PFT: Chiefs, Houston to try again this week

[Dante84]

Chiefs, Houston to try again this week
Posted by Mike Florio on February 15, 2015, 10:44 AM EST

In the past, the Chiefs and linebacker Justin Houston have tried, without success, to work out a new contract. In the near future, they’ll try again.

Per a league source, the Chiefs and Houston’s agent, Joel Segal, will make another attempt early in the week at making progress on a long-term deal. The Chiefs are expected to apply the franchise tag to Houston, who racked up 22 sacks in 2014, absent an agreement.

Houston had been expected to sign the franchise tender immediately. It’s possible that a new strategy will emerge if the coming talks fail to result in Houston receiving the kind of contract he believes he deserves.

Let's hope they can get this thing buttoned up.


UPDATE:

Chiefs, Houston to talk Tuesday

As expected, the Chiefs and linebacker Justin Houston will make one last effort to work out a long-term deal, before Kansas City applies the franchise tag.

Per a league source, Chiefs G.M. John Dorsey and Houston’s agent, Joel Segal, are scheduled to meet on Tuesday in Indianapolis to discuss a long-term deal for the man who racked up 22.0 sacks in 2014.

Previously, Houston’s plan was to immediately sign the franchise tender if/when the Chiefs apply it. Now, Houston may have a different plan in mind, if a long-term deal isn’t worked out.

The Chiefs cleared some cap space on Tuesday by dumping receiver Donnie Avery and receiver A.J. Jenkins. That could be used to pay Houston on a long-term deal, or it could be used to fund his one-year franchise tag.

I'm assuming this means next Tuesday, Feb. 24th.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

How many sacks did the sack leaders for the Patriots and the Seahawks have?

How many playoff wins do Derrick Thomas and Jared Allen have?

If you can bring constant pressure from a myriad of sources, it's irrelevant that you have a "sack master" on your defense. Totally overrated statistic that is the defensive version of total passing yardage by a QB. (Dan Marino or Matt Stafford anyone?)

You don't cripple a team by paying a guy an exorbitant sum of money to make 1.5 tackles for loss a game in his best season.

If Houston doesn't agree to a reasonable hometown contract such as what A. Smith did for his position, I'd be happy to have the 2015 season start with Dee Ford at the position. First round draft pick and all...

This has got to be the dumbest shit I've ever read. The Seahawks won the SB last year because of constant pressure.
Did you not watch what happened when the Seahawks lost Cliff Avril in this SB?

The Giants won 2 SB's mostly because of the DL putting pressure on Tom Brady.

You think the Steelers D didn't take them to 3 SB's without amazing pressure from the front 7?

The only thing better than a pass rush is a franchise QB. That's it.

[RealSNR]

Because.....


Patriots and Seahawks.

[O.city]

Houston himself can or will potentially account for 14 sacks per year atleast, and that's being low side dl generous. more likely, he isn't even in his prime years yet, which means you'd probably be looking more 17 per year type average.

From one guy. Instead of 3 combined.

It's being tossed around like being able to sack the qb is a detriment to playoff success, when in fact it isn't necessarily black or white either way.

The game today as it stands, is basically defending the pass and being good enough against the run to make teams not commit to it.

If they do in fact pay Houston what he wants, whatever that may be, if he produces to that level (WAR type thinking), it doesn't really matter.

Sad as it is, the answer to why most of those teams sac mentioned didn't make the playoffs wasn't because of pass rush, it's because their qb was either a turnover machine, the offense sucked, both, or the coaching staff are all asshats.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by RunKC

This has got to be the dumbest shit I've ever read. The Seahawks won the SB last year because of constant pressure.
Did you not watch what happened when the Seahawks lost Cliff Avril in this SB?

The Giants won 2 SB's mostly because of the DL putting pressure on Tom Brady.

You think the Steelers D didn't take them to 3 SB's without amazing pressure from the front 7?

The only thing better than a pass rush is a franchise QB. That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saccopoo

How many sacks did the sack leaders for the Patriots and the Seahawks have?

How many playoff wins do Derrick Thomas and Jared Allen have?

If you can bring constant pressure from a myriad of sources, it's irrelevant that you have a "sack master" on your defense. Totally overrated statistic that is the defensive version of total passing yardage by a QB. (Dan Marino or Matt Stafford anyone?)

Apparently your reading comprehension isn't working correctly today.

[O.city]

It's weird to see people use stuff like "Dan Marino didn't win a SB so passing yards are overrated" rhetoric.

They didn't not win a SB because of what Marino did, obviously.

The Seahawks this season didn't have alot of sacks (top 10) but they had an all time great defensive backfield with elite DBs.

