PDA

View Full Version : new interesting fatlock reading



wolfpack
07-15-2007, 02:21 PM
Whitlock | Price goes up for Johnson


function PopupPic(sPicURL, sHeight, sWidth) { window.open( "http://media.kansascity.com/static/popup.html?"+sPicURL, "", "resizable=1,HEIGHT=" +sHeight+ ",WIDTH=" +sWidth); } http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2007/07/14/20/75-1whit071507.IMG_07-15-2007_39TFO34.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg (http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2007/07/14/20/982-1whit071507.IMG_07-15-2007_39TFO34.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg)


The record contract the Colts handed defensive end Dwight Freeney late last week is yet another new wrinkle in the Larry Johnson-Chiefs contract saga.
Freeney’s $72 million deal, which includes $30 million in bonuses and $37.5 million over the first three years, raised the roof on all future contract demands across the league.
The Colts treated Freeney, the game’s second-best defensive end after Julius Peppers, like a quarterback. And by doing so, the Colts hammered the point that you can’t compare 2007 contracts by the standards established under the old collective-bargaining agreement.
The franchise-tag value for defensive ends had been around $8.6 million. Once Peppers inks a new deal, an agreement that should surpass Freeney’s, the franchise number for pass rushers will begin to approach $10 million.
My point in bringing this up is it is being made abundantly clear that the deal that LaDainian Tomlinson, the league’s best running back, signed in 2004 is obsolete when talking about Larry Johnson’s value in today’s market.
If the Chargers signed LT today, he would garner a $30 million signing bonus and $36 million over the first three years of the contract.
Under that scenario, what does the game’s second-best running back deserve? Larry and his agent have virtually no choice but to demand $25 million in guarantees.
I still see a trade as a legitimate possibility. The Hunt family has never shown the stomach for reaching into their piggy bank and handing out huge signing bonuses.
The Chiefs still operate like a $10 million bonus is a big deal. Yes, Tony Gonzalez got $18 million in guaranteed money, but only $10 million was in signing bonus. The rest was in guaranteed salary over the first four years of his new deal.
But look at the cash Colts owner Jim Irsay has been tossing around: Peyton Manning received $35 million in guarantees, Marvin Harrison got $23 million, Reggie Wayne took home $13.5 million and now Freeney just cracked $30 million.
There’s a huge difference between paying a guy in salary and paying a guy in guaranteed bonuses. The latter is far more risky and causes an owner to initially dip into his own finances to do it. It’s the difference between cash dollars and salary-cap dollars.
The Hunts will spend their salary-cap dollars, but they’ve been reluctant to stretch the cap by spending large sums of cash in bonuses.
I’m not going to beat up the Hunts or team president/general manager WildCarl Peterson about their frugal spending habits. You could argue the Colts are in a unique situation; they have arguably the league’s best quarterback, pass rusher and wide receiver.
The Chiefs have arguably the league’s best tight end, and they paid him like it. In my opinion, the Chiefs have the league’s best offensive guard, Brian Waters, and WildCarl took complete advantage of Waters in 2006 contract negotiations.
Is it WildCarl’s fault that Waters chose to do his deal without the assistance of an agent? Waters is every bit as good as Minnesota’s Steve Hutchinson, who inked a $49 million deal that included $16 million in bonuses.
Waters received a $4 million roster bonus, relatively modest salaries over the first three years ($585,000, $720,000 and $2.08 million), and roster bonuses in 2007 and 2008 of $3 million and $2.5 million. When you toss in workout bonuses and per-game roster bonuses, Waters received $14.6 million over three years. Hutchinson got $23 million.
Waters signed an extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement. It’s simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters — at least not when they retain proper representation.
Again, I’m not trying to beat up Peterson or the Hunts. The Patriots and the Eagles, to name two franchises, have experienced success while gaining a reputation as cheap.
And does declining to give Johnson $20 million-plus in guarantees mean the Chiefs are cheap or does it signify that the organization believes Johnson isn’t worth it? According to my sources, so far, the Chiefs have offered Johnson less guaranteed money than Gonzalez. The Chiefs are allegedly in the $14 million to $15 million range, or about half of what LT would get today.
Is Johnson only half the running back that Tomlinson is? No one would argue that. A trade just might make sense for all parties. Brett Favre would love to have Larry Johnson, and the Packers would properly pay Johnson. The Chiefs could pick up a few draft picks

Coach
07-15-2007, 02:25 PM
Whitlock | Price goes up for Johnson

A trade just might make sense for all parties. Brett Favre would love to have Larry Johnson, and the Packers would properly pay Johnson. The Chiefs could pick up a few draft picks

This is such a Catch22. I'd hate to lose LJ, but he just isn't worth the money he is demanding.

wolfpack
07-15-2007, 02:27 PM
it almost sounds like he wants Waters to hold out. but he is right its hard to see the Hunts prying open their checkbook to pay LJ that much signing $$$. the Hunts are almost,i say almost the Glasses of football. i can see LJ being traded more and more everyday. i say trade him for high draft picks.

