Skip to content

Marshall Faulk: Why would the Chiefs keep Jamaal Charles?

Jamaal Charles AP

Hall of Fame running back Marshall Faulk thinks it may be time for the Chiefs to say goodbye to Jamaal Charles.

Faulk noted that the Chiefs went 11-1 after Charles suffered a season-ending torn ACL last year, and so he wonders why the Chiefs should keep Charles instead of moving on to their younger, cheaper running backs.

“The conversation is, ‘Why does Kansas City keep Jamaal Charles when you saw Spencer Ware and Charcandrick West? For what reason?’ ” Faulk told the Kansas City Star. “I can’t even see what reason they would continue to pay [him] if they have a way of getting up from under that contract and dispersing money elsewhere to fill some of the gaps that they have. And that’s just real talk — that’s the business of the game. I love Jamaal, and I think he could find another home. I think there’s a lot left in him. But looking at what went on when he went down in Kansas City, are his days possibly numbered there?”

Charles is set to cost $5.3 million against the Chiefs’ salary cap this year, while Ware is under contract for a $600,000 salary and West is an exclusive-rights free agent whom the Chiefs can keep for a $600,000 salary. The Chiefs also have Knile Davis under contract for $826,000. So from a cap-management perspective, Faulk’s idea makes a lot of sense.

At least, it makes sense in theory. In practice, Chiefs General Manager John Dorsey has said Charles will remain a Chief. So don’t expect the Chiefs to follow Faulk’s advice. Even though he raises a good question.

Permalink 72 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
72 Responses to “Marshall Faulk: Why would the Chiefs keep Jamaal Charles?”
  1. seabrawk12 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:24 AM

    Better question. Why would NFL network keep Marshall Faulk?

  2. patsxsaintsfan says: Feb 18, 2016 9:29 AM

    Well other than that when healthy he can be the best running back in the league and when healthy can play wide reviever as well as any RB in the NFL. I’m a pats fan but I love Jamal watching that Monday night game that “ended” that pays season 2 years ago I think Jamal had 2 recovering touchdowns and a rushing touchdown and that’s with bull belicheck game planning to take away the Chiefs best weapon. I agree the salary cap relief would be nice but next year you just have to sign one of those backs to a long term deal and I would take Jamal over both of them.

  3. walker615 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:30 AM

    Because Charles is still one of the best RBs in the NFL, Marshall (coming from a Broncos fan).

    This makes me believe he didn’t actually watch much of the Chiefs this year. West is a very pedestrian rusher, and while Ware is pretty good, neither is the weapon Charles is.

  4. mrphelps01 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:31 AM

    Faulk’s an idiot no matter what he says;.

  5. icup89 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:31 AM

    They can cut him with no cap hit…byeeeeeeeeee

  6. jjackwagon says: Feb 18, 2016 9:33 AM

    Chiefs fans have been secretly wondering the same thing since October. Glad you finally caught up Marshall.

  7. babygaga19 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:34 AM

    JC also went public last year and called out Andy. A big no no!

  8. kcchefs58 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:35 AM

    Nonsense, Mr Faulk.

  9. tindeaux says: Feb 18, 2016 9:35 AM

    that’s a good point. RB’s are overrated for the most part. it’s the O Line that goes unnoticed most of the time.
    If O Lines don’t block, RB’s ain’t gonna run nowhere. Ask LT (with the chargers) and he’ll tell you

  10. maxkingpin says: Feb 18, 2016 9:35 AM

    Marshall Faulk is right.

  11. Patskrieg says: Feb 18, 2016 9:38 AM

    Better question: why does the NFLN keep Marshall Faulk?

  12. cafetero1075 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:39 AM

    Even the guy that lost Charles ended up winning my fantasy league.

  13. 87hollywoodhorn says: Feb 18, 2016 9:40 AM

    Marshall Faulk is generally right about everything. Smart dude who doesnt parrot or fall victim to group-think.

  14. edelmanfanclub says: Feb 18, 2016 9:42 AM

    Maybe bc he isnt as expandable as you were when the Rams got Steven Jackson.

