Carl Vs. L.j. Is Next Battle Royale

[Chiefster]

I have to admit had me laughing on this one.

CARL VS. L.J. IS NEXT BATTLE ROYALE
With Jared Allen eating sushi and promising to lead a wil’-out-free social life, and Trent Green packing his footballs and heading to a South Florida home, there’s only one compelling story line left in the latest episode of “The Last King of Mediocrity.”

Carl Peterson vs. Larry Johnson.

Yes, the main event: King Carl vs. L.J. for all the money in Clark Hunt’s piggybank. This should be far better than De la Hoya-Mayweather, and if the executives running HBO were smart, they’d do a 24/7 documentary on this historic battle rather than taping Kansas City’s training camp.

This is a showdown that has been brewing ever since King Carl hoodwinked Johnson and his agent into signing that ridiculous, Master P-approved rookie contract. This thing should get UFC bloody and ugly.

Before the end of training camp, I fully expect Peterson’s pit bull/mouthpiece Bob Gretz and Johnson’s pit bull/mouthpiece Rhonda Moss to square off in a dogfight that will have Michael “Ron Cujo” Vick flush with envy.

Seriously, I’m so glad Trent Green is finally gone. Bickering over the value and treatment of a filthy-rich, 37-year-old quarterback was a bit boring for my taste, especially when you know Peterson could just as easily botch a fourth-round pick as a sixth.

The Green-Peterson scrap sounded like a Leawood father and son arguing over whether the kid deserves the fully loaded SUV or the sport package. Peterson-Johnson has the promise of getting as rowdy as me and my brother coming to blows over the last pork chop at a Labor Day barbecue.

Right now, my money is on The Last King of Mediocrity.

He’s been in the gym training for this bout ever since Priest Holmes bamboozled the Chiefs out of a final payday and quickly retired to a life of nachos, yearly, inconclusive MRI scans on his spine and baby’s mama drama.

King Carl vowed never again. Only Tony Gonzalez and Tom Condon are allowed to fleece the Hunt’s bank account under Peterson’s watch. Peterson would rather name Ethan Locke head coach and put Jack Harry in charge of ticket prices than reward Larry Johnson with LaDainian Tomlinson-type money.

And, in many respects, Peterson is holding all of the leverage. Peterson gleefully watched as his new head coach, Herm Edwards, overworked Johnson all last season, giving him an NFL record number of carries. Edwards used Johnson in a way that indicated the Chiefs don’t have long-term plans for Johnson.

Peterson could refuse to offer Johnson a fair contract extension, run L.J. into the ground again this season, slap the franchise tag on him for the 2008 season and discard Johnson in 2009.

That would be the cold-blooded business move. Based on the way Johnson has conducted himself in his years as a Chief, I’m not sure many fans would be sympathetic toward Johnson. He has never pretended to be much of a team guy, so few people will care if the Chiefs treat Johnson in a selfish manner.

Johnson’s leverage is a 2007 holdout. He’s on the books to earn about $1.7 million this year. If he sits out and sacrifices the money, the Chiefs could be the 2006 Oakland Raiders. Those Raiders, despite a very good defense, finished 2-14 and scored just 168 points. They were darn near impossible to watch.

The Chiefs could be that bad. Without Johnson, I honestly don’t know how the Chiefs score a point. By midseason, Arrowhead Stadium would be half empty on game day. By the end of the season, you’d swear the Royals were playing football.

And L.J.’s absence would certainly hamper the development of Brodie Croyle.

The problem for Johnson is that The Last King of Mediocrity could survive a 2-14 season. With Green in Miami and the Chiefs breaking in a new quarterback, Peterson could use 2-14 as a true rebuilding year, and Chiefs fans would be excited about having the No. 1 pick (although the enthusiasm would be tempered by the knowledge that Peterson would draft Todd Blackledge).

Again, Peterson is bunkered in and ready for a losing season. Johnson is not prepared to sacrifice $1.7 million. That’s money he’ll never get back. Plus, he’ll be a year older and still looking for a new contract.

Peterson is a heavy favorite in this fight, but we’ve seen him blow 13-3 regular seasons and home-field advantage, so anything is a possibility.

[Canada]

This is what like spirited debate and conversation! What else did I miss!

Oh, welcome aboard DrunkHillbilly! You and Canada aught to have much in common.

Are you implying that I am a drunken hillbilly? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[DrunkHillbilly]

Sum*****es!!!!! LOL!

