Chiefs' Justin Houston named third best player in PFF's top 101 players for 2014

[kcchief4lif 910]

I've been waiting and waiting for Justin Houston's name on the Pro Football Focus top 101 players for 2014 list and finally, here he is...

He comes in behind No. 1 JJ Watt and No. 2 Aaron Rodgers. That's decent company, I guess.

You're going to need to read the whole thing but this part is very true, especially the last part:

2014 was the culmination of three years of development from 

Justin Houston

that this season saw him become one of the league’s elite defensive players.

From the point that he entered the 

Chiefs

’ starting lineup in Week 11 of 2011, Houston showed the ability to be one of the league’s best and most productive 3-4 outside linebackers. He put his two half-seasons of quality play in 2011 and 2012 together into an excellent full 2013 which he used as a springboard for this scintillating 2014 showing. In most other years, Houston’s level of performance and production would have seen him named Defensive Player of the Year.

Also, Houston hasn't been penalized in over two years!

Go read it!

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/5/19/8625637/chiefs-justin-houston-ranking-third-best-player-pro-football-focus-2014

[kychief 239]

hes a freakin stud...and needs to be a chief for the next decade...sign him Dorsey.

[Mr Ev 332]

hes a freakin stud...and needs to be a chief for the next decade...sign him Dorsey.

Needs to be and what will happen in all reality are two different things. The Chiefs have missed their window of opportunity on this one. Chiefs fans better hope we have a solid back up because after this season, we potentially will see Houston gone if we don't tag him again.

 

Let's be honest, the Chiefs will use the too much money excuse on this one. We won't win a sb with him or without him. Might as well keep him and see what happens regardless of cost because he gives us the best chance to win.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Needs to be and what will happen in all reality are two different things. The Chiefs have missed their window of opportunity on this one. Chiefs fans better hope we have a solid back up because after this season, we potentially will see Houston gone if we don't tag him again.

 

Let's be honest, the Chiefs will use the too much money excuse on this one. We won't win a sb with him or without him. Might as well keep him and see what happens regardless of cost because he gives us the best chance to win.

Mr. Ev - you never address how your cheap ownership comments mesh witha minimum salary cap requirements and the fact we are always close to the maximum. How is that cheap? It could be paying the wrong guys more, but it isn't being cheap.

 

There's no "too much money" excuse/reason when there's a minimum salary cap. They are choosing to pay other guys money or spread the cash out to a few players to get better at other spots. They could say too much for one player, but that has little to do with total scroogeness or whatever.

 

I'm connecting the dots a bit because you've repeated your cheap Hunt comment several times. If you are only talking about too much for one player excuse, I see the frustration of letting him go for that reason.

[Mr Ev 332]

Mr. Ev - you never address how your cheap ownership comments mesh witha minimum salary cap requirements and the fact we are always close to the maximum. How is that cheap? It could be paying the wrong guys more, but it isn't being cheap.

 

There's no "too much money" excuse/reason when there's a minimum salary cap. They are choosing to pay other guys money or spread the cash out to a few players to get better at other spots. They could say too much for one player, but that has little to do with total scroogeness or whatever.

 

 

I'm connecting the dots a bit because you've repeated your cheap Hunt comment several times. If you are only talking about too much for one player excuse, I see the frustration of letting him go for that reason.

I am in fact saying that he will cost too much, but I don't see how giving him a shit ton of money or spreading it around will make a difference either way. More than likely the Chiefs will be the same old Chiefs, aka never really making it over that hump to become a contender. So why not keep him a Chiefs, what the hell, live on the edge.

[PhataLerror 370]

I've been waiting and waiting for Justin Houston's name on the Pro Football Focus top 101 players for 2014 list and finally, here he is...

He comes in behind No. 1 JJ Watt and No. 2 Aaron Rodgers. That's decent company, I guess.