  15. ariani1985 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:45 AM

    Marshall is easily the worst RB to ever win a playoff game!

  16. ravenousravenousrhinos says: Feb 18, 2016 9:46 AM

    They were that good without him, but imagine how much better they would have been with him.

  17. tylawspick6 says: Feb 18, 2016 9:57 AM

    Squinty Eyes Faulk is an arrogant sore loser turd. Just the worst.

  18. infectorman says: Feb 18, 2016 9:58 AM

    Marshall is the MVP of the Hall of Crybabies

  19. steelerdeathstar says: Feb 18, 2016 9:59 AM

    When you consider what the Chiefs did without Charles, and the fact that he’s coming back from an injury, coupled with the fact that they can keep Ware, West, and Davis for less than half the cost of Charles alone, what Faulk says makes total sense. RB’s are largely interchangeable at the NFL level, other than the truly elite ones.
    And even the truly elite ones usually have a limited shelf life, especially once they start getting beat up and missing time with injuries.
    KC should strongly consider parting company with Jamaal Charles, be happy with what they have at RB at a reasonable price, and allocate the money saved elsewhere. WR comes to mind for them…

  20. quicktaker says: Feb 18, 2016 10:04 AM

    5 million is cheap for an explosive guy like Charles.

  21. tomny0970 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:10 AM

    5 million is so little and this player SO good when healthy that it would be foolish to cut him for meager savings. If he was making like $12 million a year, sure, but you don’t release a guy like that at $5 million

  22. piscataquis007 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:11 AM

    I’m not a big Marshall Faulk fan, but he makes a lot of sense here. It’s expensive to be sentimental, and I think that’s all it would be if the Chiefs kept Charles.
    If they trade/release him, Seattle or New England await.

  23. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Feb 18, 2016 10:14 AM

    Many of us have been thinking that for a while. The problem that arises from hearing Faulk say it is suddenly we all think we must be wrong

  24. aquibtoleavedarrelleleaveus says: Feb 18, 2016 10:23 AM

    Kansas City should cut him. Then he and WD Forte will both sign with us, the patriots, and we will win the next 5 super bowls. Oh yeah and Megatron to.


  25. tajuara says: Feb 18, 2016 10:24 AM

    If the Chiefs are dumb enough to cut this guy, 31 teams will be in line to get him.

  26. demolition510 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:25 AM

    Raiders would be all over him

  27. kcflake says: Feb 18, 2016 10:25 AM

    To answer your question Marshall, the CHiefs will keep Jamall for 3 reasons:
    1. If healkthy, Jamall is one of the games best game breaking backs
    2. Jamall is a CHIEF for Life
    3. Jamall is the Man.

    I hope that clears it up for you.

  28. 6thsense10 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:39 AM

    5 million dollars is cheap for a STAR runningback. You don’t get better by giving away your star players or cutting them.

    Before the season started JC was widely considered KC’s most valuable offensive player so just because the Chiefs went on a run without him doesn’t mean the team is better off without him unless Faulk believes the Pats should have gotten rid of Tom Brady the 2008 season he went down in the first game and Matt Cassel, who was a far cheaper option, lead the Pats to an 11-5 record to go with 2 to 1 td to int ratio.

  29. jgedgar70 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:43 AM

    So you really think Spencer Ware, Charcandrick West and Knile Davis are all better than Charles? Marshall, whatever you’re smoking, pass it over so I can go on that exotic trip too.

    Of course, since the Chiefs are coming to Charlotte for a game next season, if they would like to be dumb enough to follow Marshall’s advice, we’d be happy to see them throw any of those backs out there to be swallowed whole by our interior D-line and linebackers.

  30. jm91rs says: Feb 18, 2016 10:44 AM

    I’m a big fan of Jamal Charles but Faulk is right. This team was better without him. That probably has more to do with Andy Reid’s play calling than anything, but if they can’t figure out a way to get the same offensive production when he’s back in there, what’s the point of having him at all?

