Slap in the face of Jamaal Charles.... (1 Viewer)

[duaneok66]

the OP was referring to the depth chart BEFORE Charles got hurt . . .

 

[ThePittbully]

They didn't think Charles was durable enough. And they were right. Haley wins.

Yea because a guy slipping on a down marker and over extending his knee resulting in a tear clearly translates to him not being durable

 

[meatwad1]

They didn't think Charles was durable enough. And they were right. Haley wins.

Yea because a guy slipping on a down marker and over extending his knee resulting in a tear clearly translates to him not being durable

No worries fellas....this is Haley's last year as a head coach.

 

[nxmehta]

Chiefs homer here...Haley has used Charles perfectly since he's been the head coach. Charles is very small and while his performances can't be denied, he does get dinged up a lot and has to come off the field from time to time. Charles has a shoulder that has been slipping out of place since he was in high school and he had to have shoulder surgery before the 2010 season. I've watched every game that Charles has played for the Chiefs and IMO there is NO WAY he could handle 300-350 carries per season. He would break down.Although it was with Herm Edwards as coach, but the Chiefs were also the team that fed the ball to LJ over 400 times during one season only to watch him never be the same player again after that amount of carries When Thomas Jones came to the Chiefs, he was pretty decent and took a lot of wear and tear off of Charles, but as the season progressed his play declined sharply.Haley feels more comfortable giving Battle the majority of carries due to this size. This is not a knock on Charles in anyway. Mostly everyone that watches the Chiefs on a regular basic knows that Charles is being used correctly and the only people that want to see him get more carries are fantasy football owners.

Thank you, this was very insightful. This is why we need HOMERS to post about players! Sometimes FF enthusiasts can really skew expectations.

 

[cvnpoka]

oh cmon, his whole analysis is that charles is small and gets dinged up a lot. prior to freak first down marker acl tear, he never missed a game and i cant remember if he was ever questionable. you dont need to be a homer to watch all of their games or all of his plays.

 

[Routilla]

It further proves just how bad Haley is as a HC. Utterly worthless IMO.

 

[Clifford]

What a slap in the face. Jamaal Charles runs better than anyone in the national football league for a year and a half... and they refuse to put him over Thomas Jones on the depth chart or really give him the reigns as a feature back. Jackie Battle has one decent game against one of the worst run defenses in football... and they name him the feature back. That's just horrible. Especially after watching Jamaal outperform Thomas Jones week after week... not only did he outperform Jones, he outperformed EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE on a per touch basis. I'm not saying they are wrong for putting Battle in over Jones... they clearly got that one right. I am just saying... what on earth were they watching over the last year and a half?

I was thinking the same thing.

Am I missing something here. Charles I'd on ir. Battle is the feature back for this season. How is that a slap in the face to Charles?

 

[Clifford]

Chiefs homer here...Haley has used Charles perfectly since he's been the head coach. Charles is very small and while his performances can't be denied, he does get dinged up a lot and has to come off the field from time to time. Charles has a shoulder that has been slipping out of place since he was in high school and he had to have shoulder surgery before the 2010 season. I've watched every game that Charles has played for the Chiefs and IMO there is NO WAY he could handle 300-350 carries per season. He would break down.Although it was with Herm Edwards as coach, but the Chiefs were also the team that fed the ball to LJ over 400 times during one season only to watch him never be the same player again after that amount of carries When Thomas Jones came to the Chiefs, he was pretty decent and took a lot of wear and tear off of Charles, but as the season progressed his play declined sharply.Haley feels more comfortable giving Battle the majority of carries due to this size. This is not a knock on Charles in anyway. Mostly everyone that watches the Chiefs on a regular basic knows that Charles is being used correctly and the only people that want to see him get more carries are fantasy football owners.

Thank you, this was very insightful. This is why we need HOMERS to post about players! Sometimes FF enthusiasts can really skew expectations.

Again WTH is everyone talking about? It's like the twilight zone in here.

