Revisiting the Jared Allen trade at espn.com

Okay Bill Williamson, AFC West blogger at espn.com, it's your job to spin the Jared Allen trade in Kansas City's favor. Now this is a tough sell. The trade, after the draft selections were made, became:

Kansas City receives: LT Branden Albert, RB Jamaal Charles, S DaJuan Morgan, some guy named Kevin Robinson

Minnesota receives: DE Jared Allen, C John Sullivan

Tremendously lopsided in Minnesota's favor, right? Essentially, the Chiefs got two starters in Albert and Charles, and the Vikings got two starters in Allen and Sullivan. The Vikings got by-far the best player in the trade in Jared Allen, so this is obviously Minnesota by a landslide. Or is it?


“Kansas City really can’t worry about what Allen is doing in Minnesota and that Sullivan is a starter,” Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. said.

Umm, okay. Why not?

“The Chiefs knew Allen was going to be good in Minnesota. But they didn’t want to pay him so they got very good value. That’s why the trade was good. It was a good trade because the value was good. Let’s see what Kansas City is going to do with it. It still can be a very good trade for the Chiefs.”

That's actually Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc., not Bill Williamson the AFC West blogger, but I found this quote to be quite insulting to my intelligence. They knew Allen was good, but they didn't want to pay for him. This is a legitimate excuse? To paraphrase Animal House, cheap is no way to go through life. And I like the "let's see what Kansas City does" line. We already know what Kansas City has done. They turned those draft picks into two starters.

Charles is the key player in the deal from the Chiefs’ perspective. If he can build upon his fantastic finish in 2009, this trade will be great for Kansas City.

Now we're back to Bill Williamson, and uhh no, this trade will never be great for Kansas City. You're telling me acquiring a good RB in exchange for a great DE is a great trade? I actually do like Jamaal Charles and thought he played really well for the Chiefs down the stretch (another strike against Kansas City; they waited until the 2nd half of the season to replace the glacial Larry Johnson with the much more explosive Charles), but he's not worth Jared Allen. (another strike against Kansas City; they paid Larry Johnson a boatload of money, but not Jared Allen. At least Carl Peterson had his priorities straight, and by the way, I'm not putting it out of the question that Peterson was the one who wrote this article)

Albert was expected to be the centerpiece of this trade because he was the No. 15 overall pick (the Chiefs swapped the No. 17 pick to Detroit), but he has been slow to get his career going.

Hmmm. A couple weeks ago I wrote that Stewart Mandel, in defending Tim Tebow, should not have mentioned Urban Meyer's track record with developing QBs for the NFL because it wasn't any good. Well, Bill Williamson should definitely not mention that Branden Albert has gotten off to a slow start, when he was the centerpiece of the trade for Kansas City. He goes on to mention that Albert is playing out of position, which I'll agree; he'd be much better at right tackle or one of the guard positions. But that just makes this worse for Kansas City. They traded Jared Allen for a first-round offensive lineman and didn't even get a left tackle. In fact, they may very well draft a left tackle in the first round this year to make up for their swing-and-a-foul-tip on Branden Albert.

...

Okay, so Carl Peterson got to guest-write an article for espn.com under Bill Williamson's name, and fine, somebody has to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor. But let's look at what this trade truly accomplished.

Minnesota got a great pass rusher that helped (emphasis on helped, because obviously Allen didn't do this alone) turn Minnesota from an average team (8-8 before he got there) into a great team (12-4 and NFC Championship Game appearance). They also got a starting center in John Sullivan, who isn't great but hey, he starts.

Kansas City got a good running back in Jamaal Charles, which really only helps to prove that running backs can be found and that they certainly could have acquired Charles or someone of similar quality without sacrificing Allen. They drafted an offensive lineman in the first round who is miscast as a left tackle and could be really good elsewhere on the line, but we don't know that for a fact. They drafted two other players who have yet to make an impact. And most importantly, their pass rush has sunk like a rock. They set an NFL-record low with 10 sacks the season immediately after Allen was traded (a fact that was conveniently left out of this article). They were bad during his final season, and they're still bad to this day.

The article mentions how Kansas City has switched to a 3-4 on defense, and that Allen wouldn't fit into a 3-4. True, but here's a novel idea; when you have a great player, you accomodate him, not the other way around. When you have a Jared Allen, you play a 4-3 whether you like it or not. Would you rather do that, or go to a 3-4 without Allen and struggle mightily to rush the passer?

The bottom line is that Kansas City blundered with this trade. They didn't want to pay Allen, and whether that was because of his alcohol problems (one strike away from a season-long suspension) or because they were just burned by the Larry Johnson contract (which would be dumb; Larry Johnson sucks while Allen is a legitimately good player), it doesn't matter. They acquired some good draft picks, but didn't really strike gold with them. Jamaal Charles was a 3rd round pick that could have been acquired regardless, and they could replace Albert with a lesser draft pick and probably not lose anything. And on top of all that, Kansas City has gotten definitely worse without Allen. They are terrible on defense, and lot of that is because they have no pass rush (Tamba Hali is their best pass rusher, and he's probably above-average).

Minnesota changed the dynamic of their team with this trade, and for the better. Allen completed a defensive line that already had great defensive tackles but not much of a pass rush from the defensive ends (Ray Edwards is much better in a complimentary role), and as soon as Minnesota added a passing game on offense, they became Super Bowl contenders. Even with Favre, they wouldn't be a 12-4 team without Allen. My favorite part of this trade, actually, is that Minnesota got a throw-away 6th round pick and turned that into a starting center. As if getting a stud pass rusher in the deal wasn't enough.

It was very nice of Bill Williamson to allow Carl Peterson to write on his blog and attempt to spin this trade in Kansas City's favor, but it was a pathetic attempt. The best you can say is they got Jamaal Charles, and they did not do that trade so they could add a running back. I look forward to his next blog post in which he defends the Larry Johnson contract. Now that would take some serious spinning.

EDIT

I can't believe I missed this quote. This is a real beauty.

“On paper, it was a good trade then for Kansas City and it still can be very good,” Horton said. “Allen was going to be a good player on a bad team. The Chiefs needed to get younger. They seem to be on the right track with this trade.”

They needed to get younger. Jared Allen was 26 when he got traded. In other words, he was entering the prime of his career. These people get paid by ESPN to work for Scouts Inc., and they're telling me Jared Allen was too old for Kansas City. They seem to be on the right track with this trade. 4-12 last year, 2-14 the year before, yeah I'd say they're on the right track. I wasn't going to be mean, but this line takes the cake. I could handle people defending this trade from Kansas City's perspective if they used solid logical reasoning, but telling me a team with 6 wins the past two seasons is on the right track is where I draw the line. Scouts Inc. people...YOU'RE FUCKING IDIOTS.