Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
McClain signs 1 year deal with Chiefs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
They probably felt they needed another ball carrier so they can use Charles less.
3 hour lunch
Footballguy
Is McCluster even in the mix now? Kind of a messy situation....
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Agreed. Guessing it'll be something like 45% McClain, 40% Jones and 15% Charles. That way no one's bigger than the team.
Mccluster is always gonna be a gadget player not a rb or wr.
mjr
Footballguy
I was wondering how they intended to use him before the McClain signing. Now I'm wondering if they might slide him back over to WR again. Can't see him doind much more than an occasional gadget player from the backfield spot. I might be letting him go pretty soon...
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
as a kc fan I love this signing.......
and seriously it wouldn't surprise me if TJ gets released......
and seriously it wouldn't surprise me if TJ gets released......
loose circuits
Footballguy
seems like he takes Jackie Battle's roster spot. Imagine he'll play a little of FB and RB
adrenaline
Footballguy
The new thunder & lightning.
What sense does this make? Whats TJ contract, even with mcclain their hes without a doubt their 2nd best runnning back.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scooby1974
Footballguy
What does this do for Parmele's stock backing up Rice?
Banger
Footballguy
increases from irrelevant to someone that can step into a bigger role. Ravens manage their talent pretty well and for them to let McGahee and McClain go and clear the deck for this kid says something. They could have kept either or both.
Its hard to tell in his 3 years with the ravens he was used only on special teams. The only reason McClain was released was because the ravens picked up the best blocking FB in the league, Vonta Leach. The Ravens RB coach talked about the situation, he called Leach "a lineman blocking for Ray Rice" that being said I expect Parmele to fall further down the depthchart leaving Anthony Allen as Rice's backup, whoever ends up with the job will pretty much end up doing nothing but coming in and giving rice a break, just not convinced any of their backup RBs has "it" they have all been given little to no shot on the field and when Parmele had a couple shots it was nothing impressive. RB Situation in baltimore is looking better everyday.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Interesting signing. I agree that Jones' days may be numbered.
WTH is KC doing with McCluster? I get it when a player like him is drafted and then a new regime comes in and finds him useless. But there's been no change in KC, and since drafting McCluster they spent their next #1 on a WR and then picked up Breaston. That move seemed to signal the end to McCluster's days as a receiver... but it doesn't look like they want him to be a RB, either. So his upside is now WR4 and part-time returner with Arenas? I just don't get it.
I think we need to wait to hear more about how KC plans to use McClain before deciding on how this impacts Charles. McClain was almost purely a blocker the last two seasons (under 300 rushing yards) but rushed for 900 and 10 in '09. Did KC sign him to be a blocker or a runner?
WTH is KC doing with McCluster? I get it when a player like him is drafted and then a new regime comes in and finds him useless. But there's been no change in KC, and since drafting McCluster they spent their next #1 on a WR and then picked up Breaston. That move seemed to signal the end to McCluster's days as a receiver... but it doesn't look like they want him to be a RB, either. So his upside is now WR4 and part-time returner with Arenas? I just don't get it.
I think we need to wait to hear more about how KC plans to use McClain before deciding on how this impacts Charles. McClain was almost purely a blocker the last two seasons (under 300 rushing yards) but rushed for 900 and 10 in '09. Did KC sign him to be a blocker or a runner?
Gadget plays, returns. KC does have a wildcat.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
saintfool
Dead sexy
mcclain has talked ad nauseum this offseason about his desire to run the ball more. i doubt he signed with KC if they told him his sole function was as a blocking FB. he might get 5-10 carries, especially in the GL situations.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
McCluster is appearing more and more like a guy without a position. The KC beat writer had mentioned that McCluster was running exclusively with the RBs, and that his days as a slot receiver appear to be over. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/29/3046178/chiefs-camp-buzz-no-1-pick-baldwin.htmlNow I'm not sure if that's changed over the last few days. Would love to hear from some KC fans about whether McCluster is now back practicing with the wideouts?
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
McClain isnt something Id worry about if I owned JC.
However in Balt, Ray rice is looking tempting up top after Foster/ADP. No Willis, No McClain and add in Vonta Leech, wow
However in Balt, Ray rice is looking tempting up top after Foster/ADP. No Willis, No McClain and add in Vonta Leech, wow
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I've been thinking the same thing
Cleat Spike
Footballguy
I can almost see McClain having a McGahee (BAL) '09 type season IMO. 9-12 TDs as the GL specialist and something like 500+ yards, 15 catches or so. If injury happens to hit, who knows...then you have a McClain '08 Baltimore type season. This guy does a lot, but the TDs are where he'll pay off no matter which path he takes. If needed put him at your flex, collect his 60 yards and a very good chance for a TD every week just about, with a 2nd TD as a bonus now and then?
