Chiefs Very telling quote from Pioli on Charles' future with the Chiefs - Page 3

Quesadilla Joe · 10-30-2010, 03:14 AM

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."

Hog's Gone Fishin · 10-30-2010, 08:41 AM

Rushing yards per game:

Chiefs 176

Donkeys 68

**BigRedChief** · 10-30-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runnercyclist

As much as I like Charles, I agree with this philosophy.

How many times has giving a RB a 2nd big money contract worked out for a team? It's rare.

Too big a gamble. I like charles also but historically its a bad move to give a RB their 2nd contract in the NFL.

NaptownChief · 10-30-2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

How many times has giving a RB a 2nd big money contract worked out for a team? It's rare.

Too big a gamble. I like charles also but historically its a bad move to give a RB their 2nd contract in the NFL.

Agreed....The top athletes in high school and college usually want to play RB. So their is an abundance of talent at RB. There are back up RB's at Texas, Florida, USC and the such that are talented enough to be productive NFL starting backs on a good team with a solid Oline. And then throw in the fact that RB's take far more hits than anyone else on the field so their shelf life is very short. Wise to spend that money on the Oline that can play much longer and have the ability to make a lot of RB's look very good.

FAX · 10-30-2010, 09:41 AM

Although it's true that running backs have a limited shelf life, I think Charles will be here for awhile. They've used him smartly (my only criticism being that it's difficult to get in the game's "flow" when you're part of a committee) and he seems happy to be a part of this deal.

It's been said a lot (and I've said it too many times), but here we go again ... one of the differences between this regime and past FO knuckleheads is a legitimate commitment to develop our own guys. You don't develop your own guys to the point they are solid, dependable, consistent contributors, then let them walk over the same (or slightly higher) money it would require to replace them.

Much depends on the draft, however. As we've seen, a good draft can change a lot of things in a hurry if you're willing to put the young guys on the field ... and Haley seems to be willing.

FAX

**loochy** · 10-30-2010, 09:54 AM

Very telling quote from McDaniels on Tebows' future with the Broncos:

"Well when you make a dumbass draft pick like Tebow, you have to keep him a few years. If you are lucky, he might show some sign of not completely sucking and I won't look like as much of an ass. Also, we suck."

Just Passin' By · 10-30-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

Rod woodson on NFL Network was asked the question which coach is most on the hot seat between Singletary(49ers) and McDaniels(Donkeys). He chuckled and said , "I've never seen a coach completely dismantle a team in a two year period like Josh McDaniels. He got rid of Cutler for some reason. He cut his best receiver cause of attitude, he cut one of the best TE's in the league because of attitude. He fired a DC that took a Defense from dead last to top ten just because of a conflict in personality. It's just amazing how one Head Coach can thoroughly destroy a team that had developed chemistry in such a short time. His days are numbered"

Cutler helps opponents more than he helps his own team and he whined his way out of town, Scheffler can't/won't block, and Marshall had to go. The defense has had its best players on the shelf for a fair portion of the season.

Woodson should have tried for some actual analysis.

dj56dt58 · 10-30-2010, 10:01 AM

One little problem....

His offensive line SUCKED last year and LJ did jack shit behind it. When you can take it to the house on any given play, it's not just your offensive line. I agree that averaging 5 or 6 yards per carry can be due to the line but few have the ability to break one to the end zone like Charles can.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 10-30-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Cutler helps opponents more than he helps his own team and he whined his way out of town, Scheffler can't/won't block, and Marshall had to go. The defense has had its best players on the shelf for a fair portion of the season.

Woodson should have tried for some actual analysis.

OK. KnowMo.

**BigRedChief** · 10-30-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

Although it's true that running backs have a limited shelf life, I think Charles will be here for awhile. They've used him smartly (my only criticism being that it's difficult to get in the game's "flow" when you're part of a committee) and he seems happy to be a part of this deal.

It's been said a lot (and I've said it too many times), but here we go again ... one of the differences between this regime and past FO knuckleheads is a legitimate commitment to develop our own guys. You don't develop your own guys to the point they are solid, dependable, consistent contributors, then let them walk over the same (or slightly higher) money it would require to replace them.

Much depends on the draft, however. As we've seen, a good draft can change a lot of things in a hurry if you're willing to put the young guys on the field ... and Haley seems to be willing.

FAX

I can't disagree with any of this but reality is what it is. You have limited funds and late 20's-early 30's NFL RB's are either making killer money or they need to be replaced.

Just Passin' By · 10-30-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

OK. KnowMo.

Hey, I've got no problem with taking people to task. I've just got a problem with doing it stupidly, which is what Woodson did.