More than one way to skin a cat. I'm a big believer in figuring out what you are, building that area, then add pieces to others to make them stronger, or more preferably, allow that area you excel in to make others better.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Don't say that.

You just gave me shit for saying sacks aren't the end all, be all.

I've already said that constant pressure from a myriad of sources is more important than having a singular sack entity that you/a team is most assuredly going to overpay for.

I also agree that Houston is far more than just a sack guy alone. He's good in coverage and against the run. I think he's the best 34 OLB in the NFL. However, contractually, that position demands top dollar, which can, if not properly contracted, can, without a doubt, cripple a team. Especially a team which is seemingly on the verge of putting together a very solid team that is capable of making a playoff run. (Which I think the Chiefs are in the now.)

Your immediate knee jerk against my initial observations just goes to show how enamored the casual fan is with the "sack" statistic.

Sacks are just the most extreme expression of pressure, and no, they're not the end all be all... getting a QB off his spot, hurrying his throw, rendering him inaccurate, obscuring his vision downfield etc etc... are all more important than a sack.

I think the point you're missing about a "sack master", is that just like a great QB makes his offense better, raises their play... a master pass rusher does exactly the same for his defense. He makes everyone elses job that much easier because of the inordinate amount of attention the offense gives him.

Then throw in the other things you mention, like being great vs the run and great in coverage... and you have a guy legitimately worth superstar money.

[O.city]

Basically, this is a simple argument being made where stats are being used without context.

It's like saying "JJ Watt just had one of the most incredible seasons ever in the league, but the Texans didn't make the playoffs so you don't need that and it's not important".

Well, yeah you don't have to have that, but if you can get it, it makes things exponentially easier for other areas of your team.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Sacks are just the most extreme expression of pressure, and no, they're not the end all be all... getting a QB off his spot, hurrying his throw, rendering him inaccurate, obscuring his vision downfield etc etc... are all more important than a sack.

I think the point you're missing about a "sack master", is that just like a great QB makes his offense better, raises their play... a master pass rusher does exactly the same for his defense. He makes everyone elses job that much easier because of the inordinate amount of attention the offense gives him.

Then throw in the other things you mention, like being great vs the run and great in coverage... and you have a guy legitimately worth superstar money.

Sure you do, but the problem with giving one guy the lion's share of the money means that a team is most likely going to be suffering in those other aspects because you have to low ball the remaining players in order to keep your team under the cap. It also effectively hamstrings the one All-Star because teams can now strategize for a singular player versus 11 guys.

53 dudes. The better all 53 dudes are is ultimately better than having a singular superstar, especially if that guy isn't a QB.

Look, I understand the importance of having a guy like Houston on the team and it's obvious that his impact was important in the success that the Chiefs had on defense this past season. However, he's coming off his rookie deal and it's going to cost a metric shit ton to have him equal that same level of production that the Chiefs just got on the cheap.

I know people say "Pay the man, he earned it!," but by doing so, you are going to significantly alter the dynamic of the team's salary cap and what they can do in terms of building the team to a playoff/championship level organization.

As well, having one guy that's not the QB get a lion's share of the payroll will create some level of derision on the team.

In addition, they just spent a first round pick on Dee Ford. Rather than pay Houston a king's ransom, I'd sooner like to see them actually use that first round pick and shore up the secondary and inside linebacker positions versus having to continue to shuffle out guys like Mays and Mauga and Owens and the like. I'll take 70% players at all positions versus a 99% player at one and 35%'ers everywhere else.

[Chiefshrink]

A sack is awesome if you can get it, but "pressure" is the key. Paraphrasing Walsh here but he did say,"the majority of championship teams have a pass rush in the 4th qrt".

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Sure you do, but the problem with giving one guy the lion's share of the money means that a team is most likely going to be suffering in those other aspects because you have to low ball the remaining players in order to keep your team under the cap. It also effectively hamstrings the one All-Star because teams can now strategize for a singular player versus 11 guys.

53 dudes. The better all 53 dudes are is ultimately better than having a singular superstar, especially if that guy isn't a QB.

Look, I understand the importance of having a guy like Houston on the team and it's obvious that his impact was important in the success that the Chiefs had on defense this past season. However, he's coming off his rookie deal and it's going to cost a metric shit ton to have him equal that same level of production that the Chiefs just got on the cheap.

I know people say "Pay the man, he earned it!," but by doing so, you are going to significantly alter the dynamic of the team's salary cap and what they can do in terms of building the team to a playoff/championship level organization.

As well, having one guy that's not the QB get a lion's share of the payroll will create some level of derision on the team.

