If You Could Keep Just One: Jamaal Charles or Sean Smith

[PhataLerror 370]

Sean Smith is a healthy free agent about to get paid. Jamaal Charles is well-paid coming off of an ACL tear. The Chiefs struggled in certain games where they had both of these players, but both contributed very positively to the team.

 

Which one would be more important to keep going forward?

 

(It is understood that Sean Smith will likely be paid more than Jamaal Charles.)

[kcchief4lif 910]

In today's game, corners are way more important than "star" running backs.

 

May not be a popular thought.  I think the chiefs would be better served by trying to deal Charles.

 

Unless.. They can get him split out as the compliment to Maclin and put him on punt returns... :-)

[Guest Calichief]

That corner didn't do much on Saturday.

Could used an explosive Charles..

Will Charles be explosive again?

17 carries for 70 every week is just ok from west.

Ware to me is the more valuable of the two.

 

I'd take Charles over smith.

[kccrow 529]

I love Jamaal, but I have to say that a top CB is much more important to this team than a top RB. The Chiefs proved they can win with a serviceable committee. I agree with kcchief4lif. I know it isn't a popular thought to even consider trading Jamaal, but 6 million for a RB in today's game is a tough pill to swallow.

[TD4Valerio 17]

I love Charles, but I think that after 2 major knee injuries, his best days are behind him. Corners are positions that you tend to notice much more when they are super weak. I don't know that there is a better option on the roster than Smith. The RBs (minus Knile Davis who may have fumbled his way out of KC) were not awful and we can always try and get someone in the draft.

[qnet 1,150]

It's probably not the logical choice, but I would keep Charles. He's the only player the Chiefs have that can potentially beat anyone when he's playing. He's a dynamic playmaker all around. Remember how the Chiefs couldn't stop Edelman? That's how Charles can be at times. Even in the loss to the Ravens in 2010, he was 9 carries for 82 yards and a TD. 

 

Sean Smith is the logical choice, but to be honest, I don't trust him. 

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

if I had to choose, it would be smith. I love JC but he has had a lot of ACL injuries. His best days may be behind him

[PhataLerror 370]

Is the ACL is big deal here? It seemed that following his ACL injury in 2011, Jamaal Charles trusted his knee in 2012 and thereafter. I haven't read anything that suggested that Charles' tear was anything other than a 'clean tear', meaning that there was no significant damage to the knee otherwise that might complicate his rehabilitation. (The tear was to the knee opposite the one damaged in 2011.)

[DieHard 2,061]

We have way more depth at RB. Smith is more important.

[Guest Guest]

I'm probably keeping JC and letting Smith walk for a couple of reasons. Smith was a value signing 3 years ago and Dorsey has done very well at finding guys that can come in and contribute and do very well. I have every confidence be could do the same with Smith.

 

we replaced the production but not the playmaking ability of JC. The offense needs more playmakers not less. Add a solid #2 to go along with Maclin, Kelce another year in the offense and hopefully better, then JC paired with Ware is a different animal to deal with versus this year.

[KCSLC2008 606]

For those picking Charles over Smith, would it change if you got a good draft pick in a trade? If so, what is your minimum for compensation of draft picks?

 

For those of you picking Smith, would Charles taking a pay cut and Smith signing elsewhere change your mind? In other words, are are any of you picking Smith over Charles because of the contract and not because of the position?

[DieHard 2,061]

For me it is injury history, age and self life of a RB that make me willing to consider letting Charles go. I think you have 4 or 5 years of Smith playing at a high level. JC is harder to predict, but 3 tops?

 

I hate to see my favorite Chiefs go. And I won't have to. JC will be here next year, but on PUP I would think.

[artsy 1,137]

For those picking Charles over Smith, would it change if you got a good draft pick in a trade? If so, what is your minimum for compensation of draft picks?

 

For those of you picking Smith, would Charles taking a pay cut and Smith signing elsewhere change your mind? In other words, are are any of you picking Smith over Charles because of the contract and not because of the position?

