Revisiting the Jared Allen Trade

**jap1** · 02-13-2010, 04:40 PM

So here is an article by ESPN's Bill Willaimson about how we didnt necessarily lose in the Jared Allen trade.

Revisiting the Jared Allen trade - AFC West Blog - ESPN

Here is a rebuttal from the Vikings perspective.

Two years later: The Jared Allen trade - NFC North Blog - ESPN

I am sure this will incite a lot of thoughts. Enjoy.

**matthewschiefs** · 02-13-2010, 04:54 PM

I didnt even no that we used a pick that we got in that trade for Charles. I guess thats a good thing. But I still am not a big fan of the trade. To trade a YOUNG player that talented is Never good.

I no that he probley would not have resigned due to the lack of a relationship with Carl. Thats on carl. Again when you have a player of that talent you DO whatever you can to keep him. I will never like that trade. who nos we might have still got charles. we will never no. But i will never be a fan.

**AussieChiefsFan** · 02-13-2010, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

I didnt even no that we used a pick that we got in that trade for Charles. I guess thats a good thing. But I still am not a big fan of the trade. To trade a YOUNG player that talented is Never good.

I no that he probley would not have resigned due to the lack of a relationship with Carl. Thats on carl. Again when you have a player of that talent you DO whatever you can to keep him. I will never like that trade. who nos we might have still got charles. we will never no. But i will never be a fan.

Neither did I. I'm not so annoyed with that trade anymore.....

**Connie Jo** · 02-13-2010, 06:02 PM

I knew what we had received for Allen, but was so upset & against it, that it didn't matter to me what we got for Jared.

I didn't make the connection until fairly recently, when member 'fansincebirth' pointed out in a thread we had received Charles with the trade deal for Allen.

I considered all aspects pro & neg...and came to the conclusion that I would rather have Allen on the Chiefs than Charles...if having to choose between the two.

Allen brings to the Chiefs more value over all IMO. Talented RB's are greater in number among the NFL than that of Jared's defensive talent. As well, Jared brought a much needed spirit and energy to the field and to the fans. He was exceptional at riling the fans up as the 12th man helping our defense.

A strong defensive player like Allen is less likely for injury than a RB too.

I dunno, from my perspective Allen was the greatest loss to the Chiefs this past decade. :(

**Connie Jo** · 02-13-2010, 06:10 PM

I'm gonna post the second link article...as I know some don't always follow links to read. Besides, the article backs my point of view as to Jared being the greatest loss of the Chiefs in the last decade. Peterson was such an egotistical fool, the biggest mistake he ever made as GM of the Chiefs was losing Allen. :(

First, let’s review the terms of the April 2008 deal. The Vikings got:

Defensive end Jared Allen
Kansas City’s sixth-round pick in the 2008 draft. (It became starting center John Sullivan.)

The Chiefs got:
Minnesota’s No. 1 draft pick. (Tackle Branden Albert)
Two third-round picks from Minnesota. (Running back Jamaal Charles and safety DaJuan Morgan)
Minnesota’s sixth-round pick. (Receiver Kevin Robinson)

It would be tough to argue that Minnesota didn’t win this trade, and Bill never made that claim. He does point out that Allen wouldn’t be an ideal fit for the Chiefs’ new 3-4 scheme, and notes that Charles seems set to be their tailback of the near future.

But while the Chiefs did get good value, they traded away a then-26-year-old player who will go down as one of the best defensive players in his era. No NFL player has more than Allen’s 72 sacks over the past six years, the type of figure that voters will one day consider when measuring Allen’s candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

After quarterbacks, outside pass-rushers are the second-most valuable commodity in the NFL. They can change a game in an instant, and there are only a handful who consistently can put up 10-sack seasons, let alone Allen’s production.

And it’s not as if Allen has dropped off since the trade. He has 29 sacks in his first 32 games with the Vikings. Only Dallas’ DeMarcus Ware (31) has more sacks over that span. Allen, in fact, is one of only two players in NFL history to have three consecutive seasons with more than 14 sacks. Reggie White was the other.

The Chiefs will be hard-pressed to match that value even with the bounty they extracted from the Vikings. I’m not even considering that Minnesota also got its starting center in the trade; the Vikings liked Sullivan entering the draft and probably would have drafted him without the trade.

We’re only two years in, but I don’t think Allen could have given the Vikings anything more than what they’ve gotten. They were seeking one of the rarest NFL commodities, regardless of cost, and that’s exactly what Allen has been.

**Connie Jo** · 02-13-2010, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by jap1

So here is an article by ESPN's Bill Willaimson about how we didnt necessarily lose in the Jared Allen trade.

Revisiting the Jared Allen trade - AFC West Blog - ESPN

Here is a rebuttal from the Vikings perspective.

Two years later: The Jared Allen trade - NFC North Blog - ESPN

I am sure this will incite a lot of thoughts. Enjoy.

Nice read and subject! REP!! :)

**matthewschiefs** · 02-13-2010, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Connie Jo

I knew what we had received for Allen, but was so upset & against it, that it didn't matter to me what we got for Jared.

I didn't make the connection until fairly recently, when member 'fansincebirth' pointed out in a thread we had received Charles with the trade deal for Allen.

I considered all aspects pro & neg...and came to the conclusion that I would rather have Allen on the Chiefs than Charles...if having to choose between the two.

Allen brings to the Chiefs more value over all IMO. Talented RB's are greater in number among the NFL than that of Jared's defensive talent. As well, Jared brought a much needed spirit and energy to the field and to the fans. He was exceptional at riling the fans up as the 12th man helping our defense.

A strong defensive player like Allen is less likely for injury than a RB too.

I dunno, from my perspective Allen was the greatest loss to the Chiefs this past decade. :(

This is the thing that still makes me think that that trade was stupid. The lifespan of a good NFL rb is shorter then that of a stand out defensive player. Add to the face we dont no what would have happend with Charles if we didnt draft him there. We could have made anther move tradeing picks to get him who nos. I still am against the trade but oh well.

**Canada** · 02-13-2010, 11:49 PM

Wow, we have a potential 2000 yard rusher and people are still complaining about the trade. Get over it already. RBs are more prone to injury than a DE...thats the complaint? Im glad we go Charles, i wasnt happy that we traded JA at the time but its time to let it go people.

**Chiefster** · 02-14-2010, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Canada

Wow, we have a potential 2000 yard rusher and people are still complaining about the trade. Get over it already. RBs are more prone to injury than a DE...thats the complaint? Im glad we go Charles, i wasnt happy that we traded JA at the time but its time to let it go people.

Kinda what I was thinking; it's done, time to move on.

**Vandelay** · 02-14-2010, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Canada

Wow, we have a potential 2000 yard rusher and people are still complaining about the trade. Get over it already. RBs are more prone to injury than a DE...thats the complaint? Im glad we go Charles, i wasnt happy that we traded JA at the time but its time to let it go people.

This. ^
When we win the Superbowl next year no one will care if JA was here or not.