In addition, they just spent a first round pick on Dee Ford. Rather than pay Houston a king's ransom, I'd sooner like to see them actually use that first round pick and shore up the secondary and inside linebacker positions versus having to continue to shuffle out guys like Mays and Mauga and Owens and the like. I'll take 70% players at all positions versus a 99% player at one and 35%'ers everywhere else.

What does paying Houston have to do with drafting?

In the end, like I said, if they can get however much they pay Houston production out of Houston, it may Doesn't matter the price.

In the end, the draft is how you diffuse this situation. If they decide Houston is the guy to build the defense around, they can use the draft to get cheap talent to cycle around him and whoever.

People act as if these contracts are franchise killers, when today's nfl contracts are essentially 2 year deals based on what the guaranteed money is.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Sure you do, but the problem with giving one guy the lion's share of the money means that a team is most likely going to be suffering in those other aspects because you have to low ball the remaining players in order to keep your team under the cap. It also effectively hamstrings the one All-Star because teams can now strategize for a singular player versus 11 guys.

53 dudes. The better all 53 dudes are is ultimately better than having a singular superstar, especially if that guy isn't a QB.

Look, I understand the importance of having a guy like Houston on the team and it's obvious that his impact was important in the success that the Chiefs had on defense this past season. However, he's coming off his rookie deal and it's going to cost a metric shit ton to have him equal that same level of production that the Chiefs just got on the cheap.

I know people say "Pay the man, he earned it!," but by doing so, you are going to significantly alter the dynamic of the team's salary cap and what they can do in terms of building the team to a playoff/championship level organization.

As well, having one guy that's not the QB get a lion's share of the payroll will create some level of derision on the team.

In addition, they just spent a first round pick on Dee Ford. Rather than pay Houston a king's ransom, I'd sooner like to see them actually use that first round pick and shore up the secondary and inside linebacker positions versus having to continue to shuffle out guys like Mays and Mauga and Owens and the like. I'll take 70% players at all positions versus a 99% player at one and 35%'ers everywhere else.

The Chiefs were the #2 ranked points defense often times trotting out a defense with Jamell Fleming, Jaye Howard, Mays, and Mauga in the starting lineup. Let's also not forget how bad the team looked last year when Houston was out or wasn't 100%.

Justin Houston is a player who makes everyone around him better. Different than a lot of highly paid players who are dependent on other people to make them better. For example... you can pay Peyton Manning a shitload of money because he's proven time and time again that he's an excellent QB even with a lousy supporting cast.

When you pay Peyton, you're upgrading your OL and WRs. Houston does the same for the Chiefs' secondary, which did very well this year even with minimal talent.

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

When you pay Peyton, you're upgrading your OL and WRs. Houston does the same for the Chiefs' secondary, which did very well this year even with minimal talent.

Yep, you keep and sign elite players with great positional value. If anyone says anything is wrong or is selling something.

[keg in kc]

Franchises that want to win keep young elite players at key positions who aren't locker room problems, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which being it tells other players - whether they're future draft picks, future free agents or guys currently on the roster - that the franchise values and rewards performance.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Apparently your reading comprehension isn't working correctly today.

Yes let's take a way the best of the "many" resources we have. JFC dude.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Sure you do, but the problem with giving one guy the lion's share of the money means that a team is most likely going to be suffering in those other aspects because you have to low ball the remaining players in order to keep your team under the cap. It also effectively hamstrings the one All-Star because teams can now strategize for a singular player versus 11 guys.

53 dudes. The better all 53 dudes are is ultimately better than having a singular superstar, especially if that guy isn't a QB.

Look, I understand the importance of having a guy like Houston on the team and it's obvious that his impact was important in the success that the Chiefs had on defense this past season. However, he's coming off his rookie deal and it's going to cost a metric shit ton to have him equal that same level of production that the Chiefs just got on the cheap.

I know people say "Pay the man, he earned it!," but by doing so, you are going to significantly alter the dynamic of the team's salary cap and what they can do in terms of building the team to a playoff/championship level organization.

As well, having one guy that's not the QB get a lion's share of the payroll will create some level of derision on the team.

In addition, they just spent a first round pick on Dee Ford. Rather than pay Houston a king's ransom, I'd sooner like to see them actually use that first round pick and shore up the secondary and inside linebacker positions versus having to continue to shuffle out guys like Mays and Mauga and Owens and the like. I'll take 70% players at all positions versus a 99% player at one and 35%'ers everywhere else.

We're just going to have to disagree.

Answer me this, would the Texans be better off without Watt, could they fill his on-field production and emotional leadership with 2-3 average guys?

If you ran that team, would you have let him go instead of giving him that big contract?