ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Kelce, Berry Named to 2010s All-Decade Team by Pro Football HoF (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=330422)

ThaVirus 04-07-2020 10:20 AM

These lists are shit anyway. They really need to figure out the 3-4/4-3 DE and OLB designations. Also, what the **** is the "DB" designation? Flex is dumb as hell, too.

smithandrew051 04-07-2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus (Post 14892063)
These lists are shit anyway. They really need to figure out the 3-4/4-3 DE and OLB designations. Also, what the **** is the "DB" designation? Flex is dumb as hell, too.

“Flex” kinda feels like a player who can do a little of everything, but isn’t great at anything.

My problem with that is you have players like Tyreek Hill or Antonio Brown that could be useful in a lot of ways. However, they’re used primarily as WRs, because they’re too valuable to lose to an injury. No need to take the risk having Tyreek return kick offs for instance.

DJ's left nut 04-07-2020 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus (Post 14892052)
Honestly, I'd rather have 10 games of Jamaal Charles and 6 of some scrub free agent than 16 of the 2010s version of Frank Gore.

In either case, I understand that most wouldn't agree given Charles lack of longevity and volume, but what's the argument for Gore over Matt Forte?

Forte was effectively done by 2016; he was a backup by 2017. So he was only relevant for roughly 2/3 of the decade.

So with Forte you get a combination of Gore's low floor and Charles' relatively short duration.

I would argue Gore AND Charles over Forte. At least both guys have strong arguments in a single direction. With Forte you have durability, longetivity and overall productivity. With Charles you have among the most electric and dynamic peaks in NFL history. With Forte you get none of that.

Regarding the '10 games of Charles, 6 games of scrub' - the issue is that A) that's not what you tended to get (way too many times you got effectively zero games of Charles) and B) you can't know when you'll actually get those games so it's hard to build around them.

Come post-season you knew you had Gore (and he was actually pretty damn good; people forget how critical he was to those Harbaugh teams that went to a SB and another NFCCG). With Charles, you oftentimes had him injured by the end of the season or, in the case of the Indy game, bounced out during it. When the Chiefs were trying to nurse him along in '14 and missed the playoffs by a game when they struggled down the stretch, well that should be considered. Or when he missed '15 and they were as good/better without him than they were with him.

There's just not enough credit given to dependability here, IMO.

Demonpenz 04-07-2020 02:22 PM

Gore checks all the boxes as chiefs fan. Works hard. Not flashy. Works everyday. Mostly reeruned.

ThaVirus 04-07-2020 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 14892184)
Forte was effectively done by 2016; he was a backup by 2017. So he was only relevant for roughly 2/3 of the decade.

So with Forte you get a combination of Gore's low floor and Charles' relatively short duration.

I would argue Gore AND Charles over Forte. At least both guys have strong arguments in a single direction. With Forte you have durability, longetivity and overall productivity. With Charles you have among the most electric and dynamic peaks in NFL history. With Forte you get none of that.

Regarding the '10 games of Charles, 6 games of scrub' - the issue is that A) that's not what you tended to get (way too many times you got effectively zero games of Charles) and B) you can't know when you'll actually get those games so it's hard to build around them.

Come post-season you knew you had Gore (and he was actually pretty damn good; people forget how critical he was to those Harbaugh teams that went to a SB and another NFCCG). With Charles, you oftentimes had him injured by the end of the season or, in the case of the Indy game, bounced out during it. When the Chiefs were trying to nurse him along in '14 and missed the playoffs by a game when they struggled down the stretch, well that should be considered. Or when he missed '15 and they were as good/better without him than they were with him.

There's just not enough credit given to dependability here, IMO.

Blah. I was remembering Matt Forte as elite or at least semi-elite there for a while but maybe I'm remembering wrong. Outside of a couple seasons he was basically a 1000-1100 rushing yards a season kind of guy, though he definitely excelled in the passing game.

I definitely tend to underrate dependability but I just know that if Frank Gore was my RB, I'd have been looking to replace him for basically 60% of the decade and that just doesn't sit well with me.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.