Coach
07-15-2007, 03:03 PM
it almost sounds like he wants Waters to hold out. but he is right its hard to see the Hunts prying open their checkbook to pay LJ that much signing $$$. the Hunts are almost,i say almost the Glasses of football. i can see LJ being traded more and more everyday. i say trade him for high draft picks.

As much as I hate to say it, it is looking more and more like a trade everyday.

Coach
07-15-2007, 03:04 PM
it almost sounds like he wants Waters to hold out. but he is right its hard to see the Hunts prying open their checkbook to pay LJ that much signing $$$. the Hunts are almost,i say almost the Glasses of football. i can see LJ being traded more and more everyday. i say trade him for high draft picks.

As much as I hate to say it, it is looking more and like a trade every day.

DrunkHillbilly
07-15-2007, 03:14 PM
WOW, I don't agree with Fatass on much, but it proves what I have been saying to be right. Can anyone say BIDWILL????? They have fans in the seats, gettin paid from all the merchandise and all they want to do is line their pockets! WEIRD! Draft picks for LJ huh? WOW!!! as much of a pain in the *** as TO is, would you trade him for draft picks? Nobody has yet! Your going to trade a guy who will get LT money from a ton of teams and you guys want to get rid of him for a couple of scrubs and a few high draft picks???? WTF is going on??? Do you guys know what your saying?

Trust me, if we trade LJ, we will really struggle to that third place over the Raiders. How do you pay your TE more than your RB? Has there ever been a team in history that has done this? Doubt it! Where would the Chiefs have been without this guy last season? Someone in a different thread said they would trade LJ for J Jones and some other C caliber running back. Oh, and a couple of draft picks! WTF!!!! You guys are jaded!

Someone tell me why he isn't worth 2nd best RB money? Please don't say attitude because every player in the league has or will threaten to hold out if they don't get what they want. They all have attitudes and get pissed at something or another during the season. Remember all the talk last year about the Colts locker room being a mess? Offensive guys fighting with defensive guys, Peyton Manning throwin offensive lineman under the bus? It happens on every team.

So please give me a legitimate reason not to pay this guy like a top 5 running back in the league!

Also, remember that NONE of these contracts are guarranteed. Signing bonus only. Not the money nor the years! Everyone of these contracts for 6,7,8 years, they will all be renegotiated before they come to term!

Coach
07-15-2007, 03:20 PM
Someone tell me why he isn't worth 2nd best RB money? Please don't say attitude because every player in the league has or will threaten to hold out if they don't get what they want. They all have attitudes and get pissed at something or another during the season. Remember all the talk last year about the Colts locker room being a mess? Offensive guys fighting with defensive guys, Peyton Manning throwin offensive lineman under the bus? It happens on every team.

So please give me a legitimate reason not to pay this guy like a top 5 running back in the league!

I have never said that he isn't worth Top 5 RB money. I just have said that he is not worth LT money. And I continue to say that.

If both LT and LJ accounted for the same hit to the salary cap, which one would you prefer to have on your team? I think 99 people out of 100 would say LT. The other 1 person would probably came to the same conclusion after they sat down their pipe. I agree is a good RB. I just don't want to pay the farm for a guy that isn't proven in my mind. He has had 1.5 good seasons.

DrunkHillbilly
07-15-2007, 03:24 PM
Your right, maybe not LT money after 1.5 years but they are offering him half of what LT is getting. Is that fair? How many teams do you think would pay him LT money? I'm betting quite few.

Coach
07-15-2007, 03:29 PM
Your right, maybe not LT money after 1.5 years but they are offering him half of what LT is getting. Is that fair? How many teams do you think would pay him LT money? I'm betting quite few.

I agree that half of LT's salary isn't fair. And you also correct that many teams will probably offer him LT money. That is what complicates this whole mess. I hope they can come to an agreement to keep him here for something near LT money. I just don't want to see the Chiefs stuck with a high-priced RB that all of the sudden hobbles to the sidelines over little injuries because he is suddenly making guaranteed money. And his personality/character issues make that scenario seem likely.

