Hardcore player evaluation.

[texaschief]

How bout a little group fun?

If this team is REALLY gonna take a couple years and "major reconstructive surgery" over that span to become a contender again, who should be on and stay on this team? Who will be too old when we are good? Who could we trade now to bring more draft picks?

Here's some fun to get started that will surely get some feathers ruffled.

Trade Tony Gonzales: He's been the ultimate Chief and it's a shame Peterson couldn't get him a ring. The best way he can do that now is to trade him to a contender for a #1 pick or a young, good player.

Trade Jared Allen: Negotiate a sign and trade with Allen. Tell him to list 10 teams he would accept a trade to and get the best possible bounty you can for arguably the best pass rusher in league. Perhaps a first rounder and more.

Trade Larry Johnson: Get ANYTHING you can for him. Huge contract with big questions after an injury laden 2007. This one may be best to move next season.

I think those 3 players, the best the Chiefs have to offer in the prime of their careers would bring huge bounty to help with the rebuilding. Bringing in a bunch of first rounders and more young players may require just one more "rebuilding year.

So, who else should stay and who else should go?

[prough91]

I couldn't agree more. I DO think Tony has gas left in the tank. That's part of the reason why it would be advantageous for the Chiefs to trade him. Give him a chance to win a ring now. By the time the Chiefs are ready to compete for a title, he'll be in the twilight of his career. I'm thinking only on behalf of the Chiefs organization. I honestly don't care if he finishes his career with another team. He would go into the hall as a Chief. Even if we have to sign him to a one day contract. He is worth more as a trade chip than a player at this point.

I'd say trade Gonzo and try out Wilson or Michael Allan. Allan really impressed me during the preseason. Wilson was drafted as TG's successor in the first place.

I'm more on the fence about Jared Allen. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't want to be here and he's made it known that the only reason he isn't causing more waves is because of Herm. He really likes the coaching staff and doesn't want to cause a rift. He IS one of the best, if not THE best pass rusher in the game. So, that works both ways for the Chiefs.

If you keep him, great. You've got a perennial Pro Bowler for the next, what, 7 or 8 years? Or, you could trade him for multiple players and or draft picks to help fill more holes on the team than you're creating by trading him. Trading players like these doesn't "create more holes." That's just plain wrong. By bringing in high draft picks (plural) and or good young players (plural), you would be filling more than ONE hole. Thus, doing more good than harm.

Here's what you could do if you traded Allen. Bring in another 1st rounder from whoever. Miami wouldn't be a bad place to start since they will probably be looking defense at that #1 pick anyway. It doesn't really matter who you trade Allen to. But take your first pick and draft "the other Long," DE out of Virginia (Howie Long's son) then take your next pick and draft the O-lineman we so desperately need. Jake Long won't be there at #5 and no other OT is worth taking that high up. If our 2nd pick is still #5, trade down and pick up more picks. Preferably in the 2nd and 3rd rds to improve the O-line.

As far as LJ goes, personally, i think Kolby is the future at Tailback for the Chiefs. While i don't think he's nearly as good as LJ was, we don't exactly know what the problem with LJ is. So, i would test the interest in him. It won't be high though. Big contract, big injury doesn't equal big booty.

But if we were able to trade TG for a late 1st round pick and perhaps a 3rd, then trade JA for a 1st, 2nd and 4th, then add those picks to the #5 pick in each round plus the 3 extra picks we've accumulated, we could be looking at a BUNCH of high draft picks. 3 first rounders 2 second rounders 2 third rounders along with 6 or 7 more picks in the later rounds will go a LONG way in filling the one or two holes you created. I'm sure with THAT many picks, you can find SOME way to compensate for TG and JA's loss.

After drafting 14 guys this season and then around 7 more next season, 2009 could be looking VERY GOOD. Football prospects don't take 6, 7, or 8 years to reach the big leagues. You can't compare the Chiefs to the Royals. Rookies react completely different to each sport.