  31. schmitty2 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:46 AM

    If Charles was making 8-10 mil per year than Faulk’s assessment MIGHT carry more weight but 5.3 mil for arguably the best dual RB in football is a pretty darn good bargain IMO.

  32. yyc2phx says: Feb 18, 2016 10:49 AM

    Marshall Faulk is an idiot… I loved him as a player but as an analyst he’s a fool….self promoting agenda driven fool

  33. silvernblacksabbath says: Feb 18, 2016 10:51 AM

    That’s a steal for that price…

  34. silvernblacksabbath says: Feb 18, 2016 10:54 AM

    jgedgar70 says:
    Feb 18, 2016 10:43 AM

    So you really think Spencer Ware, Charcandrick West and Knile Davis are all better than Charles? Marshall, whatever you’re smoking, pass it over so I can go on that exotic trip too.

    Of course, since the Chiefs are coming to Charlotte for a game next season, if they would like to be dumb enough to follow Marshall’s advice, we’d be happy to see them throw any of those backs out there to be swallowed whole by our interior D-line and linebackers.

    Nobody is scared of Carolina🙂

  35. philyeagles5 says: Feb 18, 2016 10:54 AM

    they probably should trade him. hes a great player, but they were better without him.

  36. nilla619 says: Feb 18, 2016 11:00 AM

    Why is everyone hating Marshall Faulk? I disagree with him cuz guys like AP are costing 11 million against the cap so Charles is a steal but Faulk isn’t Chris Carter or Deion Sanders

  37. tennesseeoilers says: Feb 18, 2016 11:05 AM

    After being wowed by a young Chris Johnson for two years (including seeing his most prolific game in person), I soon came to view Jamaal Charles as the elite running back that Chris Johnson should have become. That to say, Titans fans, who’ve witnessed a drought at running back for years, would welcome Jamaal Charles in Nashville with an enthusiasm only surpassed by the drafting of Marcus Mariota.

  38. jonwill57 says: Feb 18, 2016 11:24 AM

    edelmanfanclub says:
    Feb 18, 2016 9:42 AM

    Maybe bc he isnt as expandable as you were when the Rams got Steven Jackson.
    Right, Faulk expanded to the size of a blimp! OTH drafting Jackson didn’t make Faulk EXPENDABLE because he was close to retirement.

  39. dohczeppelin says: Feb 18, 2016 11:34 AM

    Charles is definitely better than Ware and West and Charles should have a few more good years, but 5mil is 5mil. The Chiefs run game was still better than most without him so it would make sense to use the money elsewhere. Not sure why that is such a controversial opinion.

    It’s the law of diminishing returns. Is Charles better than West? Of course. Is he 10 times better? No. But he does cost 10 times more. This is why most teams are switching to RB-by-committee approach (much to the chagrin of everyone who plays fantasy). 2 no-name backs are say, 80% as good as a tier-1 bell cow running back, but they cost 10 to 20 times less and their, ahem, “disposable” nature insulates teams from the fact that RB is a very injury prone position. Even from a run game perspective, it’s simply safer to invest the money in your O-line.

    Out of the top 10 RBs in the NFL, how many of them completed a whole season without missing significant time? It just is what it is. It’s a passing league.

  40. patsfan4lifesbchamps says: Feb 18, 2016 11:41 AM

    We need a shutdown corner not a running back. Belichick has never won a SB without one.

  41. stevegrogannakedbootleg says: Feb 18, 2016 11:42 AM

    All NFL Players : Why would the NFL network keep Marshall Faulk ?

  42. qbarrel says: Feb 18, 2016 11:49 AM

    I usually can’t stand Faulk, but he has a valid point here.

  43. southpaw79 says: Feb 18, 2016 11:56 AM

    It is easy to say when the 5 million is not your money. That being said, since the 5 million is not my money either he should sign with the Chip Kelly and the Niners. Charles is a better version of McCoy.

  44. joetoronto says: Feb 18, 2016 11:59 AM

    ariani1985 says:
    Feb 18, 2016 9:45 AM
    Marshall is easily the worst RB to ever win a playoff game!
    My God man. I hope you’re 12 years old because that would make what you said somewhat understandable.