 

[Run It Up]

What a slap in the face. Jamaal Charles runs better than anyone in the national football league for a year and a half... and they refuse to put him over Thomas Jones on the depth chart or really give him the reigns as a feature back. Jackie Battle has one decent game against one of the worst run defenses in football... and they name him the feature back. That's just horrible. Especially after watching Jamaal outperform Thomas Jones week after week... not only did he outperform Jones, he outperformed EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE on a per touch basis. I'm not saying they are wrong for putting Battle in over Jones... they clearly got that one right. I am just saying... what on earth were they watching over the last year and a half?

I was thinking the same thing.

Am I missing something here. Charles I'd on ir. Battle is the feature back for this season. How is that a slap in the face to Charles?

They are questioning why Charles was never given the title of "featured back", which is completely a non issue, he was doing stuff Jones couldnt do and Jones was doing things Charles couldnt do, Jones may have been #1 on the depth chart but neither of them were #1 backs, if it wasnt obvious by simply counting their attempts.

 

[Catbird]

OP point (I think) is Charles was never named lead back over Jones on the depth chart, but Battle has one good game and is. And that's a slap to Charles who has proved he is by far the best RB of the three. The point made in responce that makes the most sense (again, to me) is that Haley thinks Charles is more valuable not carrying the lead back role, but getting the 13-15 touches he has done so well with 'behind' a bigger, more grinding RB. I assume that still means Charles (in everyone's mind the better runner/receiver) gets more touches than the guy named #1.

And some posters (many of whom own Charles in fantasy and want him to get more carries and thus points) think he should be named #1 and carry the ball more because he does so much more when he has it. They tend to think his size is not an issue and that he can carry it far more than he has and that (when healthy) the Chiefs would be better if he did.

I own Charles and would like him to get more touches and thus fantasy points, but am willing to think Haley (who admittedly has a lot of other issues undercutting him being a competent coach) might be right on this, because Charles has been SO devestating used as he has been. If Battle proves a solid battering RB, I can't object from the Chiefs (rather than fantasy) perspective to letting him be named lead back and letting Charles excel as he has, with less carries than a full feature back role, but still the solid majority of Chief RB touches.

 

[NajehHejan]

So as the story goes Haley was inspired to give Battle more carries partly due to a fan letter he had read. Can you imagine the tons of hate mail the guy has gotten from Charles owners? I wonder if he reads every one.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

What a slap in the face. Jamaal Charles runs better than anyone in the national football league for a year and a half... and they refuse to put him over Thomas Jones on the depth chart or really give him the reigns as a feature back. Jackie Battle has one decent game against one of the worst run defenses in football... and they name him the feature back. That's just horrible. Especially after watching Jamaal outperform Thomas Jones week after week... not only did he outperform Jones, he outperformed EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE on a per touch basis. I'm not saying they are wrong for putting Battle in over Jones... they clearly got that one right. I am just saying... what on earth were they watching over the last year and a half?

Agree with this completely and said as much in a different thread. I own Charles and Battle, Haley's decision to 'ride' battle and split carries with JC and TJ really leaves me scratching my head.

I see it kind of this way....Jones and Battle are basically the same type runner (ie a power runner). Jones and Charles were never really in that same role - Charles was always, and mean always the better back, just not the same as a power guy. So now Haley basically has two "power backs" and he's made the decision to go with the younger guy - thus the naming of Battle as the starter. I think Charles should have always been the starter and named as such, but I also think the progression to Battle being named starter vs. Jones was more a function of having moved on from Jones than love for Battle. I don't see it as a slap to Charles now. It could be viewed as a slap when Jones was named the starter instead of Charles, but the Battle thing now over Jones I don't think should be construed as a slap on Charles at all.

