Kansas City Chiefs veteran wideout Chris Chambers was a healthy scratch from Sunday's game vs. the Jaguars. Chambers said he was informed about 90 minutes prior to kickoff that he was going to be inactive for the game. "Frustrating," Chambers said, via Kent Babb of the Kansas City Star. "I was pretty much going to start warming up. "You kind of don't know what the coaches are thinking, or what their expectations are of you and where their confidence is." Chambers dislocated his finger early in the Chiefs' loss to the Indianapolis Colts three weeks ago, and hasn't played since. Chiefs head coach Todd Haley said two weeks ago that while Chambers' finger wasn't completely healthy, he could have played in what turned out to be a loss to the Houston Texans. For Jacksonville however, Haley wanted as many healthy and versatile players on the 45-man game-day roster as possible, considering Chambers' finger was not yet healed and he doesn't offer the Chiefs much help on special teams, the team kept him on the sideline. Source: Football News Now
the fear with chambers was always 'what kind of effort will he give after he gets a contract?' this guy should only get 1-year contracts so he is always motivated ...... there are many players in this league that should only be given 1-year contracts to keep them motivated and chambers is one of the poster children for the idea.
It's that kind of benching for punishment....like Haley did with DJ...if it works, I'm all for it...:icon_cheesygrin:
Screw you cry baby. McCluster's proving to be better than Chambers anyway. And yeah MJ, I had a feeling this would happen, I was just praying he'd change. Props to Haley for benching this hecker.
hey maybe Chambers is lashing out because he knows he's simply not the best option anymore even though he wants to believe he is. Either way, gets 'a steppin. You've been replaced.
I remember being told I was wrong about Chambers and that I was mad because the Dolphins didn't know how to use him(not by you). But I said that Chambers was playing for a contract and now he got one and the work isn't being out in anymore. I hope the Chiefs put some kind of poison pill clauses in his contract so that the money that was "guaranteed" can be revoked due to lack of performance.
well, then the money wouldn't be 'guaranteed', would it? Here's his contract details: 3/8/2010: Signed a three-year, $12 million contract. The deal includes $5.9 million guaranteed. Another $3 million is available through incentives. 2010: $1.9 million, 2011: $2.9 million, 2012: $2.9 million, 2013: Free Agent So, their $5.9 mill is GONE unless Chambers gets thrown in jail and can't show up for work or just flat out quits. Then the Chiefs could try and get the money back.
I know, but there are ways to word a contract so that the Chiefs can attempt to get some of the money back, but probably would fail to do so.