DrunkHillbilly
07-15-2007, 03:34 PM
He is going to get paid reguardless but only bonus money is guarranteed. You can't base contracts on maybe a player will get hurt and maybe he won't. This guy carried the ball more than anyone in history last season!!! I say he's fairly durable! Did you see him in college? I don't think you give him that many carries this years or in the future but I think he's shown he can handle the workload.

Chiefster
07-16-2007, 01:18 AM
This is such a Catch22. I'd hate to lose LJ, but he just isn't worth the money he is demanding.


I think they'll probably play the up/down negotiating game and meet somewhere in the middle.

stlchief
07-16-2007, 03:01 PM
So please give me a legitimate reason not to pay this guy like a top 5 running back in the league!



Because we are not planning on making a run during that time.

If we were talking about a stacked team and he is the cornerstone, no doubt KC would find the money. But we're talking about a team that barely made the play-offs then were promptly thumped in one of the worst play-off games ever. No first downs in the first half?

We don't have the answers on the team now to seriously believe we will be a top 5 team in the league in the next 2 - 3 years (probably when LJ's decline will be obvious from being a work horse for this year and those years).

So the question is really "why pay him"? What do we gain by it? We finish 500 instead of a 4 win season? Why spend that money? Why NOT get a few draft picks for him? Will they be one-to-one equal to where he is now? No. Will they maybe be pieces that 2 - 3 years down the line help get us to that hallowed spot we wish to be in? They can't hurt.

Not to even mention the salary cap room for the next few years we can use growing...

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 03:07 PM
Because we are not planning on making a run during that time.

If we were talking about a stacked team and he is the cornerstone, no doubt KC would find the money. But we're talking about a team that barely made the play-offs then were promptly thumped in one of the worst play-off games ever. No first downs in the first half?

We don't have the answers on the team now to seriously believe we will be a top 5 team in the league in the next 2 - 3 years (probably when LJ's decline will be obvious from being a work horse for this year and those years).

So the question is really "why pay him"? What do we gain by it? We finish 500 instead of a 4 win season? Why spend that money? Why NOT get a few draft picks for him? Will they be one-to-one equal to where he is now? No. Will they maybe be pieces that 2 - 3 years down the line help get us to that hallowed spot we wish to be in? They can't hurt.

Not to even mention the salary cap room for the next few years we can use growing...

"Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!

Chiefster
07-16-2007, 03:33 PM
"Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!

There have been a few 8-8 teams get in.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 04:45 PM
Alrighty then! Big diff between .500 and 4 wins. I prefer .500

Chiefster
07-16-2007, 04:49 PM
I prefer A SB win, but what is possible and what is probably are, at this point, at opposite ends of the spectrum.

chief31
07-16-2007, 06:26 PM
"Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!

Squeaking into the playoffs, only to get exposed as a lesser team is quite appealing. But, I too, would rather create a real contender. The difference between 8-8 and 4-12 is drafting 5th and drafting twenty-fifth. Sure, you could build a contender, drafting late. But, there are so many more options, when drafting early, not to mention often.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Squeaking into the playoffs, only to get exposed as a lesser team is quite appealing. But, I too, would rather create a real contender. The difference between 8-8 and 4-12 is drafting 5th and drafting twenty-fifth. Sure, you could build a contender, drafting late. But, there are so many more options, when drafting early, not to mention often.

Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:

Canada
07-16-2007, 07:20 PM
Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:

Do you suggest that we max out the cap and play witht he team we have?

chief31
07-16-2007, 08:16 PM
Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:

I already said "good morning", in another forum...... I would rather be 4-12, in a rebuilding year, than 4-12 while thinking that we were supposed to contend.

Right now, with L.J., I see alot of similarities, between the Chiefs and the Raiders. How can you not see it? Good runningback,( Though I don't see, in L.J., what you do.) Basically, a rookie quarterback, good defense, (Giving the Raiders the edge, there.) and our offensive line has dropped, in ability,massively, these past two offseasons, where the Raiders, already have a bad O-line.

If you look closely, who else, in our division, do we compare to?

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:28 PM
Do you suggest that we max out the cap and play witht he team we have?

Tell me the last time a top 2 or 3 running back was traded.

Then tell me what they got for him.

Canada
07-16-2007, 08:29 PM
I am curious about what you think should be done about the offence?

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:30 PM
I already said "good morning", in another forum...... I would rather be 4-12, in a rebuilding year, than 4-12 while thinking that we were supposed to contend.