FAX · 10-30-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I can't disagree with any of this but reality is what it is. You have limited funds and late 20's-early 30's NFL RB's are either making killer money or they need to be replaced.

Well, it's true that it always comes down to money and what the market will bear, Mr. BigRedChief. That's true. Every time an NFL player takes the field, he's auditioning.

But, the larger portion of my pea brain is leaning toward thinking that, when you are fully committed to the whole "developing your own guys" concept, you're not only trying to get guys to do what they're told and do it at a high level, you're also trying to get them to "buy in" to your program and your system.

This means that, when you add opportunity cost to the equation and consider the amount of time it takes to replace an existing player with a new guy and assimilate him into the organization, you can't help but want to keep the guys you have and avoid losing them to FA ... ideally, that is.

FAX

Mr. Laz · 10-30-2010, 10:12 AM

they wouldn't be rotating guys in and out if they weren't trying to keep them around.

Charles didn't have many carries until last year and i imagine they want to keep him around for awhile. When they start burning him in the ground with tons of carries then we will know they don't plan on keeping him.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-30-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

After LJ, I'm not sure that anyone is going to cry if we don't sign an RB to a huge contract.

Damned fine point.

**Bowser** · 10-30-2010, 10:36 AM

Flopnuts beat me toit, but it's worth repeating - If the Chiefs didn't learn anything from the whole break the bank for LJ fiasco, they don't deserve to ever win shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

I guess McDaniels has that same philisophy at every position.

Close this thread.

B_Ambuehl · 10-30-2010, 11:07 AM

3 things:

1. Pioli didn't draft Charles - carl did.

2. McCluster is the exact same type of tailback with a nearly identical skillset.

3. Your owner is at the bottom in spending and has been for several years.

Put those things together and it's quite obvious.

10-30-2010, 03:14 AM
Quesadilla Joe Abolish The Salary Cap! Join Date: Mar 2008 Casino cash: $3408675	Very telling quote from Pioli on Charles' future with the Chiefs 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."
Posts: 19,907

10-30-2010, 08:41 AM	#31
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1539523	Rushing yards per game: Chiefs 176 Donkeys 68
Posts: 40,649

10-30-2010, 09:41 AM	#34
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	Although it's true that running backs have a limited shelf life, I think Charles will be here for awhile. They've used him smartly (my only criticism being that it's difficult to get in the game's "flow" when you're part of a committee) and he seems happy to be a part of this deal. It's been said a lot (and I've said it too many times), but here we go again ... one of the differences between this regime and past FO knuckleheads is a legitimate commitment to develop our own guys. You don't develop your own guys to the point they are solid, dependable, consistent contributors, then let them walk over the same (or slightly higher) money it would require to replace them. Much depends on the draft, however. As we've seen, a good draft can change a lot of things in a hurry if you're willing to put the young guys on the field ... and Haley seems to be willing. FAX
Posts: 44,492

10-30-2010, 09:54 AM	#35
loochy Hey Loochy, I'm hooome! Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: PooPooKaKaPeePeeShire Casino cash: $-1759603	Very telling quote from McDaniels on Tebows' future with the Broncos Very telling quote from McDaniels on Tebows' future with the Broncos: "Well when you make a dumbass draft pick like Tebow, you have to keep him a few years. If you are lucky, he might show some sign of not completely sucking and I won't look like as much of an ass. Also, we suck." __________________ Hey Loochy, I'm hoooome!
Posts: 42,182

10-30-2010, 10:01 AM	#37
dj56dt58 Banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9960055	One little problem.... His offensive line SUCKED last year and LJ did jack shit behind it. When you can take it to the house on any given play, it's not just your offensive line. I agree that averaging 5 or 6 yards per carry can be due to the line but few have the ability to break one to the end zone like Charles can.
Posts: 6,361

10-30-2010, 10:12 AM	#42
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	they wouldn't be rotating guys in and out if they weren't trying to keep them around. Charles didn't have many carries until last year and i imagine they want to keep him around for awhile. When they start burning him in the ground with tons of carries then we will know they don't plan on keeping him. __________________
Posts: 95,626

10-30-2010, 11:07 AM	#45
B_Ambuehl Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $9705405	3 things: 1. Pioli didn't draft Charles - carl did. 2. McCluster is the exact same type of tailback with a nearly identical skillset. 3. Your owner is at the bottom in spending and has been for several years. Put those things together and it's quite obvious. __________________ Who's decision was it to fire Romeo" - Coleman C Hunt: "It was my decision but it was one that Scott agreed with" LOL
Posts: 2,613