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.

[DrunkHillbilly]

Ma'am please step away from the koolaid!!!!

[chief31]

Ma'am please step away from the koolaid!!!!

So, your argument is, that instaed of an offense that can move the ball by :running inside; running outside; running reverses; passing deep; passing middle depth; passing short or throwing screens, you want a balanced offense? Well, that makes me a NOOB then, because I have never seen a more balanced offense.

Look, go ask all of your T.V/magazine "experts" what the Chiefs' team needed, in '04 and '05. Defense. The offense was incredible. Period. Everyone on that offense was a deep threat. Maybe not a 75yard deep threat. But, according to most, the Chiefs were scoring too quickly, anyway.

You can "teach" me about how to manipulate opposing defenses, all you want, but every reason that you have for needing a deep threat, was already taken care of, on that defense. We needed a deep threat, to open the running lanes? Did you ever watch Preist Holmes run? Those lanes were open.

You want to argue that Greens statistics didn't tell the whole story about the Chiefs' offensive balance? Are you lost? It defines offensive balance. He threw mostly possession yards? Yeah, again, Priest Holmes. That was the nuber one offense in the NFL and it was the nuber one red-zone offense, in the NFL.

Your argument is confusing. That offense stomped ###. regular season, playoffs, whenever, they stomped ###. The defense was the only problem, with D.V.s Chiefs.

Dick Vermiel knows more about offense than all of your T.V./magazine experts, combined. Why didn't he want a "big-name" wideout?

I'll be back, I'm barbequeing.

[Chiefster]

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.

[DrunkHillbilly]

So, your argument is, that instaed of an offense that can move the ball by :running inside; running outside; running reverses; passing deep; passing middle depth; passing short or throwing screens, you want a balanced offense? Well, that makes me a NOOB then, because I have never seen a more balanced offense.

Look, go ask all of your T.V/magazine "experts" what the Chiefs' team needed, in '04 and '05. Defense. The offense was incredible. Period. Everyone on that offense was a deep threat. Maybe not a 75yard deep threat. But, according to most, the Chiefs were scoring too quickly, anyway.

You can "teach" me about how to manipulate opposing defenses, all you want, but every reason that you have for needing a deep threat, was already taken care of, on that defense. We needed a deep threat, to open the running lanes? Did you ever watch Preist Holmes run? Those lanes were open.

You want to argue that Greens statistics didn't tell the whole story about the Chiefs' offensive balance? Are you lost? It defines offensive balance. He threw mostly possession yards? Yeah, again, Priest Holmes. That was the nuber one offense in the NFL and it was the nuber one red-zone offense, in the NFL.

Your argument is confusing. That offense stomped ###. regular season, playoffs, whenever, they stomped ###. The defense was the only problem, with D.V.s Chiefs.

Dick Vermiel knows more about offense than all of your T.V./magazine experts, combined. Why didn't he want a "big-name" wideout?

I'll be back, I'm barbequeing.

First of all, this is '07-'08. Noone is talking about '04.

Second... I never said anything about opening "running lanes"!

Third...Tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped ANYTHING IN THE PLAYOFFS????

Fourth...I said our 2nd need was to improve our O line.

Fifth... I still haven't heard your response to winning teams of the last 10 years WR's! The worst of those teams have had better recievers than the Chiefs have had in years!

A running game (which we have) opens up the game for strikes down the field. A deep threat(that we have maybe NEVER had) opens up the game for the running game. It's Pop Warner fundemental football!!

You want to bring up Priests years. AWESOME!!! How did we do? Notta ,Nothing, Zilch!!!! One and done in the playoffs! Uno Dos Adios!!! Chip the ball to Priest or Gonzo for a screen or a little slant pattern.

No team in football fears the Chiefs passing game!! Not even the Raiders!!!! They defend everything up the middle.

Here's the best part"I've never seen a more balanced offense"
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!??????? ?
My kids team is more balanced! Come on man Seriously, do you watch other NFL teams play?

Someone has to say something about this comment!!!!!

I'm not questioning your knowledge of the game but some of your arguments are somewhat bewildering to say the least. You seem to be satisfied with the fact that the Chiefs in the past have had great regular seasons. I don't give a damn about the regular season!!!!! It's all about the post season!!! I want to win just enough to get into the playoffs and then step it up. Tell me again, how many points did we score in our lucky playoff game last season?? Hmmmm, guess who got shut down? LJ. why? Uhhh, they had 50 people in the box!!!!! I think the corners and safety's were even in the box! Either that or they were takin a water break! Damn, Im gonna miss that go to Dante Hall!???!! NO FREAKIN PASSING GAME!!!!

[chief31]

Year after year goes by and free agent WR's go by. Peterson doesn't want to pay! There were several free agents out there in the last few years I wish we would have taken a stab at.