Given their track record, this coaching staff won't miss on too many draft picks. Presently, they have 10 of 14 picks making major contributions to this team. That's a 71% hit rate. If we could have that same success rate in 2009 as we have right now, we'd be looking at close to 22 new starters over a 4 year span with at least 3 more behind those starters pushing for playing time....i'd say that's a pretty successful rebuilding job.

Not to mention, if we were able to unload TG, JA, and LJ, while also unloading Priest Holmes, that would clear up A LOT of cap room and would allow the upper management the flexibility to go out and get a few of the younger elite players on the market that could help with the rebuild.

Worth more as a trade chip? Are you serious? Who would you take for him? Let's get rid of the one guy on offense we KNOW can get the job done. That makes sense.

[Canada]

Trading players like these doesn't "create more holes." That's just plain wrong. By bringing in high draft picks (plural) and or good young players (plural), you would be filling more than ONE hole. Thus, doing more good than harm.

Did you not just post a couple of days ago all the busted draft picks the Chiefs have had over the last few years, but you seem to think that if you trade these guys then we are going to get equal replacements for them and players to fill other holes. Do you truly believe that all our needs will get adressed? First off you have to HOPE that you can draft a great TE, DE and RB. Then you are talking about our entire Oline and Secondary getting fixed and none of these players being a bust. I would rather gamble with the 10 picks we have now and keep the three most talented guys on the team right now.

[rbedgood]

I can only see trading Tony or Jared if they specifically insist on being traded. However they are the cornerstones from which your management should be building the team. LJ may or may not be tradeable. First his injury status would have to be examined by the other team in question. If he does have a soft tissue injury in the foot or has broken a bone that isn't healing well, he will continue to have injury issues....this would make him nearly untradeable considering the size and length of his contract.

As for the person who suggested LJ has 8-10 years left, that is highly unlikely. He is not young...he is in his late twenties, and most runningback decline rapidly after the age of 30. He has 2-3 good years left (if healthy) and 4-6 total years left in the NFL.

[texaschief]

I can only see trading Tony or Jared if they specifically insist on being traded. However they are the cornerstones from which your management should be building the team. LJ may or may not be tradeable. First his injury status would have to be examined by the other team in question. If he does have a soft tissue injury in the foot or has broken a bone that isn't healing well, he will continue to have injury issues....this would make him nearly untradeable considering the size and length of his contract.

As for the person who suggested LJ has 8-10 years left, that is highly unlikely. He is not young...he is in his late twenties, and most runningback decline rapidly after the age of 30. He has 2-3 good years left (if healthy) and 4-6 total years left in the NFL.

Why would you want to build your franchise around a declining TE?

[rbedgood]

Why would you want to build your franchise around a declining TE?

Aging...I can see...

Declining...I haven't seen it yet?!

Also as a 49er fan, I'll tell you, shipping out the stars and saying you're going to replace them with younger talent doesn't always work out.

[hermhater]

Why would you want to build your franchise around a declining TE?

He is not a declining TE.

He had another Pro Bowl season despite the rest of the offensive problems.

[Canada]

Why would you want to build your franchise around a declining TE?

??? Declining ??? Seriously?? didn't he have 100 catches this year?

[texaschief]

Aging...I can see...

Declining...I haven't seen it yet?!

Also as a 49er fan, I'll tell you, shipping out the stars and saying you're going to replace them with younger talent doesn't always work out.

I've never said we'd replace them with hall-of-fame players. I DID say that trading them would help fill more holes than trading them would create.

[Canada]

I've never said we'd replace them with hall-of-fame players. I DID say that trading them would help fill more holes than trading them would create.

Assuming that none of these drafted players turn out to be another Sims, Medlock or other busted draft pick

[prough91]

Why would you want to build your franchise around a declining TE?

Are you even seriously a Chief's fan or do you just like coming on here getting everyone riled up? T.G. has not shown any sign of slowing down. When you're developing a QB, why would you want to get rid of the one guy that can catch anything thrown his way? Finally, a true fan would never, ever want to see T.G. in anything but a Chiefs jersey.