McClain signs 1 year deal with Chiefs (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

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.

You can say it as much as you want, but I haven't seen any contract details, so how do we know what/how it is? If you have a link, please provide it.

You miss the mark on your Moss analogy.

The Moss analogy is dead on, you just missed the point. Moss didn't retire because no one would have him, Moss retired because no one would have him, UNDER HIS TERMS. IMO, McClain didn't only get an offer from KC because no one else wanted him, but because no one else wanted him, UNDER HIS TERMS (being a RB, not a FB). Philly's offer obviously still didn't meet his demands, so he stayed retired.

one expects he would have gotten a better offer for a 26 year old 2 time pro-bowler.

Except he wanted to sign with a team that would use him as a RB, not a FB, which is the position he made the Pro Bowl at. Adrian Peterson would have countless teams trying to sign him if he was a Free Agent, but not if he made the decision that he would only sign with a team that would let him play left guard.

One last point- I am not simply choosing to "believe"- I am weighing probabilities.

Sure you are; word it however you want, call it gut instinct, choosing to believe, weighing probabilities, whatever. You believe something without any real "proof" that your belief is right. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm doing the same thing.

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.

Given that Haley has come out and said "He's very clear, and we are very clear that he's coming in as our fullback," I guess the underdog must have pulled out the win, then.

 

[baconisgood]

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.

But everyone knew when he signed with KC that he was going to be the fullback (barring a surprise TJ cut). The question is will he be a 2-3 touch per game guy as he was in Balt or a 5-6 touch back.

 

[baconisgood]

The Moss analogy is dead on, you just missed the point. Moss didn't retire because no one would have him, Moss retired because no one would have him, UNDER HIS TERMS.

Moss retired and then a team that hadn't made an offer contacted him. Why? Because his retirement sent a huge amount of information to the Eagles- namely "maybe we can get him for cheaper than we thought". When new information comes out about a player then that changes the # of teams that are interested. Now it is obvious nobody bit on McClain as a feature back- but to assume that nobody would bite on him as a FB (given again all the positives about him) is silly. There wasn't a 2nd team out there at all? Unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.

Except he wanted to sign with a team that would use him as a RB, not a FB, which is the position he made the Pro Bowl at

Its actually like your not even reading what I am saying. McClain signing a 1 year deal is basically automatically below market value for a FB. Which he obviously signed to be since he signed on with KC.

 

[gethugefast1]

how did this get 'pinned'?

 

[Bayhawks]

The Moss analogy is dead on, you just missed the point. Moss didn't retire because no one would have him, Moss retired because no one would have him, UNDER HIS TERMS.

Moss retired and then a team that hadn't made an offer contacted him. Why? Because his retirement sent a huge amount of information to the Eagles- namely "maybe we can get him for cheaper than we thought". When new information comes out about a player then that changes the # of teams that are interested. Now it is obvious nobody bit on McClain as a feature back- but to assume that nobody would bite on him as a FB (given again all the positives about him) is silly. There wasn't a 2nd team out there at all? Unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.

Except he wanted to sign with a team that would use him as a RB, not a FB, which is the position he made the Pro Bowl at

Its actually like your not even reading what I am saying. McClain signing a 1 year deal is basically automatically below market value for a FB. Which he obviously signed to be since he signed on with KC.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you just don't understand what I'm saying.IMO, when FA started, McClain was looking for a team that would let him run the ball, so he was selling his services as a RB. There were no teams that wanted him as a RB (especially with the glut of more talented ball-carriers available). While he was peddling his services as a RB, many teams that wanted/needed FBs, (including the Ravens) signed other FBs. By the team that McClain accepted that there was no market for his skills as a RB, the demand for FBs had declined significantly, thereby reducing his options even further. Since the only reports of interest in McClain involved the Chiefs, I assume that they were his only real option.

As I've stated numerous times, you choose to believe that McClain chose the Chiefs because he believed he'd be able to showcase his skills as a runner, and get more money and more carries with his next contract. As I've stated numerous times, there is nothing wrong with that.

However, Haley has said he came in to be a FB, not a RB, and now McClain himself has acknowledged the fact:

Getting Jamaal Charles and Thomas Jones 1,000 (yards) apiece, that's what I'm here to do," McClain said

So, it is still your prerogative to choose to believe that McClain was promised carries in KC, but the head coach, and the player himself have refuted that belief.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

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".

Complete guess:T Jones still sees a good amount of work in the first half (5-10 carries?) of the game. McCLain sees GL and short yardage carries plus a "finishing" role grinding it out late in the 2 games the Chiefs are ahead late and Charles gets the rest.Full disclosure: Chiefs fan, own none of the three in any leagues, wouldl like to see T Jones role reduced or have him cut.

 

[Defending Champs]

As a previous Charles owner (frustrated one mind you) I have never understood the lack of use for him inside the 10 yard line.

I do feel like McClain will become the TD guy inside the 10 but don't really understand why.

In limited time inside the 10, Charles had extremely good success whether it is receiving or rushing.

