RUMOR: Norm Hitzges: Chiefs interested in trading LJ to Cowboys?

[LatinMind]

If he's not getting that kind of work load, then why pay him as if he were? In essence, you'd be paying him as the top RB in the league to do the work that MB or JJ are doing now. Any way you look at this, I don't like the price tag associated with LJ.

you;d be paying 60 mil for a mcfadden rookie contract next yr. tomlinsons deal is 50.2 mil. LJ would get 50 mil, but he'd be worth 40.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How?

The only reason San Fran won games last year was because of Gore. How does that "lesson the value" of someone like Gore?

What % of there offense went through Gore? They were 7-9 in a very easy division using Gore as there primary offensive weapon. If your going to say that LJ is good for 1700 yards or whatever the number, then you have to be ready to commit your offense to giving him 400+ carries. That limites the offense a great deal IMO. In the NFL, you can't win if your one dimensional IMO. In the end, while Gore did have a good season, they still lost. I don't really want a back who is going to rush for 1700 yards because that makes the offense too predictable IMO. It's great but I would just rather have a couple of very good backs with reasonable contracts as opposed to one back who has an astronomical price tag attached to him. If he goes down, your very limited in what you can do IMO. Just not worth it to me.

 

[joseephuss]

i think LJ asking for that type of money had to do with him knowing KC wouldnt, and his knowledge that the cheifs had plans of running him into the ground this yr. and just letting him go. i can see him signing a contract more like mcgahee, maybe a little more. 35 -40 mil for johnson over 5 or 6 yrs is a good contract for both sides. which will also be cheaper then a mcfadden contract.

They have been running him into the ground since he became the official starter. After Priest Holmes went down for good in 2005 and Larry Johnson became the starter they have been feeding him the ball. In the last 9 games of 2005 w/o Priest, Larry had 261 carries or 29 per game. That is even more than the 26 per game he averaged for all of 2006.

 

[Hostile]

And Steve Young, Charles Haley, and Drew Brees, and Julian Peterson, and those are just the first few names that came to mind.

I can understand not wanting to make the trade. It just seemed like it was solely because of money. Age makes sense to me, but the money doesn't.

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those guys are RBs.

QBs have changed teams and made a huge impact.

Defensive players have.

RBs typically do not and I have no theory as to why that is.

The only time I am interested in another team's castoff RB is as a backup. That means the money matters to me.

Other than Marshall Faulk can you name me a RB who was the missing piece of the puzzle after changing teams? Maybe you can say Marcus Allen or John Riggins, but can you put them in Faulk's league?

Now if you can't explain to me why it is wise to pay more than the cost it took for the Rams to acquire Faulk, because frankly I can't reconcile that.

 

[Doomsday101]

What % of there offense went through Gore? They were 7-9 in a very easy division using Gore as there primary offensive weapon. If your going to say that LJ is good for 1700 yards or whatever the number, then you have to be ready to commit your offense to giving him 400+ carries. That limites the offense a great deal IMO. In the NFL, you can't win if your one dimensional IMO. In the end, while Gore did have a good season, they still lost. I don't really want a back who is going to rush for 1700 yards because that makes the offense too predictable IMO. It's great but I would just rather have a couple of very good backs with reasonable contracts as opposed to one back who has an astronomical price tag attached to him. If he goes down, your very limited in what you can do IMO. Just not worth it to me.

I don't think it limits the offense if anything is makes the job of the QB that much easier as your running play action and getting backers and safeties freezing in their tracks which allows for many big plays down field. Troy had Emmitt and while Troy did not put up a lot of 300 yard days the passing game was very effective. I would also say looking at the history of the Cowboys have 1 stud RB is much better than 2 decent RB be it guys like Thomas, Dorrsett or Emmitt.

 

[Hostile]

I can respect your stance although I am on the opposite side of it. I think I have explained my stance on the money LJ may want (I haven't heard exact figures though) in other posts.

Tell me why the price for him should be higher than the price the Rams paid for Faulk.

I am really interested in this angle but folks seem to be avoiding it.

You see, I consider that a "cost" to the team too.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah, but San Francisco is a clear case of how the passing game has lessoned the value of one all everything RB. That's my point.

What % of there offense went through Gore? They were 7-9 in a very easy division using Gore as there primary offensive weapon. If your going to say that LJ is good for 1700 yards or whatever the number, then you have to be ready to commit your offense to giving him 400+ carries. That limites the offense a great deal IMO. In the NFL, you can't win if your one dimensional IMO. In the end, while Gore did have a good season, they still lost. I don't really want a back who is going to rush for 1700 yards because that makes the offense too predictable IMO. It's great but I would just rather have a couple of very good backs with reasonable contracts as opposed to one back who has an astronomical price tag attached to him. If he goes down, your very limited in what you can do IMO. Just not worth it to me.