Right now, with L.J., I see alot of similarities, between the Chiefs and the Raiders. How can you not see it? Good runningback,( Though I don't see, in L.J., what you do.) Basically, a rookie quarterback, good defense, (Giving the Raiders the edge, there.) and our offensive line has dropped, in ability,massively, these past two offseasons, where the Raiders, already have a bad O-line.

If you look closely, who else, in our division, do we compare to?

If you will remember, I'm the one saying we will be fighting it out with the Raiders for 3rd place!

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 08:36 PM
I am curious about what you think should be done about the offence?

Someone to catch the ball down field would help. Sureing up our O line would help.

We've been throwing 10 yd posts for 3 years now with the occasional screen to the RB. Tony goes for an occasional 15 yd pass with all of the yardage coming after the catch.

I think the Chiefs are fairly close to having all the pieces but there is a fine line there between close and not even close! We have a bunch of young guys and it's not necassarily rebuilding just because you have young guys. You can expect quite a few mistakes i would assume but to trade the backbone of your offense for a few draft picks seems a bit aggressive to me.

chief31
07-16-2007, 09:40 PM
Someone to catch the ball down field would help. Sureing up our O line would help.

We've been throwing 10 yd posts for 3 years now with the occasional screen to the RB. Tony goes for an occasional 15 yd pass with all of the yardage coming after the catch.

I think the Chiefs are fairly close to having all the pieces but there is a fine line there between close and not even close! We have a bunch of young guys and it's not necassarily rebuilding just because you have young guys. You can expect quite a few mistakes i would assume but to trade the backbone of your offense for a few draft picks seems a bit aggressive to me.

The two factors that most convince me that we should seek a trade, for L.J. are these.

1) Larrys value is peaked. He has been looking good, behind a strong O-line, and , previously, a great all-around offense. With all of that gone, now, this year would show another decrease in productivity. His value has been "balooned" by productivity in an offense that we no longer have.

2) Many Chiefs fans refuse to see Larry failure to put fourth effort, at times. But repetition of the games, with an open mind, to the possibility, reveals alot. Find the plays, where Larry is being asked to throw a block, or run, outide. It's not that he isn't good at it, more that he doesn't want to do it. And will put forth, a "Dieon Sanders, tackling" effort.



Tell me the last time a top 2 or 3 running back was traded.

Then tell me what they got for him.


Ricky Williams to Miami, for two first round picks. That's the most recent time, that I know of.

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 09:49 PM
The two factors that most convince me that we should seek a trade, for L.J. are these.

1) Larrys value is peaked. He has been looking good, behind a strong O-line, and , previously, a great all-around offense. With all of that gone, now, this year would show another decrease in productivity. His value has been "balooned" by productivity in an offense that we no longer have.

2) Many Chiefs fans refuse to see Larry failure to put fourth effort, at times. But repetition of the games, with an open mind, to the possibility, reveals alot. Find the plays, where Larry is being asked to throw a block, or run, outide. It's not that he isn't good at it, more that he doesn't want to do it. And will put forth, a "Dieon Sanders, tackling" effort.



Ricky Williams to Miami, for two first round picks. That's the most recent time, that I know of.

1) So, you optimist of all optimists, is ready to throw in the towel on our offense huh?

2)How do you know he is not trying and may just not be a great blocking back? There are far far more backs in the game that can not block than there are that can! Or are good at it anyway!

3)Running outside comes down to play calling and style. And....your offensive line has A LOT to do with that as well. He is the type of back that waits for his block and if it's not there, well he's f*ed! He is a power back not a speed back.

Another prime example of the same type of back is the all time leading rusher in the NFL. Terrible to the outside!!! North and South style runner.

Ricky Williams? Do I even need to respond to this?

chief31
07-16-2007, 10:05 PM
1) So, you optimist of all optimists, is ready to throw in the towel on our offense huh?

2)How do you know he is not trying and may just not be a great blocking back? There are far far more backs in the game that can not block than there are that can! Or are good at it anyway!

3)Running outside comes down to play calling and style. And....your offensive line has A LOT to do with that as well. He is the type of back that waits for his block and if it's not there, well he's f*ed! He is a power back not a speed back.

Another prime example of the same type of back is the all time leading rusher in the NFL. Terrible to the outside!!! North and South style runner.

Ricky Williams? Do I even need to respond to this?

That one is gonna be popular. (The optimist thing.)

2.) It is easy to tell, when someone isn't trying.

3.) Christian Okoye used to slam into defenders, when going outside. Jerome Bettis did it. Czonka, Earl Campbell, Riggins, Jim Brown! It's effort. If he is as one-dimensional as you say, then he is certainly, not worth the money. Versatility.

