Jamaal Charles didn’t betray the Chiefs by signing with the Broncos

Did Jamaal Charles betray the Chiefs by signing with the Broncos? Nick Floyd says no. Click here for our counterpoint by Britt Zank.

The Kansas City Chiefs have lost another player to an AFC West rival when running back Jamaal Charles announced he has signed with the Denver Broncos. The news has made a lot of fans in the Chiefs Kingdom a little burned to see yet another former Chief go to a rival team. Is the fact that Jamaal is with the Broncos really a betrayal or an NFL player looking for a shot to prove he still has the talent?

This is where it can get a little dicey. On one hand, Charles is one of the best running backs in the history of the Kansas City Chiefs. During his career with KC he racked up 7,260 yards on the ground with 43 touchdowns, and an NFL-leading 5.5 yards per carry. He also was a factor through the air with 2,457 yards and 20 touchdowns. Even though he has some great stats on the ground and through the air, he also had 20 fumbles, and perhaps none most costly than the one against his new team back in 2015.

The reverse side of the coin tells a tale about a player who had been plagued with injuries over the last two years, playing only 8 games in the last two seasons. Charles has been suffering with knee issues ever since he first tore his ACL in 2011. His second tear came in 2015, this time to the opposite knee. Charles is also on the north side of 30 and will turn 31 in December, an age when most running backs see a big decline in production.

Related Story: Counterpoint: Britt Zank feels betrayed by Jamaal Charles' remarks

So why is this not a betrayal to Chiefs fans? Well take in mind we cut him in a move to save cap space for the team to sign players like safety Eric Berry. So in essence we did not want him on the team. There may have been a chance to resign him at a lower cost but the team drafted Toledo running back Karemm Hunt and have both Spencer Ware and Charcandrick West on the team as their running backs. In the end it was more likely he would go to another team.

What really has the fans irked is that he went over to the Broncos, a team that, until last year, always seemed to have the Chiefs number when they played. This is not the first time that a player has left to go to a rival. Rich Gannon went to the Oakland Raiders and took them to a Super Bowl. The great Neil Smith, who along with Derrick Thomas, made Denver’s life miserable, left for Denver and retired with a Super Bowl ring.

Jamaal Charles was cut by a team, who while they appreciated his talents for nine seasons, did not have room on their roster for him. The NFL is a business, plain and simple. While we would like to believe there are things like team loyalty and hometown discounts, these players only have so long to earn as much as they can. Players leave to chase a paycheck or even a championship, so we should not be surprised to see this kind thing.

Does it hurt to see one of the best ever to wear the red and gold now trade in those colors for orange and blue? Yes, absolutely. However, Jamaal wants to keep playing and Denver was the first team to offer him money for his talents. He also didn’t need to come out and say, “I always wanted to play for Denver” as that is just salt onto the wounds of Chiefs Kingdom.

However, when it comes down to it, this is not a betrayal of the team that made him a star. It is hands down a business transaction that will allow him to keep playing and earn a paycheck. So while it makes sense to be hurt and upset to see this situation play out, K.C. no longer wanted him. So be upset, and be angry, but know that Charles getting cut and signed by Denver is nothing more than a player wanting to extend his career and show he still has the talent.

What do you think, Addicts? Is this really a betrayal or just a player looking to extend his career? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

[Counterpoint: