PDA

View Full Version : Le'Ron Mcclain to the Chargeless



jap1
03-14-2012, 08:53 PM
Apparently ESPN is reporting that Le'Ron Mcclain is signing with the Chargers.

Peyton Hillis is a Chief - AFC West Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/41256/peyton-hillis-is-a-chief)

Apparently Mike Tolbert is still coming here and we are still interested in signing him. Maybe we would use Tolbert as FB and Charles/Hillis as RBs.

According to ESPN Tolbert would be more of a long term signing.

Mike Tolbert will still visit the Chiefs - AFC West Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/41262/mike-tolbert-will-still-visit-the-chiefs)

AkChief49
03-14-2012, 08:54 PM
http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/03/14/mcclain-agrees-to-three-year-deal-with-chargers/

matthewschiefs
03-14-2012, 09:00 PM
I like our pickup way more. And if we can also get Tolbert then that would just be even better.

AkChief49
03-14-2012, 09:03 PM
I like our pickup way more. And if we can also get Tolbert then that would just be even better.
You think Tolbert is still in the cards?

#58ChiefsFan
03-14-2012, 09:05 PM
I think we still need Tolbert, the DMC RB experiment needs to end.

#58ChiefsFan
03-14-2012, 09:06 PM
You think Tolbert is still in the cards?

He's still coming tomorrow

AkChief49
03-14-2012, 09:09 PM
I think we still need Tolbert, the DMC RB experiment needs to end.
Charles-Tolbert and Hillis-talk about your law firms! ha!
Be a heck of a running back by committee.

josh1971
03-14-2012, 09:18 PM
Yes- I like that Tolbert is still coming here. Mind you, we'll be running to the left every play unless they sign a decent right tackle, but the running backs will really be a good mix if we can get Tolbert, too!

chief31
03-14-2012, 10:32 PM
I think we still need Tolbert, the DMC RB experiment needs to end.

DMC had 66 carries, 316 Yards (4.8 YPC) in the second half of 2011.

4.5 YPC for the year.

He did pretty well.

KristofLaw
03-14-2012, 11:35 PM
Charles-Tolbert and Hillis-talk about your law firms! ha!
Be a heck of a running back by committee.

:lol:

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 09:01 AM
And "running back by committee" seldom works well.

Seek
03-15-2012, 10:04 AM
And "running back by committee" seldom works well.

Every team is using multiple running backs. It helps the running backs stay fresh, it also adds a change of game should a defense schemesfor one person, and it prolongs the career of the running backs by not burning them out in one season.

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 11:06 AM
And John Riggins never really amounted to much if he got less than 30 carries in a game.

Running by committee does not work.

Nothing wrong with having an RB who specializes in short yardage, but for the day in day out work all running backs want to KNOW they are "THE MAN".

Running by committee does not work.

TopekaRoy
03-15-2012, 02:36 PM
And John Riggins never really amounted to much if he got less than 30 carries in a game.

Running by committee does not work.

Nothing wrong with having an RB who specializes in short yardage, but for the day in day out work all running backs want to KNOW they are "THE MAN".

Running by committee does not work.

I agree with you ... somewhat.

I guess it just depends on one, who your best running back is and two, how much your offense runs the ball. If you have an Adrian Peterson, a Walter Payton or an Emmit Smith, you can give them 30-40 carries a game. But most teams don't have that luxury. You look at RBs like Shaun Alexander and Larry Johnson (sorry!) and they were outstanding for a few years, but quickly got "used up."

Also, if you are a team who relies on a "balanced" offense--in other words, you run the ball more than everybody else does, lol--then it really helps out a team to have a 2nd RB who can produce.

I think it is very rare that you have a 50/50 split, or with 3 RBs a 40/30/30 split, but Denver has done well in the past with multiple running backs. It only makes sense that you will give the bulk of the carries to you best RB, since your run offense is going to be more productive when he is carrying the ball.

You hear phrases like "thunder and lightening" a lot lately, and I think that works well if you have one RB who is an open field slasher/speedster and another who is a big bruising guy that can get you 3 or 4 yds in 3rd down and goal line situations.

It seems counter-intuitive that, in a game that relies more and more on the pass, we need more running backs, but that seems to be where we're headed. Defenders are much bigger, faster and stronger than they were 20 or 30 yrs ago, and RBs wear down more quickly. There is only so much "tread on the tires."

It's like you need to add just enough soy to extend the beef, but not so much that it no longer tastes good. If you can have a 2nd back that comes in every 3rd or 4th offensive series, that makes a big difference. 2 years ago we had Charles rushing for 1467 yds and Jones adding another 896 and we led the NFL in rushing. That was a pretty effective "committee!"