Well we all saw how the chiefs performed when Smith was out and JC was in, versus how they performed when JC was our and Smith was in.....

 

That's why chose to keep Smith. However, he is an aging CB, and he has never had great speed. He struggles against the smaller quicker WR's (ughm..Eldeman). And, he's not getting any younger.

[MAUI 4,758]

From a fan standpoint Charles is way more fun to watch than Smith.., And when it comes to putting butts in seats Charles is hands down.., He should retire as a Chief.., I can't imagine him in another uniform.., He does fumble more than I'm comfortable with..,

 

To me, Smith is easier to replace, especially with a #28 pick and his asking price will probably be unreasonable.., I think he walks.., I don't really equate our shaky start with Smith's absence, more to bonehead offensive miscues, a tenuous offensive line and early season defensive growing pains.., I don't see that happening next year..,

 

It would be nice to keep both, but I would take Charles out of the two.., in a heartbeat..,

[TD4Valerio 17]

This somewhat reminds me of the Jared Allen vs Larry Johnson dilemma. We went with the guy who had less drama to date rather than keep the guy who had off field issues. Even without the off field issues, we were paying for what Johnson was before the contract, not his potential going forward. Charles had a great run, but HBs don't last in this league like they used to.

[SEMO 6,811]

Smith. RBs are a dime a dozen, which several teams proved the year.

 

Still love Jamaal. But, if I am forced to choose...

[oldtimer 8,686]

For those picking Charles over Smith, would it change if you got a good draft pick in a trade? If so, what is your minimum for compensation of draft picks?

 

For those of you picking Smith, would Charles taking a pay cut and Smith signing elsewhere change your mind? In other words, are are any of you picking Smith over Charles because of the contract and not because of the position?

 

 

 you wont get anything better than a 4rth and that would be lucky.. I gag while I say this but I'd take Smith over Charles. really the only thing I worry about more with that call is Smith's ability to keep out of trouble. I'm picking Smith because of the position..nothing more.

 

 a great defense is what gets the Fans rabid..its been that way  forever. we have seen what a good offense and no defense does. I hated going to games when we had no defense.

[DefensiveMan 758]

Charles, is fun, dynamic, and an explosive player. He's more valuable than Smith - didn't prove it this year, but will next year. Sean Smith could have picked off Brady last game, he didn't make the play. If Reid can learn to use Charles better, his injury could serve as a blessing for his recovery next year.

[NChiefsCorner 496]

The Chiefs only gave a 3rd round pick for Charles, so a 4th round pick wouldn't be so bad.

[Bilyous2 884]

The only reasons fans might have to pick Charles are 1) Great memories and love of offense and 2) lack of awareness of how crucial a top CB is.   I agree with the comments about Charles' two knee surgeries and (I think) a few mild concussions, but I also agree that he would be fabulous on punt returns and as a slot receiver.  But one problem is that he is too expensive and has too many question marks.  But by far the biggest problem is that, to fans, the value of a great CB is what DOESN'T happen.  How can the average fan get a thrill or burst of excitement when an opposing receiver does NOT make a great catch?  But the actual value of prevention is huge.  I voted to keep Smith, because he is one of the top guys in the league and is still young. He is worth his weight in gold.  I would hate to see Charles go, but I think we are deep at RB and have Bienemy to coach them.  I also don't like the way that Charles' multiple threat potential causes offensive strategists to overuse him.  It is almost impossible not to overuse him.

[KCSLC2008 606]

The only reasons fans might have to pick Charles are 1) Great memories and love of offense and 2) lack of awareness of how crucial a top CB is. I agree with the comments about Charles' two knee surgeries and (I think) a few mild concussions, but I also agree that he would be fabulous on punt returns and as a slot receiver. But one problem is that he is too expensive and has too many question marks. But by far the biggest problem is that, to fans, the value of a great CB is what DOESN'T happen. How can the average fan get a thrill or burst of excitement when an opposing receiver does NOT make a great catch? But the actual value of prevention is huge. I voted to keep Smith, because he is one of the top guys in the league and is still young. He is worth his weight in gold. I would hate to see Charles go, but I think we are deep at RB and have Bienemy to coach them. I also don't like the way that Charles' multiple threat potential causes offensive strategists to overuse him. It is almost impossible not to overuse him.

