Marshall Faulk thinks KC should get rid of Jamaal Charles

[KC Warpaint 3,234]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000636977/article/marshall-faulk-why-do-chiefs-keep-jamaal-charles

[DieHard 2,061]

I wish we had had him in the playoff game versus New England. I don't think you let him go unless you are sure he is done. West and Ware are nice backs, but that stretch was not stacked with tough defenses. You only save 5 mill on the cap. You can't get a top notch skill player for that in FA. Based on my limited knowledge, I think it would be a bad move.

[NChiefsCorner 496]

Damaged goods, approaching 30 years old, time to let him go for whatever you can get for him.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I want him on the team, but I want him also to be used correctly and in the right ratio. Our offense was better called without him - Note that I said "called better" not "better without him.".

[DieHard 2,061]

I agree. I think the line got better and opened up more of the playbook beyond WR screens. There certainly weren't many holes to run through early.

 

It will be interesting. I don't think he is tradable with his contract. That would be a lot of dollars for a team to take on plus give up a draft pick.

 

It will be an interesting off season. For the Chiefs.

[kccrow 529]

Would not cut. Trade? Yes. I'd want to be in better control of where he went and I'd like to get something for him. He's talented and a huge bonus, but unnecessary. Same with Colquitt.

[KCSLC2008 606]

A lot of people say that Reid doesn't like to use his running back or run the ball, but according to this article, we ran the ball seventh most in the NFL. Now some of that might be because we were running the clock out having a lead, and the criticism might be more true regarding starting the games. Then, you add all the passes to the running back and we get plenty of use, we just need to use it correctly at the right times.

 

http://www.csnphilly.com/football-philadelphia-eagles/unlike-chip-kelly-doug-pederson-will-adapt-running-backs-demarco-murray-ryan-mathews-darren-sproles

[Bilyous2 884]

Damaged goods, approaching 30 years old, time to let him go for whatever you can get for him.

Not damaged.  Not with today's medical progress. Look at the pitchers who come back dominant after Tommy John surgery or even two Tommy John's?  Jamaal was also out for almost two years of his career.  That makes him like a 28 year old in terms of wear and tear.  The thing that wears out RB's is not major injuries like ACL tears, and it is not age greater than 30.  35 maybe, but not 30.  It is simple year-in, year-out wear.  Jamaal Charles has the actual wear of a 28 year old RB, except for two things:  He has the knowledge of a 30 year old and the vision and balance of an out-and-out freak.

 

So, basically, I am saying you are wrong.  Letting Jamaal Charles go would be cause for firing of a GM.

[DieHard 2,061]

That's a good point Bil especially when you consider he didn't start o ton of games in his first 3 years. He only hd 67 carries his whole rookie year.

[Bilyous2 884]

That's a good point Bil especially when you consider he didn't start o ton of games in his first 3 years. He only hd 67 carries his whole rookie year.

Another good point.

[kccrow 529]

Not damaged.  Not with today's medical progress. Look at the pitchers who come back dominant after Tommy John surgery or even two Tommy John's?  Jamaal was also out for almost two years of his career.  That makes him like a 28 year old in terms of wear and tear.  The thing that wears out RB's is not major injuries like ACL tears, and it is not age greater than 30.  35 maybe, but not 30.  It is simple year-in, year-out wear.  Jamaal Charles has the actual wear of a 28 year old RB, except for two things:  He has the knowledge of a 30 year old and the vision and balance of an out-and-out freak.

 

So, basically, I am saying you are wrong.  Letting Jamaal Charles go would be cause for firing of a GM.

 

 

Aren't you a doctor Bil?

 

You should know that "amount used" doesn't actually apply at all. He's 30 years old biologically, no matter what. Most athletes begin a regression between age 30 and age 32. This has been studied, written about, and proven ad nauseum. Injuries to major joints generally accelerate the process, but that depends on the person's original healing and so forth. Simply stated, it doesn't matter if he's had 5,000 carries or 5 carries to this point in his career. He's 30 years old with injuries to multiple major joints. He will begin regressing athletically in the very near future.

[Bilyous2 884]

Aren't you a doctor Bil?

 

You should know that "amount used" doesn't actually apply at all. He's 30 years old biologically, no matter what. Most athletes begin a regression between age 30 and age 32. This has been studied, written about, and proven ad nauseum. Injuries to major joints generally accelerate the process, but that depends on the person's original healing and so forth. Simply stated, it doesn't matter if he's had 5,000 carries or 5 carries to this point in his career. He's 30 years old with injuries to multiple major joints. He will begin regressing athletically in the very near future.