  45. draftrobot says: Feb 18, 2016 12:11 PM

    Impressively frank analysis from someone who has every reason to push the long held viewpoint about the importance of franchise running backs.

  46. censorshipstinks says: Feb 18, 2016 12:15 PM

    ariani1985 I wonder what the NFL thought of him in 1999, 2000, and 2001!

  47. rabidbillsfan says: Feb 18, 2016 12:16 PM

    Is the guy really wrong? 2 ACL tears now. He’s not getting any younger. You can find a guy to pick up the slack in the latter half of the draft. It was really a blessing in disguise for the Cheifs, it actually forced Andy Reid to let Alex Smith be a QB instead of a pylon who hands off. That $5mil can be spent elsewhere. Jamal Charles is still a good player, but retaining him just doesn’t make sense. As to the above guy, who asks “imagine how good they could be with him” 1-5 my friend, 1-5.

  48. justanotheridiotcommenter says: Feb 18, 2016 12:29 PM

    Look up Charles’ stats, he might be one of the most underrated running backs of all-time. His yards per carry numbers are insane.

    On the NFL all-time YPC list, it’s two running quarterbacks, Marion Motley, then Jamaal Charles at 5.5 YPC. That’s .3 above the next back on the list… Jim Brown.

    He’s fourth all-time and sandwiched in between two Hall of Famers… he’s also .5 YPC above Gale Sayers and Barry Sanders.

    (So, that’s why you keep him Marshall)

  49. ashevillechief says: Feb 18, 2016 12:36 PM

    Make him a WR 1/4-1/2 the time. Decrease the punishment, make defenses account for him & is 1/2 the price of a FA WR.

  50. jimnsota says: Feb 18, 2016 12:39 PM

    I parked Marshall’s car once at the golf club I worked at. There was a “cigarette” in his ash tray that was still burning a little bit. So i decided to put it out. The weird thing was there wasn’t a filter and it stuck to my fingers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but my point is his thought process maybe a little fuzzy at times.

  51. nhpats says: Feb 18, 2016 12:43 PM

    Fault is just upset that Charles is twice the player Marshall ever was….and Marshall knows this deep down inside.

  52. igornathanhiggers says: Feb 18, 2016 12:53 PM

    Getting rid of your playmakers is a good idea.
    – Chip Kelly

  53. factman1000 says: Feb 18, 2016 12:58 PM

    Should trade him for a 4th rounder

  54. chebornek says: Feb 18, 2016 1:05 PM

    Andy Reid had his offensive crutch injured last season and he and his staff had to plug the massive hole. I think the previous seasons, Charles was close to 40% plus of their offensive output.

    The fact that the Chiefs were semi-successful, using a pair of practice squad players for the next eleven games indicates only that Dorsey and Reid and his staff were able to identify and then coach up those running backs as well as play musical chairs with that offensively offensive line which they went to camp with in July 2015.

    Now KC knows what else they have in the way of weapons on the offensive side of the ball, maybe they won’t be so eager to run their bell cow into the ground. But a team doesn’t become better by trading one of their studs for peanuts or by cutting him to save a few million they can dole out to other positions on the team.

    Charles is a game changer when he’s healthy. Teams must game plan for where he’s at on the field. If they fail to do so, he can make them pay and go yard at any time.

    You don’t ‘cut’ someone like that and Faulk of all people should know that. (How’d he feel when Indy did it to him back in his day?)

    Knile Davis is the dude on the bubble in this scenario, not Jamaal Charles. Silly wabbits.

  55. clelek05 says: Feb 18, 2016 1:22 PM

    Marshall Faulk is a pathetic waste of skin. Cry baby loser that acts like a child when he loses. The amount of heads that the Patriots are in is incredible!

  56. noringcircus says: Feb 18, 2016 1:36 PM

    Jack Del Rio and the Raiders would be glad if the Chiefs did this and Charles signs with a team outside of the AFC West.