This is madness. San Francisco won because of Frank Gore. Without Frank Gore, they might not have won 2 games. I guarantee they would have been the worst team in the NFL again. Their run-blocking is not good, their pass blocking is only better than the Raiders, and their defense was one of the league's worst.

But with a great RB - perhaps the league's best - they got to 7-9. An amazing accomplishment considering the talent they ACTUALLY have.

That's what a great RB can do for your team. Only a great QB is a more important asset. Having a great RB doesn't make you one-dimensional, and having Johnson wouldn't make anyone one-dimensional either, as 2005's Chiefs can attest. Having a RB like Johnson, Tomlinson, Gore or Jackson is worth EVERY penny, if your team can afford it. Kansas City has bungled their cap, and can't. If we had a reasonable shot at Johnson, and we thought he could remain healthy for a few more years, there's no way you don't take a shot at that. Our team would instantly be super-bowl favorites. Because the ONLY thing holding this offense back is a strong, consistent run game.

 

[slick325]

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those guys are RBs.

QBs have changed teams and made a huge impact.

Defensive players have.

RBs typically do not and I have no theory as to why that is.

The only time I am interested in another team's castoff RB is as a backup. That means the money matters to me.

Other than Marshall Faulk can you name me a RB who was the missing piece of the puzzle after changing teams? Maybe you can say Marcus Allen or John Riggins, but can you put them in Faulk's league?

Now if you can't explain to me why it is wise to pay more than the cost it took for the Rams to acquire Faulk, because frankly I can't reconcile that.

Bettis shaped a HOF career in Pittsburgh and capped it off with a ring. As you mentioned, Marcus Allen, Riggins, Faulk are the only others that come to mind at this time.

Curtis Martin wasn't too bad with the Jets either.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

you;d be paying 60 mil for a mcfadden rookie contract next yr. tomlinsons deal is 50.2 mil. LJ would get 50 mil, but he'd be worth 40.

Is that number with the 12 Million Signing bonus included? I'd read where it was 60 Million but that's fine. If it's 50, that's more reasonable but that's still 21 guaranted money your talking about. That's a lot.

I also don't think McFadden would be 60 million but I guess we would have to see what everybody signs for this year before I can say that definatively. We have a good situation now with Barbar and Jones. Why pay more money to get simular production?

Johnson rushed for 1789 yards on 416 carries with 17 rushing TDs.

Barber and Jones together produced 1738 yards on 402 carries and 18 Rushing TDs.

I guess I don't see the logic here.

 

[Vintage]

What % of there offense went through Gore? They were 7-9 in a very easy division using Gore as there primary offensive weapon. If your going to say that LJ is good for 1700 yards or whatever the number, then you have to be ready to commit your offense to giving him 400+ carries. That limites the offense a great deal IMO. In the NFL, you can't win if your one dimensional IMO. In the end, while Gore did have a good season, they still lost. I don't really want a back who is going to rush for 1700 yards because that makes the offense too predictable IMO. It's great but I would just rather have a couple of very good backs with reasonable contracts as opposed to one back who has an astronomical price tag attached to him. If he goes down, your very limited in what you can do IMO. Just not worth it to me.

So....

Wait....what?

LOL... Yeah, San Fran lost. Because they sucked. Not because their offense centered around Gore. That was the only reason they won some games...

So you don't want a back that is going to rush for 1700 yards?

Wow.

I'd love an Emmitt in his prime RB right about now.

But I guess you wouldn't be interested. Too one-dimensional and all. Yeah, JJ/Barber give us a better chance of winning with our offense...

 

[Hostile]

Bettis shaped a HOF career in Pittsburgh and capped it off with a ring. As you mentioned, Marcus Allen, Riggins, Faulk are the only others that come to mind at this time.

Curtis Martin wasn't too bad with the Jets either.

Did any of them cost the equivalent of MB3 and the Browns #1 to acquire?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is madness. San Francisco won because of Frank Gore. Without Frank Gore, they might not have won 2 games. I guarantee they would have been the worst team in the NFL again. Their run-blocking is not good, their pass blocking is only better than the Raiders, and their defense was one of the league's worst.

But with a great RB - perhaps the league's best - they got to 7-9. An amazing accomplishment considering the talent they ACTUALLY have.

That's what a great RB can do for your team. Only a great QB is a more important asset. Having a great RB doesn't make you one-dimensional, and having Johnson wouldn't make anyone one-dimensional either, as 2005's Chiefs can attest. Having a RB like Johnson, Tomlinson, Gore or Jackson is worth EVERY penny, if your team can afford it. Kansas City has bungled their cap, and can't. If we had a reasonable shot at Johnson, and we thought he could remain healthy for a few more years, there's no way you don't take a shot at that. Our team would instantly be super-bowl favorites. Because the ONLY thing holding this offense back is a strong, consistent run game.

So basically your saying, if we get LJ and pay him rediculous amounts of money, we can be 7-9?