Talk's one thing. When you look at the reality of his situation, however, he wasn't in a position of power. Bradshaw had to settle for a smaller contract than what he wanted, and he's a better RB than McClain. R Brown had to settle for a 1-year back-up role, and he's a better RB than McClain. Now, I have no inside knowlege or info, so I can't say for sure what McClain's role will be, but to suggest that because McClain wanted to run the ball more, and he signed with KC, so that must mean they promised him that opportunity, is just faulty logic. The fact is that there probably wasn't much of a market for his services, so he took the deal that he was offered, rather than choosing the one that would give him "what he wants."
womb
Footballguy
This may sound chicken & egg. The reality (the chicken) is the talk of him wanting more carries. That reality looks like what Ravens did not have in mind. I take that Leach signing adds on to that strategy. Now, after all dust settled this past week came in another reality as a ripple effect. McClain did not have a team, and then signed with KC (the egg). I think causality in this story is somewhat significant. If you think the egg comes first in this case and the chicken is just talk, then you would be inclined to write McClain off. I choose the other way, and am trying to understand how much he gave in from his goals (position of power) in order to discount his situation as such.All in all, I think this is good for the Chiefs. McClain works hard, plays hard. Also, at those snaps he takes as a fullback, he creates spaces for the RB - Charles, Jones, McCluster, etc. You do not need to watch McClain film, watch Rice film. The Ravens are also better off for the route they wanted to go. They wanted more protection and apparently did not want to cut back on Rice's carries. Leach, on paper, fits better to that philosophy. Personally, I think McClain will get snaps in the red zone and in short yardage situations, but I think that will not change the net effect on Charles from a fantasy point of view, since I believe he will get breaks/holes/gaps to outperform elsewhere.
Shutout
Footballguy
KC says they will be run-oriented so it would seem to reason that McClain is a good fit because it helps them protect against Thomas Jones if he wears down again (McClain has been open about wanting a chance to run the ball some and not just block and this would be a potential place for that..especially at the end).
Scooby1974
Footballguy
There hasn't been much speculation here on what effect this has on Thomas Jones. I agree that Charles will continue to be the primary runner/do everything back. However are we still to assume Jones plays the short yardage/grunt work roll, or is that roll now split between him and McClain? If it is split I see both of these guys as worthless, as Jones last year had a some value with 800 yards and 8 Td's or so. With the additions of Baldwin + Breaston in the passing game + moving McCluster back to RB, I'm just not seeing a lot of value in anyone in KC outside of Charles, and his numbers could take a ding too if they try to keep everyone "happy".
Last edited by a moderator:
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Big blow for anyone thinking Charles was going to get a major increase in carries at the stripe.
baconisgood
Footballguy
I don' think many consider RB better than McClain after last year. What tells me that he was promised carries in KC is that he signed a 1 year deal. McClain is 26 and a solid FB while also being a decent 3rd string RB option as well, there is no reason for teams not to offer him a multi year deal. The reason for him to accept a 1 year deal from a club is if they said they would give him X number of carries and then he can hit the market next year as a 27 year old RB and get a 3-4 year deal for RB money rather than a 3-4 year deal for FB money.
Cleat Spike
Footballguy
PFF_MikeClay Mike Clay NFL#Chiefs went 10-7 last year. Ran 55% of time in wins, 41% of time in losses, which works out to 50/50 split on season. 2011 Proj: 53% run
Cleat Spike
Footballguy
Good point. That almost seems too nice of them. Though I can see why he wants a one year for the reason you stated. It could be as simple as McClain looking around for the best possible fit to reach that goal of being a great FB but also netting a lot more RB opportunities. KC now has a vastly improved O and some nice play makers everywhere. They were primarily a running team with only 2 RBs in the stable now. One of those has high mileage, is getting up and age and broke down a bit last season. The other is the complete opposite of McClain's style. He probably knows he's never going to find a situation like the Phins/Denver for a lead RB like D-Will was, so he says this situation looks VERY good for me to get what I want in due time and if something happens to ONE RB in front of me. It could look a lot like his landscape in Baltimore in '08 and Tolbert's in San Diego last season when they broke out a bit as a RB and GL/SY backs.
But this (the bolded) assumes McClain had choices. Again, I have no inside info, so I don't pretend to know if KC was his only offer, or if he had 20 to choose from. Without information suggesting that he had other offers, however, I'm not going to assume that signing with KC was his "choice." Since I haven't read/heard anything about ANY other teams showing any interest in McClain, it makes more sense to me to believe that he signed with KC because they were the only team to show interest. That doesn't suggest (to me) that McClain will be able to demand carries.
baconisgood
Footballguy
The reasons I infer this are.1. He's 26
2. He's been healthy (missed 1 game in 3 years)
3. Is good.
that means he *should* be able to command a multi year contract with at least 1.5 years in guaranteed. Look at the types of players that are getting 1 year deals (Plax, Ronnie Brown) they aren't in their prime, they are risks. McClain isn't a risk and should command at least that kind of contract.
