610 just reported per schefter Houston is signed

[eraser 722]

$8 M in cap savings with the new contract. Why is that number significant? Well, the contract could have been written any which way, but the Chiefs opted to relieve their cap this year, and push those cap numbers off into the future. Why?

 

The Chiefs could have done this to allow for injuries. Things happen, and teams usually carry a couple of million over to handle those unforeseen expenditures. Two million is not 8. 

 

Eight million allows the team to sign one or two very good players, and have enough left over in case of emergency. 

 

The reason $8 M is important is it signifies two things. One, the Chiefs are not done in free agency. Two, the Chiefs are going for it this year. There is no holding back. 

[PhataLerror 370]

6 year deal 100mil range.

 

Highest paid thus far at that position.  

 

Adam Schefter 

@AdamSchefter  

Chiefs LB Justin Houston's new 6-year, $101 million deal also is second richest deal in NFL history behind only Ndamukong Suh's. 

Does everyone here still think this was a great idea? I for one thought his first year on the new contract was a disappointment, and exactly what I thought it would be.

[it's time] for Alex Smith to earn his money.

But if Houston registers eight sacks this season, that's totally cool.[/sarcasm]

Justin Houston, 2015: 7.5 sacks, 0 post-season sacks.

 

Out of the Chiefs' 47 defensive sacks on the year, 17 came in the last five games of the season. Of the approximately 69% of the regular season that Justin Houston played in, about 64% of the sacks occurred. Granted, the Chiefs' competition during those final five weeks of the season was a factor in the higher sack totals, but did Justin Houston's absence make that much of a difference?

 

I submit that this contract, while not being a disaster, has not produced according to its value. He may, after all, not be the most important player on this team.

[qnet 1,150]

I still think he's worth it PhataLerror. Having a player like him at full strength during the Pats game would have really helped. His consistent pressure makes the whole defense better.

[kcchief4lif 910]

Nope didn't like it at the time and still don't.  Just have to see how year 2 post money splash goes.

[Guest Calichief]

It's not only about sacks.guy is great in coverage and against the run.

[kcchief4lif 910]

I still think he's worth it PhataLerror. Having a player like him at full strength during the Pats game would have really helped. His consistent pressure makes the whole defense better.

I don't think he would have mattered based on how NE played em. They barely Ran and they were not giving the Chiefs time to get after the QB.  Tamba said the same thing.  

[Gil 243]

It's not only about sacks.guy is great in coverage and against the run.

 

Precisely. He's the best all-around LB in the league. If he hadn't been hurt, he'd have +/-15 sacks and nobody would be complaining. 

[kcchief4lif 910]

It's not only about sacks.guy is great in coverage and against the run.

Please tell who he would have covered?  Gronk?  Edelman?  Again Pats barely ran...

 

I don't think his absence really mattered in this one..

[PhataLerror 370]

It's not only about sacks.guy is great in coverage and against the run.

Understood, but you can find the same production and skill set around the league at half of the price.

 

I don't want to reduce Houston's contributions to individual statistics, but the bottom line is that the Chiefs were 6-5 in regular season games in which Houston was healthy. Is it time to open up the discussion as to whether Justin Houston was the Chiefs' most important defensive player by as much of a margin as his contract suggests? There's a lot that the Chiefs could have done with that money that could have made a difference.

[DieHard 2,061]

I just don't know about that. Top 5 coverage skills and capable of 22 sacks? That is hard to find at any price. I can't think of another player like him.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

His injury was of friendly fire and unfortunate. He's no one-trick pony

[TD4Valerio 17]

Understood, but you can find the same production and skill set around the league at half of the price.

 

I don't want to reduce Houston's contributions to individual statistics, but the bottom line is that the Chiefs were 6-5 in regular season games in which Houston was healthy. Is it time to open up the discussion as to whether Justin Houston was the Chiefs' most important defensive player by as much of a margin as his contract suggests? There's a lot that the Chiefs could have done with that money that could have made a difference.

I think this is a great topic to revisit, but let's not forget how futile our pass rush was not-so-long ago. in 2008 we had 10 sacks and could not get any pressure on the QB. Just because Houston doesn't always get to the QB, doesn't mean that he's not making an impact. teams have to game plan around our pass rush and can't plan on camping out while receivers run around and get open. I think that dominant pass rushers drastically alter the opponent's third down playbook and QBs not named Brady who can't get the ball off so damn quickly have to take note of where he is on every play. I think that disruptive presence is something that once you get, you hold on to.

[SEMO 6,811]

And, the offseason whining has begun.

[azchief21 5,278]

I think this is a great topic to revisit, but let's not forget how futile our pass rush was not-so-long ago. in 2008 we had 10 sacks and could not get any pressure on the QB. Just because Houston doesn't always get to the QB, doesn't mean that he's not making an impact. teams have to game plan around our pass rush and can't plan on camping out while receivers run around and get open. I think that dominant pass rushers drastically alter the opponent's third down playbook and QBs not named Brady who can't get the ball off so damn quickly have to take note of where he is on every play. I think that disruptive presence is something that once you get, you hold on to.

You nailed it.

[oldtimer 8,686]

And, the offseason whining has begun.

 

 

Yep

[PhataLerror 370]

I think this is a great topic to revisit, but let's not forget how futile our pass rush was not-so-long ago. in 2008 we had 10 sacks and could not get any pressure on the QB. Just because Houston doesn't always get to the QB, doesn't mean that he's not making an impact. teams have to game plan around our pass rush and can't plan on camping out while receivers run around and get open. I think that dominant pass rushers drastically alter the opponent's third down playbook and QBs not named Brady who can't get the ball off so damn quickly have to take note of where he is on every play. I think that disruptive presence is something that once you get, you hold on to.

Considering that a quarterback named Brady and his team just knocked the Chiefs out of the playoffs, it seems like the money that goes to Houston won't contribute to the implied purpose of the contract: Help the Chiefs win a Super Bowl.

 

I understand that a player's impact goes beyond his stat line. (If I didn't, I'd have no leg to stand on in all of my pro-Alex Smith arguments.) My argument against the Houston contract has been and will continue to be that when you pay one player, particularly a defender, such a significant portion of the money pool permitted by the salary cap, it ensures that offenses will attack the inferior talent that could be afforded to fill out the other positions. It seems much more effective to find a couple top-twenty players to complement each other than to find one player to be tasked with doing the job of two defenders.

 

I am not arguing that Justin Houston is somehow not a good player. I don't know of any player besides J.J. Watt with his skill set that compares favorably to him. Interestingly, in the Texans' most important game of the year, the same J.J. Watt was ineffective in getting to the quarterback because Smith was getting the ball off so quickly (something that was not possible once defenses didn't have to account for Jeremy Maclin, but that's another discussion altogether). So there's two players who are the best in the league at the same position, compensated very well, and their effectiveness under everyday conditions was almost completely negated, and likely would have been even if each were at full health.

[Calichief 3,016]

He's a year removed from nearly winning dpoy! Before injury he led the league in qb pressures. Come on people ...

[WichitaZRide 321]

And again, we are judging someone based off an extremely small sample size using metrics that are severely overrated.  Just like everyone was ready to boot Fisher before giving him time to prove his worth, the same is being done to Houston when he still has FIVE more years to make his money. 

 

There are so many factors being overlooked here.  There is so much more to earning your contract than sacks.  Pressures, QB hits, Passes defended, interceptions, forced fumbles, tackles for loss.  Then you can look at how many opportunities were created for other players due to Houston needing to be doubled up.  While is individual sack measurables might not stack up to his contract, he's a big reason our defense as a whole performed as well as it did this year.

[eraser 722]

Justin Houston was hurt. 

 

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/article55202005.html

 

If you want to say JJ Watts is a better player, you can do that. However, do not base your opinion on his last game. 

[TD4Valerio 17]

Considering that a quarterback named Brady and his team just knocked the Chiefs out of the playoffs, it seems like the money that goes to Houston won't contribute to the implied purpose of the contract: Help the Chiefs win a Super Bowl.

 

I understand that a player's impact goes beyond his stat line. (If I didn't, I'd have no leg to stand on in all of my pro-Alex Smith arguments.) My argument against the Houston contract has been and will continue to be that when you pay one player, particularly a defender, such a significant portion of the money pool permitted by the salary cap, it ensures that offenses will attack the inferior talent that could be afforded to fill out the other positions. It seems much more effective to find a couple top-twenty players to complement each other than to find one player to be tasked with doing the job of two defenders.

 

I am not arguing that Justin Houston is somehow not a good player. I don't know of any player besides J.J. Watt with his skill set that compares favorably to him. Interestingly, in the Texans' most important game of the year, the same J.J. Watt was ineffective in getting to the quarterback because Smith was getting the ball off so quickly (something that was not possible once defenses didn't have to account for Jeremy Maclin, but that's another discussion altogether). So there's two players who are the best in the league at the same position, compensated very well, and their effectiveness under everyday conditions was almost completely negated, and likely would have been even if each were at full health.