Well, to run the ball you have to be able to pass the ball

First of all, this is '07-'08. Noone is talking about '04.

Second... I never said anything about opening "running lanes"!

Third...Tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped ANYTHING IN THE PLAYOFFS????

Fourth...I said our 2nd need was to improve our O line.

Fifth... I still haven't heard your response to winning teams of the last 10 years WR's! The worst of those teams have had better recievers than the Chiefs have had in years!

A running game (which we have) opens up the game for strikes down the field. A deep threat(that we have maybe NEVER had) opens up the game for the running game. It's Pop Warner fundemental football!!

You want to bring up Priests years. AWESOME!!! How did we do? Notta ,Nothing, Zilch!!!! One and done in the playoffs! Uno Dos Adios!!! Chip the ball to Priest or Gonzo for a screen or a little slant pattern.

No team in football fears the Chiefs passing game!! Not even the Raiders!!!! They defend everything up the middle.

Here's the best part"I've never seen a more balanced offense"
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!??????? ?
My kids team is more balanced! Come on man Seriously, do you watch other NFL teams play?

Someone has to say something about this comment!!!!!

I'm not questioning your knowledge of the game but some of your arguments are somewhat bewildering to say the least. You seem to be satisfied with the fact that the Chiefs in the past have had great regular seasons. I don't give a damn about the regular season!!!!! It's all about the post season!!! I want to win just enough to get into the playoffs and then step it up. Tell me again, how many points did we score in our lucky playoff game last season?? Hmmmm, guess who got shut down? LJ. why? Uhhh, they had 50 people in the box!!!!! I think the corners and safety's were even in the box! Either that or they were takin a water break! Damn, Im gonna miss that go to Dante Hall!???!! NO FREAKIN PASSING GAME!!!!

O.k barbeque is done. Lots of work to do, here.

A) Read your own posts, you brought-up previous years, in regards to the need for recievers. That is where I challenged you, to begin with. It is the basis, for everything that I have argued.

B) While you didn't say :opening running lanes" I assumed that you knew what you were talking about, when you said " to run the ball, you have to be able to pass the ball. But, upon looking back, I see that that was just repeating what someone else, who did know, had said.

C) Tell you the last time the Chiefs stomped anyhting in the playoffs... Well, since we were talking about the Chiefs offense... How about the Colts' defense? I'm gonna go ahead and move this one ahead a spot. You'll say..."What good did that do them?!?!?!" Nothing. Because, as I said before, the defense was the problem.

D) You said our second need was O-line. I take exception to that, because, as I said before, the offense can be incredible "without recievers". I know that, because it had been, for several years. When we had an offensive line. Now, let me add, that this was the offseason, that I fealt we needed to draft a wideout. Because Eddie Kennison is.... Where's it at?....oh, 420 years old.

E) Winning teams, the last ten years.... I disagree. Eddie Kennison has the skills of a top-ten reciever, in the NFL. (Albeit diminishing, at this point. Since he is "420" years old.) Everyone overlooks his talent, because he was not the primary target of the Chiefs' offense. Hard to be the big name, on an offense that has Gonzales, Holmes and Green.

F) "A running game...." Without an offensive line, you don't get to throw the ball, down the field. And our current running game includes nothing, to the outside. A one-dimentional running game doesn't open up a whole lot, especially if you can't protect your quarterback.

E) If you have seen a more balanced defense than the Chiefs' during Vermiels tenure..... GTFO. (Your sons Pop-Warner team)There hasn't been any. Many that were comparable, even arguable. But, that was, at least, one of the most balanced offenive systems, ever created.

F) "They had fifty people in the box!!!" How do you get to argue both sides of the argument? Why didn't the Chiefs have a passing game? I'm gonna guess what you'd say, again..." Because they have no recievers!!!!!!" (Probably should have thrown in a "FREAKIN'") This is where you are WRONG!!!!! That same bunch of recievers were part of the number one offense, a year before. The difference between a number one offense and a number fifteen offense, that couldn't manage a first down in the playoffs, is offensive line. (Poor play-calling had a hand in it, too.)

Do me a favor... Read what you have already posted, so I don't have to quote you several times, to show you what you said. It takes up alot of room.

[Chiefster]

Might I also add that spell check is a must in order to make sense of what one types.:p

[DrunkHillbilly]

O.k barbeque is done. Lots of work to do, here.

A) Read your own posts, you brought-up previous years, in regards to the need for recievers. That is where I challenged you, to begin with. It is the basis, for everything that I have argued.

B) While you didn't say :opening running lanes" I assumed that you knew what you were talking about, when you said " to run the ball, you have to be able to pass the ball. But, upon looking back, I see that that was just repeating what someone else, who did know, had said.