OPLookn
03-15-2012, 02:40 PM
I agree with you ... somewhat.

I guess it just depends on one, who your best running back is and two, how much your offense runs the ball. If you have an Adrian Peterson, a Walter Payton or an Emmit Smith, you can give them 30-40 carries a game. But most teams don't have that luxury. You look at RBs like Shaun Alexander who quickly got "used up." and Larry Johnson (sorry!) who ran behind an outstanding line for a few years.

Also, if you are a team who relies on a "balanced" offense--in other words, you run the ball more than everybody else does, lol--then it really helps out a team to have a 2nd RB who can produce.

I think it is very rare that you have a 50/50 split, or with 3 RBs a 40/30/30 split, but Denver has done well in the past with multiple running backs. It only makes sense that you will give the bulk of the carries to you best RB, since your run offense is going to be more productive when he is carrying the ball.

You hear phrases like "thunder and lightening" a lot lately, and I think that works well if you have one RB who is an open field slasher/speedster and another who is a big bruising guy that can get you 3 or 4 yds in 3rd down and goal line situations.

It seems counter-intuitive that, in a game that relies more and more on the pass, we need more running backs, but that seems to be where we're headed. Defenders are much bigger, faster and stronger than they were 20 or 30 yrs ago, and RBs wear down more quickly. There is only so much "tread on the tires."

It's like you need to add just enough soy to extend the beef, but not so much that it no longer tastes good. If you can have a 2nd back that comes in every 3rd or 4th offensive series, that makes a big difference. 2 years ago we had Charles rushing for 1467 yds and Jones adding another 896 and we led the NFL in rushing. That was a pretty effective "committee!"

There fixed that for you...

:lol:

Seek
03-15-2012, 02:44 PM
And John Riggins never really amounted to much if he got less than 30 carries in a game.

Running by committee does not work.

Nothing wrong with having an RB who specializes in short yardage, but for the day in day out work all running backs want to KNOW they are "THE MAN".

Running by committee does not work.

I see your point, I mean it failed Miserably for the Giants with their one two punch of Jacobs and Bradshaw.

You should change your Statement by saing Running Back by Committee does not work for Selfish Me Me Running Backs, but it does work with WBM (win before me) type of running backs.

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 03:44 PM
I don't want anybody misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not against having more than one RB. It's GREAT to have that guy that converts those 3rd and 1 and 4th and inches situations and punches through for the TD on 2cond and goal from the 2. You NEED a guy like that.

It's also good to have a secondary back who keeps opposing defenses honest. The situation mentioned by TopekaRoy


If you can have a 2nd back that comes in every 3rd or 4th offensive series, that makes a big difference. 2 years ago we had Charles rushing for 1467 yds and Jones adding another 896 and we led the NFL in rushing.

was a good example of what I was talking about. Yes....Jones got almost 900 yards, but it was still only 61% of what JC got. There was never any question of who our primary RB was. We had our RB and our backup RB. That was not running by committee. Or at least not my interpretation of running by committee.

TopekaRoy
03-15-2012, 04:44 PM
I don't want anybody misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not against having more than one RB. It's GREAT to have that guy that converts those 3rd and 1 and 4th and inches situations and punches through for the TD on 2cond and goal from the 2. You NEED a guy like that.

It's also good to have a secondary back who keeps opposing defenses honest. The situation mentioned by TopekaRoy



was a good example of what I was talking about. Yes....Jones got almost 900 yards, but it was still only 61% of what JC got. There was never any question of who our primary RB was. We had our RB and our backup RB. That was not running by committee. Or at least not my interpretation of running by committee.

Yeah, it looks like we are on the same page here. I guess I wasn't really clear on what you meant by "running back by committee." I think it can work for a few teams but most teams have to have that "main guy."

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 04:55 PM
That was my point TR. It's great to have that BIG BRUISER that can damned near pick up 1 or 2 yards without any blocking just by brute force. And it's good to have a "diversionary" RB who picks up some decent yards and keeps the opposing "D" from being able to key on any one guy. But if you are going to have a truly serious running attack I think you have to have one guy who is indisputably "THE MAN". :sSig_youtheman::sSig_youtheman: And then you have to pray he doesn't develop a size 42 head.....like LJ did.

I think the only situation where "running back by committee" can really work is when you have an absolutely dominant O-Line. If you have that, then most anyone who understands the basics of running behind a rush block can pick up good yardage. There are horses and then there are Kentucky Derby horses.

pojote
03-15-2012, 05:13 PM
That was my point TR. It's great to have that BIG BRUISER that can damned near pick up 1 or 2 yards without any blocking just by brute force. And it's good to have a "diversionary" RB who picks up some decent yards and keeps the opposing "D" from being able to key on any one guy. But if you are going to have a truly serious running attack I think you have to have one guy who is indisputably "THE MAN". :sSig_youtheman::sSig_youtheman: And then you have to pray he doesn't develop a size 42 head.....like LJ did.