Unless my calculations are incorrect, I see 7 TD's out of 15 opportunities most were from 5 yard line or further.

See below

Week 1: No opportunities

Week 2: 3rd-and-1 opp 6 rushed for -2 yards

Week 3: No opportunities

Week 4: Bye

Week 5: 3rd-and-4 opp 10 rushed for 2 yards

Week 6: No opportunities

Week 7: 1st-and-4 opp 4 rushed for 4 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 8: No opportunities (27 touches on the day)

Week 9: No opportunities

Week 10: 1st-and-8 opp 8 rushed for 3 yards

2nd-and-5 opp 5 caught pass for 5 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 11: No opportunities

Week 12: 1st-and-10 opp 10 rushed for 3 yards

2nd-and-7 opp 7 rushed for 6 yards

2nd-and-8 opp 10 rushed for 7 yards

3rd-and-1 opp 3 rushed for 3 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 13: 1st-and-5 opp 5 rushed for 3 yards

3rd-and-8 opp 8 rushed for 6 yards

Week 14: No opportunities

Week 15: 3rd-and-2 opp 2 rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 16: 1st-and-10 opp 14 caught pass for 14 yards TOUCHDOWN (yeah, it was the 14 yard line)

2nd-and-5 opp 5 caught pass for 5 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 17: 3rd-and-5 opp 5 rushed for 5 yards TOUCHDOWN

Week 18: No opportunities

 

[Defending Champs]

I know my numbers are difficult to read, it looked much better before I hit "post". Sorry.

Short story is 7 out of 15 opportunities inside the 10 resulted in a TD.

 

[baconisgood]

However, Haley has said he came in to be a FB, not a RB, and now McClain himself has acknowledged the fact:Getting Jamaal Charles and Thomas Jones 1,000 (yards) apiece, that's what I'm here to do," McClain saidSo, it is still your prerogative to choose to believe that McClain was promised carries in KC, but the head coach, and the player himself have refuted that belief.

This clearly shows how little you r are thinking about the situation and how you aren't reading what I am posting.Everyone knew when he signed with the Chiefs that, barring a TJ cut, McClain was being signed to be a FB. That isn't the question, the questions are is he going to be a FB with 0 touches a game or 5-6, is he considered the #3 RB if one of the top two go down, or just a backup to TJ (with McCluster as Charles' relief) or will he remain the FB even with injuries in front of him. Will he get none, some or a significant # of goal line touches. All of these possibilities have fantasy implications, your posts give no insight into them at all.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Coach Todd Haley confirmed that FB Le'Ron McClain will not take any carries away from Jamaal Charles or Thomas Jones.McClain has been outspoken in the past about his desire to carry the rock previously. But Haley made it very clear to McClain what his role is. "I'm a fullback, and I'm here to win. Two things. Just two things: Getting Jamaal Charles and Thomas Jones 1,000 (yards) apiece, that's what I'm here to do," McClain said. Aug 5, 10:42 AM

I guess that settles that.

 

[saintfool]

Coach Todd Haley confirmed that FB Le'Ron McClain will not take any carries away from Jamaal Charles or Thomas Jones.McClain has been outspoken in the past about his desire to carry the rock previously. But Haley made it very clear to McClain what his role is. "I'm a fullback, and I'm here to win. Two things. Just two things: Getting Jamaal Charles and Thomas Jones 1,000 (yards) apiece, that's what I'm here to do," McClain said. Aug 5, 10:42 AMI guess that settles that.

i think there is a good chance jones gets cut. he was pretty pitiful down the stretch, statistically. if jones continues to show himself in decline then whatever mcclain shows poses a threat.

 

[Bayhawks]

This clearly shows how little you r are thinking about the situation and how you aren't reading what I am posting.Everyone knew when he signed with the Chiefs that, barring a TJ cut, McClain was being signed to be a FB. That isn't the question, the questions are is he going to be a FB with 0 touches a game or 5-6, is he considered the #3 RB if one of the top two go down, or just a backup to TJ (with McCluster as Charles' relief) or will he remain the FB even with injuries in front of him. Will he get none, some or a significant # of goal line touches. All of these possibilities have fantasy implications, your posts give no insight into them at all.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. The HEAD COACH, and McClain himself have admitted that he isn't going to take carries from Charles/Jones, that he is there to be the FB, and that he is there to open holes for the two RUNNING BACKS.I don't need to use convoluted thinking, and faulty logic to try to create support for a weak hypothesis that because McClain signed there, he was promised/expects more carries, when ALL information from the team and player suggest the opposite.If you wish to continue to continue to think McClain signed in KC because they (KC) met his demands for more carries (which was your original premise), based on whatever weak "logic" you come up with, good luck to you.