OK, my answer is still no.

 

[Vintage]

Nope.

Rereading that post for the second time does NOT make it any less funny, if anyone was wondering.

 

[superpunk]

Is that number with the 12 Million Signing bonus included? I'd read where it was 60 Million but that's fine. If it's 50, that's more reasonable but that's still 21 guaranted money your talking about. That's a lot.

I also don't think McFadden would be 60 million but I guess we would have to see what everybody signs for this year before I can say that definatively. We have a good situation now with Barbar and Jones. Why pay more money to get simular production?

Johnson rushed for 1789 yards on 416 carries with 17 rushing TDs.

Barber and Jones together produced 1738 yards on 402 carries and 18 Rushing TDs.

I guess I don't see the logic here.

The logic is simple. Given less carries, behind a superior offensive line, a star RB like LJ is going to produce more than Jones did. That 1790 yards suddenly becomes 2 grand.

So basically your saying, if we get LJ and pay him rediculous amounts of money, we can be 7-9?

OK, my answer is still no.

I can't even find words for how stupid this is.

 

[joseephuss]

Tell me why the price for him should be higher than the price the Rams paid for Faulk.

I am really interested in this angle but folks seem to be avoiding it.

You see, I consider that a "cost" to the team too.

The Colts messed up by not asking more for Faulk. I thought it was a bad move at the time. Not in letting him go, but letting him go for such low compensation. They could have done better.

How the Colts mistake or willingness to take such a low bid ties into LJ and the Chiefs, I am not too certain? LJ is going to cost a lot because he is going to cost a lot. In both salary and what it takes to get him as far as draft picks and players.

Should Dallas pay more to get him than the Rams did to get Marshall Faulk? Should any team? They should not, but will probably have to in order to get a trade done. I don't think Dallas should because it is just too much. Not even the money really, but a high draft pick and losing Barber. If they kind find a much better deal, it may be worth it.

 

[Doomsday101]

So basically your saying, if we get LJ and pay him rediculous amounts of money, we can be 7-9?

OK, my answer is still no.

I think if you bring in Johnson you become a favorite to go all the way. Jones sure as heck does not put any fear into teams and does not take over a game as Larry Johnson has shown. While I'm not in favor of giving up a 1st rd pick and a player I would jump at giving up a day 1 pick and a player for one of the leagues premier backs.

 

[Vintage]

I can't even find words for how stupid this is.

Re-read it.

Its funnier every time.

Got to run....haircut time.

 

[LatinMind]

They have been running him into the ground since he became the official starter. After Priest Holmes went down for good in 2005 and Larry Johnson became the starter they have been feeding him the ball. In the last 9 games of 2005 w/o Priest, Larry had 261 carries or 29 per game. That is even more than the 26 per game he averaged for all of 2006.

lol so ur basically saying 25 games into his carrier as an official starter he's already wearing down?

you do know tomlinson had only 50 less touches then johnson last yr. and has roughly the same amount of touches in the last 25 games. give or take a few for either guy. i guess he's being wore down too?

seems like after them being wore out, they're still putting up numbers nobody else can match right?

 

[theogt]

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those guys are RBs.

I read your post a couple times and didn't see that limitation -- my bad. Franchise RBs normally don't change teams because not many people are looking to get rid of one. Why the Chiefs are, I don't know.

Now if you can't explain to me why it is wise to pay more than the cost it took for the Rams to acquire Faulk, because frankly I can't reconcile that.

Different transactions cost different things. Some idiots are willing to give up a lot for a little (see the Browns circa April of 2007 on a Saturday afternoon). I'm not sure Barber and a 1st is too much to ask for LJ. I would have to do much more research first, but I can't just reject it out of hand like some people are.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think it limits the offense if anything is makes the job of the QB that much easier as your running play action and getting backers and safeties freezing in their tracks which allows for many big plays down field. Troy had Emmitt and while Troy did not put up a lot of 300 yard days the passing game was very effective. I would also say looking at the history of the Cowboys have 1 stud RB is much better than 2 decent RB be it guys like Thomas, Dorrsett or Emmitt.

I do think it limits our offense. Here is why. Even in the days of Emmitt and the early 90s, everybody new what we were going to do. Because of the fact that our OL was so good, we couldn't be stopped but everybody new how to stop us. It was a personel thing. Now, LJ is not Emmitt, IMO. We don't have the offensive line we had then. In order for us to get the kind of production we are going to have to get from LJ, we are going to have to commit a substantial amount of offensive play calling to LJ. That helps defenses because they don't have to worry about as many things to defend. To me, we already have the kind of production LJ produced from Barber and Jones. Why pay more money to get the same kind of production and be more predictable on offense? Also, there is a question of injury. If LJ goes down, then so does your offense. If we were not getting the same kind of production from JJ and MB, then I would probably agree with you a bit more but to me, it's just crazy to pay more money for very little, if any, improvement in the running game.