    He and LaDainian Tomlinson are two running backs I hated to watch because they could go the distance and score a TD against the Raiders each time they touched the ball.

  57. ebdug says: Feb 18, 2016 2:26 PM

    Their paying their RBs less than $10 mil total. Looks like they keep him because they can afford him.

  58. ohand16 says: Feb 18, 2016 2:39 PM

    Better question is why do the stupid Bills keep McCoy. Oh wait. I answered my own question.

  59. cornerstone2001 says: Feb 18, 2016 2:47 PM

    I’m still waiting for Faulk, Eisen or Irvin to say anything intelligent

  60. goodjudgementprevails says: Feb 18, 2016 2:57 PM

    It’s really unfortunate to see Charles have to endure so many injuries, it’s eery in similarity to what Arian Foster goes thru each year as well. Both are phenomenal talents when on the field, sadly for both that they just keep have the same types of injuries recur. Thankfully for them both, they have both had large contract extensions and are set for life no matter what happens. I wish them both all the best, whatever they decide to do going forward.

  61. henke1966 says: Feb 18, 2016 3:57 PM

    Why not? He’d look pretty good in orange and blue.

  62. racyman57 says: Feb 18, 2016 4:22 PM

    Charles is maybe the best dual threat RB in the league and is capable of breaking one every time he gets the ball. With the addition of Jeremy Maclin and Travis Kelce beginning to emerge as a top end TE, the passing game improved last season. If you add Charles to the mix, and he has fully recovered from the injury, the offense will be downright dangerous. He is also the best pass blocking RB on the team, which helps the o-line and keeps Alex Smith upright more often.

    The Chiefs are very capable of having a top 5 offense to go along with their top 5 defense. That is a recipe for a serious Superbowl run. They have the playoff losing streak off of their backs, so it’s time to take the next step, or two.

    I’m one excited Chiefs fan!

  63. theofficialshotcaller says: Feb 18, 2016 4:59 PM

    Cut Charles and ride Alex Checkdown Smith to some more failure

  64. footballfanatic says: Feb 18, 2016 5:34 PM

    They went 11-1 WITHOUT him, how can ANYONE argue that they absolutely need him? RB’s are expendable, period. To save that much money you have to drop him, its the smart play. Look at buffalo, drop 60 mil on McCoy…….and they cant even break .500. Its not all about the RB, its the system and the o-line. The fact is, the chief’s system doesnt need a $5 million dollar RB.

  65. Frum Slum says: Feb 18, 2016 5:49 PM

    He’s right

  66. slick50ks says: Feb 18, 2016 6:18 PM

    He’s already better than you ever were Faulk. The numbers don’t lie.

    You keep him because he’s a top 3 back in the league, and has low mileage. He’s also very affordable.

  67. fanofpft says: Feb 18, 2016 6:43 PM

    My how the RB position has fallen. They even eat their own now.

  68. lscratchingthesurface says: Feb 18, 2016 6:44 PM

    Jamaal loves Kansas City and those of other teams thinking the Chiefs will cut him is hilarious. It won’t be happening.

    Marshall Fulk is clueless. He also said he was sad for St. Louis losing the Rams however, no one really believes him.

    Charles will be a Chief for life.

  69. silverhat78 says: Feb 18, 2016 7:31 PM

    I see his point and it has some validity to it, but when you have one of the best RB’s in the NFL, it’s hard to move on from a player like that.

  70. campcouch says: Feb 18, 2016 7:32 PM

    Faulk would’ve lost his mind if someone suggested this about him while he was active. Dudes get the HoF nod and suddenly become expert on every topic at hand.

  71. riverhorsey says: Feb 18, 2016 7:57 PM

    As a Chiefs fan I think Faulk is right. JC is done in KC.

    Good guy but the money angle makes sense with the other 3 guys under contract.

    Look for Charles to get traded at draft time.

  72. raiderapologist says: Feb 18, 2016 10:56 PM

    KC’s cap situation isn’t so tight that they need that 5M. It will be more of a roster spot call.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!