[chief31]

Offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 387.0
2. Sea. 369.7


2004

offensive yards per game

1. K.C. 418.4
2. Ind. 404.7

2003

offensive yards per game

1. Min. 393.4
2. K.C. 369.4


2002

offensive yards per game

4. K.C. 375.0


All statistics, gathered from yahoo sports.

Ha Ha...This is becoming comical!!

So, do they determine TOTAL offense by.. Offensive yds or...
Passing yds or...
Points ?
Let me help you out. It's a combination of all of them plus a few more things.

It's obvious you don't have a clue! I did make a mistake however. I said 2002. I was wrong, it was 2003! Sorry, those last 2 beers got to me!

Go back to your YAHOO sports and look up TEAM STATS and go to sortable offensive team statistics.

Chiefs...2006.. 15th
2005.. 6th
2004.. 2nd
2003.. 1st
So, although these are good stats, they were not number 1 year before last as you have said! If your gonna use the web for your research instead of your head, it would behoove you to slow down a little and get the statistics right. Again, I used your source.

I think the smoke from the BBQ has clouded your cerebral cortex!!! I'm not a Doctor but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!!!!!

I should have known that the extra numbers would have thrown you. You haven't been able to read anything else.

You have a problem admitting you are wrong. Rather you want to call D.V.s offense no. 1, or "top-six" the point is there. You can have a highly successful offense, without Chad Johnson. (Or whichever reciever you like to throw in there.) If the '04 Chiefs had the top two recievers, in the NFL, they still would have lost their playoff game. The defense never stopped the Colts.

[DrunkHillbilly]

Hey chief31......

I have another great example of receivers succeeding without an O line. THE ARIZONA CARDINALS!!!!! They have had the worst offensive line in football and their 2 main receivers are studs.

Boldin has averaged 1200 plus yds and 6 or 7 TD's 3 out of the last 4 years.
Fitzgerald has averaged 1000 yds plus and 8 or 9 TD's 2 out of his 3 years.

This has been accomplished with NO tight end, worst O line in football and an aging quarterback that has only played 16 games total in 2 seasons!!!! The rookie started 9 games last season!

[DrunkHillbilly]

I should have known that the extra numbers would have thrown you. You haven't been able to read anything else.

You have a problem admitting you are wrong. Rather you want to call D.V.s offense no. 1, or "top-six" the point is there. You can have a highly successful offense, without Chad Johnson. (Or whichever reciever you like to throw in there.) If the '04 Chiefs had the top two recievers, in the NFL, they still would have lost their playoff game. The defense never stopped the Colts.

As far as Dickie's offense goes, I was just letting you know that the stats you had looked up were wrong!!! Now for the mentally challenged portion of our show....... Have you heard me say defense doesn't matter???????????????????????????? NEVER!!!! But you can't expect to score 3 damn points and win against the girls flag football team at your gradeschool!!!! We have our defense in good position. It was decent last season. You have to score points to win the game!! Defense matters but if you hold the other team to 14 points, you have to score 15 to win!!!

I'll say it one more time reeeeaaalllllll slooooowwwwwww.

You can't run the ball if you can't open the game up with a passing game! Just like you can't pass the ball unless you have a viable threat at the running back position!! Ask anybody you know, they will tell you the same!

GET IT????:character00230: :character00230: :character00230: :character00230:

[chief31]

You keep arguing against the '06 numbers, when we are in agreeance already.

The numbers I gave a right.

The Cardinals O-line is a bad run-blocking group, but a pretty good pass-blocking group.

[chief31]

I don't care if you have Jerry Rice and a young Randy Moss, at reciever. If you have Jordan Black at left tackle, you don't get to throw bombs.

[chief31]

you can't pass the ball unless you have a viable threat at the running back position!!

Arizona Cardinals? Your example above.

[DrunkHillbilly]

Ok I get it.....YOU GIVE!! LOL!

The Cardinals O line is terrible all the way around. Yea, their better at the pass D than the run D but still just awful!!!! I think they just got better though. Leonard "FAT ***" "FALSE START" Davis can ruin the Cowboys unit this year! Although if the Cowboys move him to guard where he should be, he will do better.

This is the Bidwill **** I am talking about. He wouldn't move Davis to guard where his fat *** could clog up the middle. My 85 year old grandma with one leg could have run around his fat ***! Bidwill said he refused to pay a number 2 pick in the draft that kind of money to play guard!

Nevermind what's good for your football team! Jackoff!

[DrunkHillbilly]

Arizona Cardinals? Your example above.

Last season.. E James...almost 1200 yds
Prior seasons... combination of 3 RB's.. about 970 some odd yds.

i never said the running game had to be by one back. In fact. I like the platoon theory.