Skip navigation
Favorites
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

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.