By not demanding at least 1.5 years in guaranteed money (D will basically got 2.5, Bradshaw 2.1, McGahee 1.3-1.5) he is giving something up so either he and his agent are terrible negotiators or he is getting something of value in return. Since this clearly isn't a case of someone wanting out of a bad situation and chasing a ring it makes sense to conclude that he has been promised what he asked for.
this conclusion isn't 100%- but it is strong enough in my mind to assume he will be getting some carries.
No offense, but (IMO) your reasoning is flawed. You compare McClain to these other RBs; but they are something that McClain isn't: they are actually RBs. McClain is a FB (who thinks he's a RB), who got pressed into RB service one year out of need. In the 2 years since, he has played the position that NFL coaches know he is: FB. FB is not a "demand" position, and for those teams that do value a FB, they value them much more for their blocking ability than for their running skills. As a result, RBs like D Will, Bradshaw, McGahee, etc were able to work out longer deals, with more guaranteed money, because their position (RB) usually receives higher salaries, with more guaranteed money. You choose to believe that McClain chose to sign a 1-year deal because he was promised (or he believes) he will get more opps to run the ball. I choose to believe that McClain is viewed as a FB, and as such, the demand for his services is not the same as the demand for a true RB. As a result, he signed with KC, because it was an offer, perhaps his only offer.That being said, I have adjusted Charles & Jones' stats. I have taken 1 TD from Charles, and two from Jones, and I've taken 20 carries from Charles and 50 from Jones. Unless Jones gets cut, I don't see McClain getting more than 70 rushes and 3-4 TDs. The result is that Charles dropped from #3 in my RB rankings to #5. With this new situation, I had to move Charles Johnson back ahead of Charles (holdout notwithstanding), and Rice had to be bumped ahead of Charles, seeing as Rice has NO ONE to steal carries from him now.
baconisgood
Footballguy
This is irrelevant to the point. If you prefer use Leach (1.5 years G's money) or Vickers (1.3 years G'd- I think I'm not positive about the specifics).
It's actually very relevant. Both Leach and Vickers are considered good BLOCKING FBs (who accept their role as blocking FBs). Baltimore would probably have retained McClain if he'd been willing to accept his role as a blocking FB, with the chance for carries to be tied to Rice's health. McClain wasn't a candidate for those positions because he felt like he should get more carries. So, again, you choose to believe that McClain chose KC, I choose to believe that KC was his only option.'baconisgood said:
baconisgood
Footballguy
Your assuming he didn't negotiate with KC. If he spoke to KC and they said "we will offer you X to be our blocking FB" then you can assume that if he is accepting that role he will command ~market rate for his blocking FB skills. That clearly includes > 1 year in G'd money for a player of his skill, age, and injury/personal troubles history.
Cleat Spike
Footballguy
Seems like it was mutually a great situation for both sides (KC and McClain) that this was truly his best situation and opportunity. The media/fans had him in KC basically before KC had even contacted McClain's camp (according to reports). Almost a week prior, that's how obvious this thunder & lightning-esque fit seemed. After that, McClain started following KCs media and PR Twitter handles even before they contacted him still apparently (probably just publicly though). Mutually this just seemed to make too much sense and they both knew it. Plus Leach was in BAL, why keep looking around..get into KCs camp with a clean slate asap! I can't think of many other spots he'd like to land around the league to think he can get deeper looks at RB. They needed a versatile pounder to pair with Charles. Why not have a FB with ballerina feet that's put up nearly 1000 yards and 11 TDs in a pinch.
ChainsawU
Footballguy
Published Wed Jul 13 11:18:00 a.m. ET 2011
(Rotoworld) Free agent FB Le'Ron McClain has lost weight and gained explosiveness this offseason in preparation for a bigger ball-carrying role in 2011.
Analysis: McClain "loves" the Ravens and considers Baltimore his home, but he's willing to move if he's not promised a running back role. "The sick feeling I have in my stomach is I wish I could've done more [the last two years]," said McClain. "I wish I could've been more involved." The Ravens want McClain to set his market before committing to him.
(Rotoworld) Free agent FB Le'Ron McClain has lost weight and gained explosiveness this offseason in preparation for a bigger ball-carrying role in 2011.
Analysis: McClain "loves" the Ravens and considers Baltimore his home, but he's willing to move if he's not promised a running back role. "The sick feeling I have in my stomach is I wish I could've done more [the last two years]," said McClain. "I wish I could've been more involved." The Ravens want McClain to set his market before committing to him.
