA is a monumentally bad decision, IMO.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

If you spent half as much time researching and thinking through your jokes as you did these lame ass one liners you keep littering every thread with...you might be able to contribute to Chiefsplanet one day.

Chambers outplayed Walter JUST LAST YEAR.
Compare their ypc averages...then check back.

You are making comparisons based on one year LOL. You also have no sense in ecomonics either. I'm not going to buy a microwave that only works for 2 years when I can buy basically the same product that will last longer.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

Sure, you need stopgaps.

But not a roster full of them.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 03-07-2010, 08:46 PM

This comes down to who was available. Walters got over 4 million a year having never caught for more than 899 yards in a year. 8 TD's was the most he had in a year and that's double his 2nd highest total.

IMO, the only thing Walters has over Chambers is that he's 3 years younger. We know what Chambers can do in this offense. I also don't see why Chambers can't be a good option for 3-4 years. Wideouts can play into their mid 30's easy.

I'm not saying Walters wouldn't have been a good get, but Chambers is established here. There's no reason to think he'll do any worse than he did last year.

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.

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.

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

How much do you want to bet Chambers was targeted more than Bowe? For ****s sake some games Long got targeted more than Bowe. Did you even watch the games?

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-07-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

Speaking of which, any possibility Haley might actually, you know, develop Bowe this year instead of playing stupid games?

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-07-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

How much do you want to bet Chambers was targeted more than Bowe? For ****s sake some games Long got targeted more than Bowe. Did you even watch the games?

Bowe runs too far for Cassel.

Micjones · 03-07-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

You are making comparisons based on one year LOL.

Yes, genius...the most recent one.
And in that one... Chambers outplayed the younger WR.

Quote:

You also have no sense in ecomonics either. I'm not going to buy a microwave that only works for 2 years when I can buy basically the same product that will last longer.

Walter isn't going to be a 5 year solution.
I don't know why you suggested that.
I would much rather re-sign Chambers as a #2 who can stretch the field (something that he's better at than Walter) and DRAFT his replacement.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

This comes down to who was available. Walters got over 4 million a year having never caught for more than 899 yards in a year. 8 TD's was the most he had in a year and that's double his 2nd highest total.

IMO, the only thing Walters has over Chambers is that he's 3 years younger. We know what Chambers can do in this offense. I also don't see why Chambers can't be a good option for 3-4 years. Wideouts can play into their mid 30's easy.

I'm not saying Walters wouldn't have been a good get, but Chambers is established here. There's no reason to think he'll do any worse than he did last year.

C'mon, Flop.

How can you expect a guy that hasn't been consistent over the last 5 seasons to magically maintain that level of play here - as he's aging?

You know, if he had consistently put up 800+ yards over the past 5 years, I wouldn't have nearly the issue.

Problem is, he hasn't. He had an average year catching punts from Matt Cassel, people forget about his past, and now he's a legit WR2?

It doesn't work that way. Unless you're just going out of your way to be optimistic, I see no evidence to lead me to believe that Chambers will replicate his performance of 2009.

Demonpenz · 03-07-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

C'mon, Flop.

How can you expect a guy that hasn't been consistent over the last 5 seasons to magically maintain that level of play here - as he's aging?

You know, if he had consistently put up 800+ yards over the past 5 years, I wouldn't have nearly the issue.

Problem is, he hasn't. He had an average year catching punts from Matt Cassel, people forget about his past, and now he's a legit WR2?

It doesn't work that way. Unless you're just going out of your way to be optimistic, I see no evidence to lead me to believe that Chambers will replicate his performance of 2009.

cassel will have more time with Okong blocking for him

Titty Meat · 03-07-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Yes, genius...the most recent one.
And in that one... Chambers outplayed the younger WR.

Walter isn't going to be a 5 year solution.
I don't know why you suggested that.
I would much rather re-sign Chambers as a #2 who can stretch the field (something that he's better at than Walter) and DRAFT his replacement.

It's painfully obvious you don't watch the games.

What about the 2 years before where Walters outplayed Chambers?

Care to explain why Walter isn't a 5 year option other than it's made up and makes your argument look better?

03-07-2010, 06:25 PM
chiefforlife Colorado Chief Fan Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $5493147	Fargas will visit Chiefs Fargas will visit the Chiefs Posted by Mike Florio on March 7, 2010 7:17 PM ET Running back Justin Fargas, who was cut by the Raiders for supposedly failing a physical but who claims he didn't, could be getting a chance to take another physical soon. David White of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Fargas will be visiting the Chiefs. "I was told by [Raiders coach Tom Cable] that they were moving in a different direction," Fargas told White. "They said it was strictly about money. . . . I know some things were put out there, I guess they said I didn't ass [unfortunate typo not narrowly averted] a physical. I'm a little disappointed by the way it happened but I understand it's a business." He told White that he won't be retiring, and while he says he won't return to the Raiders his agent has been in touch with the 49ers. And if Fargas is willing to move north, his former college coach could be interested, too. As to the notion that it was "strictly about money," Fargas was due to earn a base salary of only $755,000 in 2010. That said, there's a chance that he had a roster bonus due. Per NFLPA records, Fargas was under contract with the Raiders through 2014, with a base salary maxing out at $1.775 million in the final year.
Posts: 5,717