This is not my opinion, but I would add a third possibility of somebody thinking that Smith is not a top cornerback next year. Or they could think that any reasonable free agent contract would be for too many years or too much money. If it's just about next year, that's different, but if it is sign Sean Smith to a free-agent contract or pay Charles this year (but not next) and let Sean Smith go, that might be a different question.

[KCSLC2008 606]

^^^ Look at me, I am already referring to 2016–17 as "this year" and 2017–18 as "next year." Does that mean I have closure for the 2015-16 season? Have I moved on this early? Really?

[PhataLerror 370]

If Sean Smith signs elsewhere but the Chiefs don't manage to sign a free agent of significant fame, the Chiefs could receive an early-round compensatory pick. If Jamaal Charles had not just been injured, he would have been worth a second-round draft pick. The suggestion that he would be worth a fourth-round seems like a valid estimate.

 

The Chiefs are actually in a very good position to milk the compensatory picks system this off-season.

 

For what it's worth, I can't imagine that the Chiefs will start 2016 without Jamaal Charles, but it's interesting how one season without Jamaal Charles provided objective evidence of his value relative to other players.

[Chiefmania 22]

I think that Charles will be back and that Smith will be gone.  He is going to get 15 million a year somewhere, and I do not think he is worth it.  I do agree that he made a difference when he came back from suspension, but toward the end he started looking less like one of the top CB's to me.  Charles came back as good or better from the first ACL, and there is nothing that says he wont do the same with this one.  While I thought that West and Ware did a very good job replacing him, I will still take him every day of the week.  Is part of this emotion?  You bet, but that is part of being a fan.  I could also see JC restructuring possibly to be able to stay with the Chiefs.  Only time will tell.

[Guest WichitaZRide]

If we have a healthy Ware and West, then I would say I would prefer Smith over Charles.  Jamaal's getting up there in age, as well as coming back from 2nd ACL and its apparent that Reid doesn't know what to do with him.  For the last 2.5 years whenever the chiefs lose, the first thing you can do is look at Charles' carries...and that number is almost guaranteed to be between 8-12.  We learned in his absence that he is not the center of our team, and I fear he will become the focus again, causing problems as well as stunting growth of our players.

 

The Ware/West combination gives us two young workhorse backs that can do some major damage while Charles just isn't going to get those 2nd half carries to run down the clock in the 2nd half.  Also, I would have to think he would be great trade bait for a team that needs a RB.  Here's a breakdown of the rest of his contract:

 

2016:  Base:  $2,750,000  Roster Bonus:  $2,312,500  Workout Bonus:  $250,000

2017:  Base:  $3,750,000  Roster Bonus:  $3,000,000  Workout Bonus:  $250,000

 

If my understanding of the contracts is correct(which it probably isn't), the chiefs would pick up any bonuses if there were a trade.   So basically...trading Charles would save the chiefs 5.3 million in the next two years in cap space while the team traded to would only be responsible for the pick(s) given up and 6.5 million over two years.  That's sounds like quite a bargain if he returns even close to his former self and probably a risk worth taking.

 

All this being said....Sean Smith is probably gone regardless of scenario.  He's gonna be highly sought after and highly paid.  We probably just don't have the cash flow to get him back and retain our other core players.  I look for the chiefs to either draft CB in the 1st round again(please give us Marcus Peters 2.0), or go after an above average CB in free agency that they could afford.  I shutter to think of it personally, but Adam "Pac-Man" Jones is available.  I imagine we could get him dirt cheap on the same kind of "prove it" deal we gave Sean Smith.