Canada
07-16-2007, 10:09 PM
1) So, you optimist of all optimists, is ready to throw in the towel on our offense huh?

2)How do you know he is not trying and may just not be a great blocking back? There are far far more backs in the game that can not block than there are that can! Or are good at it anyway!

3)Running outside comes down to play calling and style. And....your offensive line has A LOT to do with that as well. He is the type of back that waits for his block and if it's not there, well he's f*ed! He is a power back not a speed back.

Another prime example of the same type of back is the all time leading rusher in the NFL. Terrible to the outside!!! North and South style runner.

Ricky Williams? Do I even need to respond to this?

lol :liar:

chief31
07-16-2007, 10:15 PM
lol :liar:

Oh, now... Everyone knows, that if it weren't for me, you would all be drowning in tears, with no sign of hope. ADMIT IT!!!!

Canada
07-16-2007, 10:18 PM
Oh, now... Everyone knows, that if it weren't for me, you would all be drowning in tears, with no sign of hope. ADMIT IT!!!!

It is because of you that we are drowning in tears.:439:

DrunkHillbilly
07-16-2007, 10:29 PM
lol :liar:

Clarification please.

chief31
07-16-2007, 11:07 PM
Clarification please.

He was reffering to the fact that you called me an optimist. Most of my "polite exchanges" with people, on here, have been my negativity, against their optimism. I am known as "the bringer of rain".Lol.

Coach
07-16-2007, 11:37 PM
I already said "good morning", in another forum...... I would rather be 4-12, in a rebuilding year, than 4-12 while thinking that we were supposed to contend.

Right now, with L.J., I see alot of similarities, between the Chiefs and the Raiders. How can you not see it? Good runningback,( Though I don't see, in L.J., what you do.) Basically, a rookie quarterback, good defense, (Giving the Raiders the edge, there.) and our offensive line has dropped, in ability,massively, these past two offseasons, where the Raiders, already have a bad O-line.

If you look closely, who else, in our division, do we compare to?

Please don't compare the Chiefs to the faders. I might have to slit my wrists.


Tell me the last time a top 2 or 3 running back was traded.

Then tell me what they got for him.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. LJ is going to hold out. If we were to trade him, it would almost certainly have to be a sign and trade deal. With LJ's current contract, his market value isn't what you might think because he isn't coming to play.


The two factors that most convince me that we should seek a trade, for L.J. are these.

1) Larrys value is peaked. He has been looking good, behind a strong O-line, and , previously, a great all-around offense. With all of that gone, now, this year would show another decrease in productivity. His value has been "balooned" by productivity in an offense that we no longer have.



I think Chief31 hit this issue squarely on the head with this post. I don't think the offense is gone as you mention, but I think LJ's value has peaked.


It is because of you that we are drowning in tears.:439:
Chiefs31 needs a disclaimer in his sig. Something like "Consistent reading of my posts may cause you to immediately jump in front of a moving bus."


He was reffering to the fact that you called me an optimist. Most of my "polite exchanges" with people, on here, have been my negativity, against their optimism. I am known as "the bringer of rain".Lol.
You bring a different perspective than I to the boards. This is what I love about these forums. People have different ideas on how the Chiefs should proceed. But we all want the Chiefs to do well.

Chiefster
07-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Please don't compare the Chiefs to the faders. I might have to slit my wrists.


Yeah, bleeding all over your key board is a real bummer.

Guru
07-18-2007, 02:37 AM
I agree that half of LT's salary isn't fair. And you also correct that many teams will probably offer him LT money. That is what complicates this whole mess. I hope they can come to an agreement to keep him here for something near LT money. I just don't want to see the Chiefs stuck with a high-priced RB that all of the sudden hobbles to the sidelines over little injuries because he is suddenly making guaranteed money. And his personality/character issues make that scenario seem likely.

But hey, we still have Priest.

Chiefster
07-18-2007, 02:41 AM
But hey, we still have Priest.

Heh! He has gotten fat on nachos.

DrunkHillbilly
07-18-2007, 02:29 PM
Have they finally cleared up all of his money against the cap issues?

Chiefster
07-18-2007, 02:47 PM
Have they finally cleared up all of his money against the cap issues?


Good question; deserves a good answer.

wolfpack
07-19-2007, 11:19 AM
i see the queen or rufus has lashed out at fatlock for this writting. i dont know who`s funner fatlock or the queen,i mean rufus.

Chiefster
07-19-2007, 03:34 PM
i see the queen or rufus has lashed out at fatlock for this writting. i dont know who`s funner fatlock or the queen,i mean rufus.


Hey; football on the business side is all about entertainment. :D