Yes, I am.  But I also know that much progress has been made in terms of the science of conditioning, use of supplements, antioxidants, natural anti-inflammatories, surgical techniques, rehabilitation technology and other things to say that your numbers are based on past experience and that is not a stationary target.  In fact, the aging process itself has been tied to a depletion of certain enzymes involved in generation of energy inside cells, especialy AMPK-1 (adenosine monophosphate protein kinase).  Certain supplements and medications that have been shown to slow or possibly completely stop this normal enzymatic decline are now known.  Studies in mice have shown 50% increase in longevity using these chemicals, but people live too long to be able yet to show the same effect in any kind of large study.  But the estimate is that within another decade or so, humans born today, exclusive of diseases or accidents or trauma, will have an average longevity of 120 years.  One of these drugs is a common drug that has been used safely to treat diabetes for over 50 years, called Metformin. 1000-3000 mg per day can almost completely inhibit that mechanism of cellular aging and cell drop out.  Other substances that do the same thing are being discovered.  But without getting even more detailed than I already have, I have to simply say that your assertion that there is a simple biological clock that forever determines physical integrity and function related to age is simply wrong.  It is a forever upward moving target.  And that is in ADDITION to the known improvements in the medical aspects of treating joint injuries, in rehab, etc.

 

In short (LOL), 30 years old means squat.  A running back who inevitably declined beginning between 30-32 is based on past observation and cannot be extended to the future.  Since Jamaal has had access to the best surgery and rehab and nutritional science and has not worn his body down for a couple of years when he was out, it is quite possible that his decline might not be really noticeable for three more years, and even that is partially compensated by his knowledge of the game, his remarkable vision, and his freakish balance and cutting ability.  I am assuming he has had access to the best medical and nutritional  technology.  But all people are different. It doesn't mean I am right about Charles.  He might start a rapid decline.  But your idea that there is a biological age/function curve and "wear and tear" curve that is inviolate and set in stone for any species, including humans,  is simply wrong. 

[PhataLerror 370]

I have to simply say that your assertion that there is a simple biological clock that forever determines physical integrity and function related to age is simply wrong.  It is a forever upward moving target.

I know that this statement is being taken outside of its context, but I didn't want to let this stand.

 

I seem to remember a lot of stories about people of older generations that were 'never sick a day in their lives', which usually actually meant they were tough. With that said (and I am neither a doctor nor a scientist), the anecdotal evidence has seemed to indicate that humans are more vulnerable to disease and the degenerative conditions than they ever have been. Whether this is to be attributed primarily to environmental causes either mental or physical, or to other factors known or unknown, it's hard to argue that humans at large are getting stronger rather than weaker. With what I've seen in my short life, many of the people who are two generations behind me may have ultimately died of conditions that might have been treatable during the last couple decades, but in their 70's, those people were a lot healthier than many of the 70-somethings I'm seeing today.

 

I have a ton of respect for doctors: They do. I have less respect for scientists: They talk. I wouldn't hold my breath for the Millennials' version of the Fountain of Youth. If in 2014 Eric Berry has to worry about getting cancer in his 20's, I'm not about to herald the end of sickness thanks to science.

[DieHard 2,061]

On paper DJ should not have come back from an Achiles tear and be as good or better that he had ever been at 33. Berry should not have spent the off season in treatment and come back twice as good as he ever was before.

 

I am not saying age is just a number. But it effects different people differently. Brady and Manning are about the same age but play ten years different.

 

Charles (best case) comes back as arguably the best RB in the league for this system. If he loses a step, he is still significantly more explosive than West or Ware. You don't break the bank to sign the guy out of FA, but you sure as hell don't cut him to save 5 million bucks. I mean we a knocking on the door. Cutting Charles would be lunacy.

[KCSLC2008 606]

On paper DJ should not have come back from an Achiles tear and be as good or better that he had ever been at 33. Berry should not have spent the off season in treatment and come back twice as good as he ever was before.

 

I am not saying age is just a number. But it effects different people differently. Brady and Manning are about the same age but play ten years different.

 

Charles (best case) comes back as arguably the best RB in the league for this system. If he loses a step, he is still significantly more explosive than West or Ware. You don't break the bank to sign the guy out of FA, but you sure as hell don't cut him to save 5 million bucks. I mean we a knocking on the door. Cutting Charles would be lunacy.

When you say better than ever, I don't think you are talking physically but rather production or intangibles. This can be from being mentally a better football player (the mind has kept some players relevant as their physical abilities declined) or it could be from other players around DJ that are better, allowing DJ to use his strengths. DJ would likely be better long term, if not short term, if he never had the injury. Better than ever and that would be due to experience, support, and physically not being as affected as he was.

[DieHard 2,061]

That's fair. Doesn't support cutting Charles though. What I am saying is that you can't say for certain that Charles will be anything less than what we have become accustomed to. He will be better than West next year most likely. West is the perfect back to share carries with Charles and not effect play calling. Ware is a really good bull sizer to change things up.

 

In my mind we have the perfect 1, 2, 3 at RB and should stand pat. Besides, you cut Charles and West blows a knee out and where are you? It is only my opinion, but I think it is our strongest position group and key to improving our offense.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I can't quote anyone on this browser, but this one's for you DieHard:

 

I don't understand why those who are proponents of cutting Charles act like it's cut him or keep him for his whole contract. It's year by year with different years having different cut rates.

 

For example, Alex Smith's 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons became guaranteed on April 1, 2015. They could have cut him and saved 2015-16 and 2016-17 years, but cutting him now wouldn't save either of those years, not even 2016-17. The time was before April 2015 or after the 2016-17 season is over (or later, running the contract out).