 

[saintfool]

This clearly shows how little you r are thinking about the situation and how you aren't reading what I am posting.Everyone knew when he signed with the Chiefs that, barring a TJ cut, McClain was being signed to be a FB. That isn't the question, the questions are is he going to be a FB with 0 touches a game or 5-6, is he considered the #3 RB if one of the top two go down, or just a backup to TJ (with McCluster as Charles' relief) or will he remain the FB even with injuries in front of him. Will he get none, some or a significant # of goal line touches. All of these possibilities have fantasy implications, your posts give no insight into them at all.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. The HEAD COACH, and McClain himself have admitted that he isn't going to take carries from Charles/Jones, that he is there to be the FB, and that he is there to open holes for the two RUNNING BACKS.I don't need to use convoluted thinking, and faulty logic to try to create support for a weak hypothesis that because McClain signed there, he was promised/expects more carries, when ALL information from the team and player suggest the opposite.If you wish to continue to continue to think McClain signed in KC because they (KC) met his demands for more carries (which was your original premise), based on whatever weak "logic" you come up with, good luck to you.

way to d--sh up a thread, guy.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

The part I'm struggling with is figuring out why they signed him if they aren't going to give him the ball. Mike Cox could block.

 

[Bayhawks]

This clearly shows how little you r are thinking about the situation and how you aren't reading what I am posting.

Everyone knew when he signed with the Chiefs that, barring a TJ cut, McClain was being signed to be a FB. That isn't the question, the questions are is he going to be a FB with 0 touches a game or 5-6, is he considered the #3 RB if one of the top two go down, or just a backup to TJ (with McCluster as Charles' relief) or will he remain the FB even with injuries in front of him. Will he get none, some or a significant # of goal line touches.

All of these possibilities have fantasy implications, your posts give no insight into them at all.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. The HEAD COACH, and McClain himself have admitted that he isn't going to take carries from Charles/Jones, that he is there to be the FB, and that he is there to open holes for the two RUNNING BACKS.I don't need to use convoluted thinking, and faulty logic to try to create support for a weak hypothesis that because McClain signed there, he was promised/expects more carries, when ALL information from the team and player suggest the opposite.

If you wish to continue to continue to think McClain signed in KC because they (KC) met his demands for more carries (which was your original premise), based on whatever weak "logic" you come up with, good luck to you.

way to d--sh up a thread, guy.

Whatever you say, guy. Baconisgood and myself had a difference of opinions about why McClain signed with KC. Check out his reply to my first post:

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.

We discussed our reasons for what we believed over numerous posts. When Haley AND McClain both gave quotes that proved his belief to be in-accurate, he began using weak logic, and back-tracking. My last post was the end of my discussion with him. The HC AND the player have all but said that his belief was erroneous, but if he wants to keep believing it, that's his choice.Please explain how I "d--shed" this thread??

 

[-jb-]

The part I'm struggling with is figuring out why they signed him if they aren't going to give him the ball. Mike Cox could block.

Don't circumvent the language filter. That doesn't go around here, guy.

 

[Cleat Spike]

This clearly shows how little you r are thinking about the situation and how you aren't reading what I am posting.

Everyone knew when he signed with the Chiefs that, barring a TJ cut, McClain was being signed to be a FB. That isn't the question, the questions are is he going to be a FB with 0 touches a game or 5-6, is he considered the #3 RB if one of the top two go down, or just a backup to TJ (with McCluster as Charles' relief) or will he remain the FB even with injuries in front of him. Will he get none, some or a significant # of goal line touches.

All of these possibilities have fantasy implications, your posts give no insight into them at all.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. The HEAD COACH, and McClain himself have admitted that he isn't going to take carries from Charles/Jones, that he is there to be the FB, and that he is there to open holes for the two RUNNING BACKS.I don't need to use convoluted thinking, and faulty logic to try to create support for a weak hypothesis that because McClain signed there, he was promised/expects more carries, when ALL information from the team and player suggest the opposite.

If you wish to continue to continue to think McClain signed in KC because they (KC) met his demands for more carries (which was your original premise), based on whatever weak "logic" you come up with, good luck to you.

way to d--sh up a thread, guy.

Whatever you say, guy. Baconisgood and myself had a difference of opinions about why McClain signed with KC. Check out his reply to my first post:

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.

We discussed our reasons for what we believed over numerous posts. When Haley AND McClain both gave quotes that proved his belief to be in-accurate, he began using weak logic, and back-tracking. My last post was the end of my discussion with him. The HC AND the player have all but said that his belief was erroneous, but if he wants to keep believing it, that's his choice.Please explain how I "d--shed" this thread??

I think it just got a little out of hand trying to get each point across. Both good points though. The bottom line is will McClain be around double digit TDs as is (think early MBIII and '09 Willis) and is he rosterable right now in dynasty leagues? It sounds like you're in the camp of him not doing much all season except break face masks. Could be McClain is all upside right now in a pretty hot offense featuring a lighter speed back. Injury away from good carries, could already get GL and SY work. Marathon, not a sprint. He'll be needed. Haley and Le'Ron both agree he's the FB..but they probably also both agree it's one of the best situation for both of them if something happens to the other RBs. Haley got a FB/RB tweener....Le'Ron could get his wish and a new start.