Yes, based on the information that is/was out there, that is what I'm assuming. I thought I had made that clear? As I've said before you choose to believe that McClain CHOSE Kansas City because they would offer him more carries. I choose to believe that KC was McClain's only real option, because there wasn't really a market for his skills carrying the ball (especially when compared with the real RBs on the market).
Look at it this way: Randy Moss retired, after there were virtually NO substantial reports of teams taking/negotiating with him. Most people assume (because of the absence of reports of interested teams) that Moss couldn't find a team that offered him the situation & financial rewards that he felt he deserved. I'm looking at the McClain situation in the same light. Since there were NO reports of teams being interested in him as a ball-carrier, I am not going to assume that he CHOSE KC because they were (especially when they have Charles and Jones on the roster). You don't see it that way, and you're welcome to your opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
baconisgood
Footballguy
I guess I will say it one more time- reports of McClain's contract are below market value for him as a FB in terms of guaranteed money. For McClain to take less than the market rate you have to assume that his agent is a bonehead or that he was offered something else in return. The fact that WHAT he took as less was G'd money which allows him to be a FA again next year implies (strongly) that he thinks his worth in free agency will be greater next year. The thing that makes the most sense is that he expects to carry the ball more. as I have said this isn't a 100%, slam dunk case but it is certainly stronger than any other scenario (with no other details) and likely stronger than all other cases combined. You miss the mark on your Moss analogy. When Moss retired he got a phone call from the Eagles within a few hours asking him to reconsider. This is important because it reminds us that when a FA is out there it isn't a binary yes/no in "do we want this guy or not" for most teams. Instead its a "how much would we pay this guy" with a few cases of "we don't want this guy at any price" and a couple of cases of Dan Snyder just paying him whatever he asks. If we follow your logic that means that McClain dropped his demand to be more involved in the running game and then still only had one offer on the table. As I said before- for a guy with his ability, age and injury history- his contract is to low. His agent damn well would have gotten on the phone to a half dozen teams and one expects he would have gotten a better offer for a 26 year old 2 time pro-bowler.
One last point- I am not simply choosing to "believe"- I am weighing probabilities. You might be right that McClain had 0 other options. Given how the NFL works in most cases this is clearly the underdog to the position that he has been offered something of value, and that is most likely carries, in exchange for tanking a club favorable contract.
No one seems to be figuring that into the equation. Maybe McClain was an upgrade there as far as KC is concerned and all of us Charles owners are overreacting. Or maybe we're delusional 
mjr
Footballguy
I believe McClain signed with the Chiefs not because he was necessarily promised carries, but because he just knew he was never going to get his shot in Baltimore. KC is a good opportunity for him. Jones is on the decline and McClain is a great suitor to take over that spot eventually. So the 1 year deal makes sense. He can resign with KC in 2013 for a longer term deal as the #2 RB there, allowing KC to let Jones go.
Superdbs
Footballguy
Just saw this on CBS Sports:
News: Le'Ron McClain spoke a bunch over the last year about getting more opportunities to run with the ball, but Chiefs coach Todd Haley doesn't seem him that way. A day after signing him, Haley explained what he saw in McClain. "I think he's a big physical fullback who has shown good running ability," Haley said. "He's very clear, and we are very clear that he's coming in as our fullback."
Analysis: McClain might still pick up a couple of carries each week and more importantly could become a goal-line cash cow. No one should draft him in Fantasy since he'll likely garner one or two points each week.
News: Le'Ron McClain spoke a bunch over the last year about getting more opportunities to run with the ball, but Chiefs coach Todd Haley doesn't seem him that way. A day after signing him, Haley explained what he saw in McClain. "I think he's a big physical fullback who has shown good running ability," Haley said. "He's very clear, and we are very clear that he's coming in as our fullback."
Analysis: McClain might still pick up a couple of carries each week and more importantly could become a goal-line cash cow. No one should draft him in Fantasy since he'll likely garner one or two points each week.
baconisgood
Footballguy
I love how un-illuminating coach speak can be. This could mean.1. He's our fullback but if a guy goes down during the game he can step in. After the game though we will look for a replace RB.2. The same as 1- but McClain would hold down the job until the starter was healthy.3. Hes our FB but will get 2 carries a game(ie how Bal used him)4. Hes our FB but will 4-5 carries a game.
We Tigers
Footballguy
He's the fullback. The coach just said so. It's pretty clear (though it was pretty clear from the outset, I thought). The only reason the Ravens dumped him was that they managed to get the best fullback in the league. McClain's a good football player, but this is not a sneaky fantasy situation to get excited about. If Jones gets cut or something, we'll talk.