 

I don't think we have that situation with Charles. It's cut him now, keep him for one year and then cut, or keep him longer.

[DieHard 2,061]

Thanks KCSLC. He costs 5 mill this year. We can see what we really have in West and Ware, then decide if we want to shell out the 7 mill for next year.

[kccrow 529]

Yes, I am.  But I also know that much progress has been made in terms of the science of conditioning, use of supplements, antioxidants, natural anti-inflammatories, surgical techniques, rehabilitation technology and other things to say that your numbers are based on past experience and that is not a stationary target.  In fact, the aging process itself has been tied to a depletion of certain enzymes involved in generation of energy inside cells, especialy AMPK-1 (adenosine monophosphate protein kinase).  Certain supplements and medications that have been shown to slow or possibly completely stop this normal enzymatic decline are now known.  Studies in mice have shown 50% increase in longevity using these chemicals, but people live too long to be able yet to show the same effect in any kind of large study.  But the estimate is that within another decade or so, humans born today, exclusive of diseases or accidents or trauma, will have an average longevity of 120 years.  One of these drugs is a common drug that has been used safely to treat diabetes for over 50 years, called Metformin. 1000-3000 mg per day can almost completely inhibit that mechanism of cellular aging and cell drop out.  Other substances that do the same thing are being discovered.  But without getting even more detailed than I already have, I have to simply say that your assertion that there is a simple biological clock that forever determines physical integrity and function related to age is simply wrong.  It is a forever upward moving target.  And that is in ADDITION to the known improvements in the medical aspects of treating joint injuries, in rehab, etc.

 

In short (LOL), 30 years old means squat.  A running back who inevitably declined beginning between 30-32 is based on past observation and cannot be extended to the future.  Since Jamaal has had access to the best surgery and rehab and nutritional science and has not worn his body down for a couple of years when he was out, it is quite possible that his decline might not be really noticeable for three more years, and even that is partially compensated by his knowledge of the game, his remarkable vision, and his freakish balance and cutting ability.  I am assuming he has had access to the best medical and nutritional  technology.  But all people are different. It doesn't mean I am right about Charles.  He might start a rapid decline.  But your idea that there is a biological age/function curve and "wear and tear" curve that is inviolate and set in stone for any species, including humans,  is simply wrong. 

 

I'll continue to follow the 100's of studies that prove otherwise. That's no offense to you personally, just that the data is out there. Years worth of it. The NFL has shown it to be true time and again.  I'll say this, not ALL players hit the wall early. Guys like Charles Woodson prove that. Most, however, do hit that wall in the time frame I referenced. There's a reason most running backs, wide receivers, and corners don't play past the age of 32.

[Guest xen]

There's no real downside to keeping him this year. Trading him is delusional. Nobody will make that trade.

[Bilyous2 884]

I'll continue to follow the 100's of studies that prove otherwise. That's no offense to you personally, just that the data is out there. Years worth of it. The NFL has shown it to be true time and again.  I'll say this, not ALL players hit the wall early. Guys like Charles Woodson prove that. Most, however, do hit that wall in the time frame I referenced. There's a reason most running backs, wide receivers, and corners don't play past the age of 32.

Your statement here proves my point. You are looking at PAST experience.  Advances in surgery, nutrition, rehab, and the science of aging, itself, is rapidly advancing as we speak, and at a rate that you cannot imagine, especially if you are wed to the past in matters of physiology, aging, and repair.

 

Now get rid of that old black and white TV.  There are much better options out there now.

[West 6,714]

Minor point.  Many Scientists are doctors.  Most Scientists I know "DO" by invention.

 

w

[kccrow 529]

Your statement here proves my point. You are looking at PAST experience.  Advances in surgery, nutrition, rehab, and the science of aging, itself, is rapidly advancing as we speak, and at a rate that you cannot imagine, especially if you are wed to the past in matters of physiology, aging, and repair.

 

Now get rid of that old black and white TV.  There are much better options out there now.

 

Hell Bil, ESPN wrote an article on RBs in April of 2014 that states the same thing I'm saying. Here it is: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/123542/inside-slant-running-back-cliff-after-age-27

 

PFF did an article in 2012 on WRs that shows decline by age 30 and a very steep cliff at 34. It also touches on the sharp decline of the RB position occurring quite a bit earlier. Here it is: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/08/27/age-of-decline-wr/

 

Medicine hasn't advanced that damn much in the past 2-4 years with regard to player longevity. 

 

This is about Jamaal Charles and the decline of RBs and the data supports my assertion.

 

Maybe Charles will buck the trend, but that won't be because of some new magical treatment regimen. It will be more to do with the aging of his body on an individual basis. I don't have hopes that he will come back and be the same player he has been for any significant length of time, if at all.

[DieHard 2,061]

I still say that Charles minus a step is still the most talented back on the roster and a bargain at 5 mill.

[West 6,714]

I think they keep Jamal for sure.

 

He is a game changer.

 

w