I think the only situation where "running back by committee" can really work is when you have an absolutely dominant O-Line. If you have that, then most anyone who understands the basics of running behind a rush block can pick up good yardage. There are horses and then there are Kentucky Derby horses.

Jamaal Charles is not one of them. On 2010 he played a lot less snaps than Jones, but never complain. He knows what is best for the team and also best for him. He was the first Chief player to welcome Hillis on twitter. I think he won't and shouldn't start next season, just wait to Hillis does the dirty work wearing down defenses, and start running in that way that only JC knows how.

7,0 YPC this year!!!

TopekaRoy
03-15-2012, 05:22 PM
Jamaal Charles is not one of them. On 2010 he played a lot less snaps than Jones, but never complain. He knows what is best for the team and also best for him. He was the first Chief player to welcome Hillis on twitter. I think he won't and shouldn't start next season, just wait to Hillis does the dirty work wearing down defenses, and start running in that way that only JC knows how.

6,0 YPC this year!!!

I'm fine with that for a few games until Charles gets back to 100%, but you have to start Jamaal eventually. 6.4 ypc! That's the 2nd highest average, ever!

I don't want to wear him out, but he can't be our "backup" RB. :smile

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 05:28 PM
The JC/TJ tandem was good and it worked well. I don't see TJ as being able to do it anymore. Hopefully Hillis can be that secondary RB and also be the short yardage monster.

pojote
03-15-2012, 05:42 PM
I'm fine with that for a few games until Charles gets back to 100%, but you have to start Jamaal eventually. 6.4 ypc! That's the 2nd highest average, ever!

I don't want to wear him out, but he can't be our "backup" RB. :smile

Does it matter who starts the game? Everyone knows who is our #1RB, no matter who starts.

AkChief49
03-15-2012, 05:43 PM
The JC/TJ tandem was good and it worked well. I don't see TJ as being able to do it anymore. Hopefully Hillis can be that secondary RB and also be the short yardage monster.
He also can catch. With Daboll he had 61 receptions that year (2010)for 477 yds.

TopekaRoy
03-15-2012, 06:02 PM
He also can catch. With Daboll he had 61 receptions that year (2010)for 477 yds.

That's always a good thing. In that sense he is a lot like Matt Forte and Walter Payton!

Hey! I can dream, can't I?

ctchiefsfan
03-15-2012, 07:04 PM
That's always a good thing. In that sense he is a lot like Matt Forte and Walter Payton!

Hey! I can dream, can't I?

Lets not get too excited....we only have a 1 year contract on him. That said, if he can live up to his potential I could see us having to pay him a LOT of cash to get him to stay.

But then, if he could be that short yardage back, run for say 700-900 yards per year AND catch passes for 400-600 yards per year, then he would be worth a LOT of money. With that, JC, the Bs and TM, we would have enough weapons to make almost any QB look good. Even Cassel.

But again.....what is management going to do for our O-Line?????????

AkChief49
03-15-2012, 07:19 PM
But again.....what is management going to do for our O-Line?????????
ah, the remaining million$ ? We had better sign Winston or there is going to be a mutiny!

chief31
03-16-2012, 12:35 AM
Running by committee does not work.


It doesn't?

Help me out here.... Who was the last "elite" RB to win a Super Bowl?

Running back by committee absolutely works.

AkChief49
03-16-2012, 12:42 AM
It doesn't?

Help me out here.... Who was the last "elite" RB to win a Super Bowl?

Running back by committee absolutely works.
Walter Payton, but he did not score in the(SB) game.

ctchiefsfan
03-16-2012, 12:46 AM
It doesn't?

Running back by committee absolutely works.

Your evidence?

chief31
03-16-2012, 12:49 AM
Walter Payton, but he did not score in the(SB) game.

I was trying to find the last "premier RB" to win a Super Bowl, and I guess you'd have to go with Willie Parker, in 2005/06.

And for an "elie RB" It looks like Marshall Faulk in '99/00.

TopekaRoy
03-16-2012, 01:04 AM
I was trying to find the last "premier RB" to win a Super Bowl, and I guess you'd have to go with Willie Parker, in 2005/06.

And for an "elie RB" It looks like Marshall Faulk in '99/00.

Yeah, and the Rams had a pretty good passing game, too IIRC. :lol:

They could get away with one RB.

chief31
03-16-2012, 04:01 PM
Yeah, and the Rams had a pretty good passing game, too IIRC. :lol:

They could get away with one RB.

Oh yeah. No two ways about that.