 

The question then becomes, "Where is the money best spent?" In order to have a winning team, you need to have guys who are able to change the game and make the players around him better. How much of a drop in talent/impact do you have if you get a cheaper player at Houston's spot? I think it is pretty drastic. I feel that a QB who cannot get comfortable in the pocket leads to the guys in coverage not having to cover as long. It leads to changing gameplans to avoid him. I feel that a great pass rusher is more difficult to negate than a great CB, for example. If you have a true shutdown corner, the opponents will essentially lose one WR which will hurt their passing game but not alter their plan as much as a guy living in their backfield. 

 

I think that the elite pass rushers are harder to come by and that the talent drop off is more drastic than any other position. If you look at CBs that we've lost in the past few years that were 'irreplaceable", we've replaced them. Safety won't impact the D as much unless it is a versatile safety like Polamalu was. I could see a MLB being worth building the D around.

 

On offense, the position to build around is QB. They can make or break your season and a good one can help you save money on the other skill positions. Just look at everyone who leaves Peyton Manning to get paid for lesser impact.  Plus, the talent drop off is drastic from some of the top QBs in the league. We've shown that you can run a RB/TE/OL by comittee, but the QB has the most impact. 

 

Even within my theory, I think you can get too caught up on one player and that there has to be a point where you let them walk or their contract becomes a burden to the team a la Drew Brees. I do not think that Justin Houston's contract is an albatross and I think we are getting value out of him when he is healthy.

[PhataLerror 370]

The question then becomes, "Where is the money best spent?" In order to have a winning team, you need to have guys who are able to change the game and make the players around him better. How much of a drop in talent/impact do you have if you get a cheaper player at Houston's spot? I think it is pretty drastic. I feel that a QB who cannot get comfortable in the pocket leads to the guys in coverage not having to cover as long. It leads to changing gameplans to avoid him. I feel that a great pass rusher is more difficult to negate than a great CB, for example. If you have a true shutdown corner, the opponents will essentially lose one WR which will hurt their passing game but not alter their plan as much as a guy living in their backfield. 

 

I think that the elite pass rushers are harder to come by and that the talent drop off is more drastic than any other position. If you look at CBs that we've lost in the past few years that were 'irreplaceable", we've replaced them. Safety won't impact the D as much unless it is a versatile safety like Polamalu was. I could see a MLB being worth building the D around.

 

On offense, the position to build around is QB. They can make or break your season and a good one can help you save money on the other skill positions. Just look at everyone who leaves Peyton Manning to get paid for lesser impact.  Plus, the talent drop off is drastic from some of the top QBs in the league. We've shown that you can run a RB/TE/OL by comittee, but the QB has the most impact.

I agree with your assessment concerning the quarterback. He is the linchpin of the chessboard. He is the one that by his competence and ability (or lack thereof) affects what aspects of what base schemes may be implemented by the offense. The quarterback imposes a ceiling on what the other ten offensive players can accomplish.

 

Defensive players are nothing like that, regardless of the position they play. The effective execution of defensive schemes is about rallying to where the football is or where it is going to go. You don't need elite players to do that. More than anything, you need athletes who coordinate well together, and aren't put in positions where they can be physically overmatched on a repeated basis.

 

It is generally accepted and completely logical that playmakers put their teammates in a better position to make plays. Quantifying the difference made in those cases is far more difficult. I haven't yet seen an instance where throwing highest-in-league sums at elite athletes addresses personnel versatility as effectively as throwing tenth-best-in-league sums at multiple highly effective athletes that are together able to have a great influence over a larger area of the field of play. There are just too many ways to scheme an offense to take a specific defender out of the play down after down, and the only solution for that problem is to have another defender who is enough of a playmaker that the offense has to account for him as well.

 

Example: The Chiefs at present have approximately $36.6 million committed to their front seven in 2016. Justin Houston's salary consumes more than half of that. The Seahawks, with a solid front-seven of their own, have $28.2 million in commitments. In terms of continuity, the Seahawks have 65 2015 starts among their projected starting lineup, while the Chiefs have only 57 such starts. The Seahawks' defense out-performed the Chiefs' this past season, and in fact the Seahawks got knocked out of the playoffs this year primarily because of a mistake by their quarterback that resulted in a defensive score by the Panthers. Why do they get more out of their defense? They have quality across the board, and don't overpay for talent.