While I'm not going to argue about whether or not a pass-rushing linebacker could ever be the league's third most-dominant player, I will highlight the following:

 

The teams employing 'the league's two best defenders' have no week 19 wins during the past four years. Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a week twenty win since his current-year cap number surpassed $7 million.

 

When a franchise finds an excellent player, there is no mechanism for ensuring that a truly 'franchise player' can properly be afforded without taking the whole team down with them. And with that, I've come to a conclusion: The league does need a tweak to its salary cap rules. A franchise should be able to tag one player so as not to count against the team's salary cap for as long as that player is under contract with his team (regardless of whether or not his current-year cap hit is the highest one on the books). If that player's contract is terminated, waived, or traded, the dead money would count against the team's salary cap (but at that time, they would be able to 'tag' another player under the same terms). Such a mechanism would allow teams to keep their Joe Montanas or other 'Best Ever' players while at the same time ensuring that the players are compensated at a 'Best Ever' rate.

[KCSLC2008 606]

While I'm not going to argue about whether or not a pass-rushing linebacker could ever be the league's third most-dominant player, I will highlight the following:

 

The teams employing 'the league's two best defenders' have no week 19 wins during the past four years. Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a week twenty win since his current-year cap number surpassed $7 million.

 

When a franchise finds an excellent player, there is no mechanism for ensuring that a truly 'franchise player' can properly be afforded without taking the whole team down with them. And with that, I've come to a conclusion: The league does need a tweak to its salary cap rules. A franchise should be able to tag one player so as not to count against the team's salary cap for as long as that player is under contract with his team (regardless of whether or not his current-year cap hit is the highest one on the books). If that player's contract is terminated, waived, or traded, the dead money would count against the team's salary cap (but at that time, they would be able to 'tag' another player under the same terms). Such a mechanism would allow teams to keep their Joe Montanas or other 'Best Ever' players while at the same time ensuring that the players are compensated at a 'Best Ever' rate.

Good solution, IMO. Teams wanting to lure those players away would be upset, but that would be a little hypocritical when they tagged someone else from their team. If they didn't tag anyone, that would be stupid because it wouldn't count against the cap (unless they are worried about dead money, which in case you should tag someone else). Those expressing anger with the rule after it was hypothetically passed would just be saying their franchise player isn't as good as the other franchise players they wanted to overpay.

 

Would there be a three year or two year limit on tagging one player? Because they surely couldn't keep someone forever despite the compensation when there's no cap reasons not to do so. Would it be like the NBA where the team can pay their players more than other teams and you're adding that it wouldn't cost them salary cap?

 

Otherwise, the players lose freedom to move, but they already lost that with the current tag system. But there's a limit on the current system. I imagine that the current limit mostly uses the players big buck years and they get less later overall. Unless the franchise money is greater than a big contract. It is more insurance against injury.

 

Talking about injuries, would franchise players take your deal, assuming it's a one year thing? Or are you saying that teams could sign players to whatever they want, $ & duration so long as players 2-51 fall under the cap each year?

[PhataLerror 370]

Would there be a three year or two year limit on tagging one player? Because they surely couldn't keep someone forever despite the compensation when there's no cap reasons not to do so. Would it be like the NBA where the team can pay their players more than other teams and you're adding that it wouldn't cost them salary cap?

Unlimited. If the player's career is tailing off, you simply release them and eat the dead money, and after that another player may be selected. The purpose of the concept is not to negate a team's most expensive cap hit for a season, nor is it to unilaterally pin down a player to a team as the franchise tag already does, but rather to give franchises one player with whom they can do business with without having to compete with themselves due to the salary cap. With the inequities of free agency as they are, it would give certain small market teams and teams in states with high income taxes fair access to premium free agent talent, or perhaps more important, the opportunity to retain talent that was identified and drafted.

 

In principle, the salary cap has been good for the NFL. It was fun being a 49er fan in the 80's and early 90's, but the league is much better off as a whole because of the cap. With that said, free agency undoes many of the beneficial effects of the salary cap, and such a proposal as outlined above merely would be a step in making things a little more even.