Being ineffective and slow doesn't make you a "power back". I would definitely understand if Jones was actually successful when he was in there. The problem is that he was probably the worst starting running back in the league.... being backed up by possibly the best running back in the league. Charles was much more effective running inside the tackles than Jones was, as well as outside, obviously. I understand the point you were trying to make and I respect the fact that you took the time to give a reasonable response with good points to back up your theory... however, I just don't think it fits. You simply can't watch the amazing difference in production between Charles and Jones and come away with anything other than complete disgust at the coaching staff for handling the way that they have. I can't recall how many games I watched them stall out drive after drive watching Thomas Jones fall tip toe twice and fall on his face over and over again... while Charles would come in and have performances like 10-12 carries for near 100 yards. That team had SERIOUS potential last year, but Haley ruined it by overcoaching an obvious situation.In regards to keeping him "fresh" or Jamaal's inability to carry the working over the course of a game... In the 2009 and 2010 seasons, Jamaal Charles was given the opportunity to carry the ball over 20 times in a game only 7 times.Here are his stats in those games.... (excluding TD's)20 - 14325 - 15424 - 10225 - 25922 - 17722 - 17321 - 116Simply amazing production and as I said... just a complete slap in the face to Charles that Haley refused to even name him the starter. Especially when he is running behind a guy who was putting up games like 23 carries for 51 yards at a 2.2 ypc.

 

[duaneok66]

nothing in that last post addresses the fact that Charles cant hold up over a full season . . .

Abstract's post (quoted in post 56) sums it up . . .

 

[T J]

What a slap in the face. Jamaal Charles runs better than anyone in the national football league for a year and a half... and they refuse to put him over Thomas Jones on the depth chart or really give him the reigns as a feature back. Jackie Battle has one decent game against one of the worst run defenses in football... and they name him the feature back. That's just horrible. Especially after watching Jamaal outperform Thomas Jones week after week... not only did he outperform Jones, he outperformed EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE on a per touch basis. I'm not saying they are wrong for putting Battle in over Jones... they clearly got that one right. I am just saying... what on earth were they watching over the last year and a half?

Agree with this completely and said as much in a different thread. I own Charles and Battle, Haley's decision to 'ride' battle and split carries with JC and TJ really leaves me scratching my head.

I see it kind of this way....Jones and Battle are basically the same type runner (ie a power runner). Jones and Charles were never really in that same role - Charles was always, and mean always the better back, just not the same as a power guy. So now Haley basically has two "power backs" and he's made the decision to go with the younger guy - thus the naming of Battle as the starter. I think Charles should have always been the starter and named as such, but I also think the progression to Battle being named starter vs. Jones was more a function of having moved on from Jones than love for Battle. I don't see it as a slap to Charles now. It could be viewed as a slap when Jones was named the starter instead of Charles, but the Battle thing now over Jones I don't think should be construed as a slap on Charles at all.

Being ineffective and slow doesn't make you a "power back". I would definitely understand if Jones was actually successful when he was in there. The problem is that he was probably the worst starting running back in the league.... being backed up by possibly the best running back in the league. Charles was much more effective running inside the tackles than Jones was, as well as outside, obviously. I understand the point you were trying to make and I respect the fact that you took the time to give a reasonable response with good points to back up your theory... however, I just don't think it fits. You simply can't watch the amazing difference in production between Charles and Jones and come away with anything other than complete disgust at the coaching staff for handling the way that they have. I can't recall how many games I watched them stall out drive after drive watching Thomas Jones fall tip toe twice and fall on his face over and over again... while Charles would come in and have performances like 10-12 carries for near 100 yards. That team had SERIOUS potential last year, but Haley ruined it by overcoaching an obvious situation.In regards to keeping him "fresh" or Jamaal's inability to carry the working over the course of a game... In the 2009 and 2010 seasons, Jamaal Charles was given the opportunity to carry the ball over 20 times in a game only 7 times.Here are his stats in those games.... (excluding TD's)20 - 14325 - 15424 - 10225 - 25922 - 17722 - 17321 - 116Simply amazing production and as I said... just a complete slap in the face to Charles that Haley refused to even name him the starter. Especially when he is running behind a guy who was putting up games like 23 carries for 51 yards at a 2.2 ypc.

Oh, I hear you and agree with you. My post was just my speculation as to why Haley never named Charles the "starter" but was willing to name Battle as such.

 

[cvnpoka]

nothing in that last post addresses the fact that Charles cant hold up over a full season . . .Abstract's post (quoted in post 56) sums it up . . .

so if a rb is small, he cant hold up over a full season, despite no other supporting evidence. pretty amazing analysis.

 

[Kleck]

My knee feels GREAT!! I’m back walking normal…no more walking with a lean. #GOCHIEFS (Jamaal Charles' twitter account)

link