C) Tell you the last time the Chiefs stomped anyhting in the playoffs... Well, since we were talking about the Chiefs offense... How about the Colts' defense? I'm gonna go ahead and move this one ahead a spot. You'll say..."What good did that do them?!?!?!" Nothing. Because, as I said before, the defense was the problem.

D) You said our second need was O-line. I take exception to that, because, as I said before, the offense can be incredible without. I know that, because it had been, for several years. When we had an offensive line. Now, let me add, that this was the offseason, that I fealt we needed to draft a wideout. Because Eddie Kennison is.... Where's it at?....oh, 420 years old.

E) Winning teams, the last ten years.... I disagree. Eddie Kennison has the skills of a top-ten receiver, in the NFL. (Albeit diminishing, at this point. Since he is "420" years old.) Everyone overlooks his talent, because he was not the primary target of the Chiefs' offense. Hard to be the big name, on an offense that has Gonzales, Holmes and Green.

F) "A running game...." Without an offensive line, you don't get to throw the ball, down the field. And our current running game includes nothing, to the outside. A one-dimentional running game doesn't open up a whole lot, especially if you can't protect your quarterback.

E) If you have seen a more balanced defense than the Chiefs' during Vermiels tenure..... GTFO. (Your sons Pop-Warner team)There hasn't been any. Many that were comparable, even arguable. But, that was, at least, one of the most balanced offenive systems, ever created.

F) "They had fifty people in the box!!!" How do you get to argue both sides of the argument? Why didn't the Chiefs have a passing game? I'm gonna guess what you'd say, again..." Because they have no receivers!!!!!!" (Probably should have thrown in a "FREAKIN'") This is where you are WRONG!!!!! That same bunch of recievers were part of the number one offense, a year before. The difference between a number one offense and a number fifteen offense, that couldn't manage a first down in the playoffs, is offensive line. (Poor play-calling had a hand in it, too.)

Do me a favor... Read what you have already posted, so I don't have to quote you several times, to show you what you said. It takes up alot of room.

I can't exactly make out what you are saying but I will do my best...

A) Whaaat? If your insinuating that I said we have had no receivers for years, your right, i did!

B)English please! We all know they are suppose to open lanes but that doesn't always happen now does it? There are other duties to that positions job.

C)I'm still waiting for you to tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped anything in the playoffs.
What does the Colts defense have to do with the Chiefs offense? And as pathetic as everyone said the Colts defense was, it held the Chiefs well balanced offense with a top 10 receiver to 3 points I believe!

D) I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they have not had an O line for years? Slow down with the fingers so we can read it.

E)Kennison the skills of a top 10 receiver! I bet he's not ranked in the top 25!!! I know your a die hard but wake up and get back to reality!!!

F)I'm not sure what you mean by arguing both sides but...
First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!! Next, play calling had EVERYTHING to do with it! Let me ask you this, do you think lack of faith in the receiving game had anything to do with the fact that virtually no passing plays were called the entire game?

G) You do all of us a favor, hit spell and quotation check before submit reply so we can understand what's going on!

[chief31]

I can't exactly make out what you are saying but I will do my best...

A) Whaaat? If your insinuating that I said we have had no receivers for years, your right, i did!

B)English please! We all know they are suppose to open lanes but that doesn't always happen now does it? There are other duties to that positions job.

C)I'm still waiting for you to tell me the last time the Chiefs stomped anything in the playoffs.
What does the Colts defense have to do with the Chiefs offense? And as pathetic as everyone said the Colts defense was, it held the Chiefs well balanced offense with a top 10 receiver to 3 points I believe!

D) I'm just not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they have not had an O line for years? Slow down with the fingers so we can read it.

E)Kennison the skills of a top 10 receiver! I bet he's not ranked in the top 25!!! I know your a die hard but wake up and get back to reality!!!

F)I'm not sure what you mean by arguing both sides but...
First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!! Next, play calling had EVERYTHING to do with it! Let me ask you this, do you think lack of faith in the receiving game had anything to do with the fact that virtually no passing plays were called the entire game?

G) You do all of us a favor, hit spell and quotation check before submit reply so we can understand what's going on!

Forget it. I don't speak drunkhillbilly, appearently.

[chief31]

First of all, the Chiefs haven't had the top rated offense since 2002. So your right, we had the same receivers we had the year before and did nothing!!!

Do you speak numbers?

2005

Offensive yards per game

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

passing yards per game

6. K.C. 238.1

2004

offensive yards per game

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

passing yards per game

4. K.C. 275.4

2003

offensive yards per game

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

point per game

1. K.C. 30.3
2. StL. 27.9

passing yards per game

1. Ind 261.2
2. K.C.248.8

2002

offensive yards per game

4. K.C. 375.0

points per game

1. K.C. 29.2
2. Oak 28.1

All statistics, gathered from yahoo sports.

[DrunkHillbilly]

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!!!!!!!