I love Jared Allen and I’ll miss him in red and gold, but I really feel like this is the right move for a Chiefs team that’s rebuilding, trying to get younger, and has a lot of needs. By my count, this gives the Chiefs six first-day picks and 13 picks overall — and that could be 14 or 15 if the Chiefs decide to trade out of the 5th pick overall. That’s a lot of picks, yo. Here’s hoping Chris Long is there at number five.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3362701&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
001 // Adam Hobson // 04.22.2008 // 11:26 PM
I’m not so sure that this makes the Chiefs all that better in the long run.
You can talk about getting younger, but Jared Allen was only 26 and more than likely has four years of elite production left, plus another four of solid production as defensive linemen age pretty well if they can avoid knee injuries.
The Chiefs may have a lot of needs, but by trading Allen they have created another need at defensive end.
Most mock drafts are already adapting to the trade and giving KC either Gholston or Long depending on who is available. The Chiefs will basically use their top pick to replace Allen, and considering Allen is probably a Top 5 defensive end, great against both the run and pass, it is doubtful either Long or Gholston will replace his full production.
Now with the 17th overall pick they have gained from the Vikings the logic says they draft o-line. However, if they had kept Allen, they could have drafted o-line at the 5th overall pick and got a better prospect, like Ryan Clady, who many consider the top left tackle prospect in this draft.
So this trade basically leaves them with a downgrade at defensive end and a downgrade in offensive line prospect, and only a third round pick to show for it.
002 // Jeff Croft // 04.23.2008 // 8:34 AM
Yeah, you may be right. I definitely don’t think this makes them better this year, but they weren’t going to win the Superbowl this year, anyway. If the Chiefs two draft picks from Minnesota develop into something special (which is definitely a big if), then they do stand do get two impact players for the price of one. And remember: Jared Allen had said he wouldn’t play for the Chiefs this year, anyway. So, if you look at it that way, they’re going to have two players on the field, whereas if they hadn’t made the trade, they wouldn’t have had any (because Allen says he would have sat out).
To me, the Bengals are in this same situation: they’ve got a very good player in Chad Johnson who says he will sit out, but they’re refusing to trade him in an effort to “win” the battle with him. If they don’t trade him, and he sticks to his word and sits out, they get nothing. if they trade him, at least they get picks and a chance at something.
003 // Adam Hobson // 04.23.2008 // 9:49 AM
The way I look at is if you have a stud player at the prime of his career, a real difference maker, you do anything in your power to keep him. Allen is a stud player. He’d easily be a star in a bigger media market.
I think Allen’s comments about playing in KC was more about his contract situation than the team or city. For a player of his caliber at a key position I say go ahead and give him a huge contract. With how much the salary cap is increasing each year, a deal that looks insane now won’t look so bad three years in the future.
The only thing I would be hesitant on in keeping Allen and handing him a huge contract would be his DUI problems, as he’s already been suspended once and another DUI could lead to a loss of a season. That is especially troubling with the lax Herman Edwards as head coach. However, I’d think it would be possible to put some kind of language into the contract whereby another DUI would void it or something to that effect.