PDA

View Full Version : We were spoiled with TRich.


bishop_74
10-03-2006, 10:41 PM
Finally got a chance to watch the game. It's amazing how much better LJ ran on the interior compared to outside. I really don't think our tackles did that bad, but Cruz is a terrible lead blocker. Any play that had to develop on the ouside, Cruz provided nothing. Hopefully he can develop his technique because he is no Richardson. That may have been one of the bigger mistakes of this franchise.

BWillie
10-03-2006, 10:42 PM
I can't really think of a team that has a bad fullback though.

SLAG
10-03-2006, 10:42 PM
I said the same thing in the planet chat room when the game started

Mr. Kotter
10-03-2006, 10:50 PM
I agree TRich was "better" lead blocking "outside the tackles," but Cruz is actually doing pretty well....

you gotta remember, Cruz is also being used as something of a last-line of defense to protect the QB because we can't trust our OLine right now....and he's done very well in that role.

Phobia
10-03-2006, 10:54 PM
I disagree. Cruz was mostly responsible for LJ's TD.

NJ Chief Fan
10-03-2006, 10:55 PM
id like to see us draft the kid from rutgers brian leonard, obviously he could never replace trich but this kid is pretty damn good

SLAG
10-03-2006, 10:57 PM
dont get me wrong I like cruz.. he is still raw and is getting polished down and he will make a nice fullback in our system some day- I see the potential- but T-Rich was... whats the Cliche... " Seasoned Vet" .. anyway i like cruz but miss T-rich

blueballs
10-03-2006, 11:04 PM
Teicher was predicting Richarson gone
long before Herm Edwards was on the scene

bishop_74
10-03-2006, 11:05 PM
It's the long developing plays that Cruz seems to be unable to sustain. He has enough wieight to power up the middle and clear a few people out of the way, but needs to work on outside plays.

Basileus777
10-03-2006, 11:05 PM
id like to see us draft the kid from rutgers brian leonard, obviously he could never replace trich but this kid is pretty damn good

Leonard would be nice, but we have better things to use a first day pick on.

Tribal Warfare
10-03-2006, 11:45 PM
id like to see us draft the kid from rutgers brian leonard, obviously he could never replace trich but this kid is pretty damn good

Leonard is a Kimble Anders clone, and with that reasoning I'd draft him without a second thought

jspchief
10-03-2006, 11:52 PM
The thing that I always loved about T-Rich is that he didn't stop woth his initial block. He'd blow his guy up, and keep on downfield looking for another target.

Cruz does a solid job of making his block, but then gets stopped with that initial block.

It's the difference between a nice run and a huge run

boogblaster
10-03-2006, 11:56 PM
Cruz is ok.. the whole sweep blocking is way too slow..LJ had to come to a stand-still and wait.. that is not his style.....

ChiefFan31
10-04-2006, 12:09 AM
Arrghhh, cant wait to watch this game when I get home...

milkman
10-04-2006, 12:16 AM
Finally got a chance to watch the game. It's amazing how much better LJ ran on the interior compared to outside. I really don't think our tackles did that bad, but Cruz is a terrible lead blocker. Any play that had to develop on the ouside, Cruz provided nothing. Hopefully he can develop his technique because he is no Richardson. That may have been one of the bigger mistakes of this franchise.

As opposed to hiring Carl and allowing him to extend his 5 year plan 13 years and counting?

FAX
10-04-2006, 12:29 AM
At first, I wasn't looking forward to our kidney replacement. But now I think that Cruz will be fine will a little more PT. I don't believe he'll never be the fullback that TRich is, though.

The big mistake here is that LJ looked up to TRich. I think he would be a better all around back with TRich in the locker room and backfield.

FAX

Count Alex's Wins
10-04-2006, 02:49 AM
Here's a good example of Cruz's poor blocking.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8292/cruzfv2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Smed1065
10-04-2006, 03:12 AM
The thing that I always loved about T-Rich is that he didn't stop woth his initial block. He'd blow his guy up, and keep on downfield looking for another target.

Cruz does a solid job of making his block, but then gets stopped with that initial block.

It's the difference between a nice run and a huge run

I wish I worked for the Chiefs.........

runnercyclist
10-04-2006, 03:40 AM
We should have never let Trich go, or John Tait, or Joe Horn, or ______ ________.

But we did. And we still have cap room.

Makes's ya go, hmmm? :hmmm:

DaWolf
10-04-2006, 04:57 AM
TRich was great for us. That being said, and granted I haven't watched a single Vikings game this year in depth so it may not have anything to do with him, but Minnesota's ground game hasn't looked too stellar yet...

StcChief
10-04-2006, 07:55 AM
Much as I loved the TRich lead blocks he's gone. Despite the small difference he was asking King Carl.....

Cruz is raw and may develop, if not live with it or move on. Not like he's our first bust.

Brock
10-04-2006, 08:23 AM
Yeah, it sure has screwed up the chiefs running game.

tiptap
10-04-2006, 08:27 AM
Here's a good example of Cruz's poor blocking.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8292/cruzfv2.gif (http://imageshack.us)


I'm looking at this film and I see that the LB slips off the block of Cruz. But the difference I see is that TG is being asked to drive the outside block rather than sealing and having the tackle do this job. It is more the lost of the options with Roaf than Cruz. After all the LB Cruz hits is behind LJ as the play proceeds.

Most teams make there running plays inside of tackle. The luxury of the Chief's offense starting 2003 was the ability to go wide. But that offense has eroded first to the right with the loss of Tait. And this year altogether with the loss of Roaf. As a result the offense will not be in the top 5. It will be good enough to win games if the defense continues to play as well. My main concern is the defense against the run. Last year that was an emphasis and we saw vast improvements. This year with Cover 2 the emphasis is more on stopping passing and the running game has suffered. Someone down the line, Pit or SD is going to run it straight at us and we will find out if this team is going to the playoffs or not.

BigChiefFan
10-04-2006, 08:49 AM
Cruz has been one of the weak-links on offense and I suspect it's because he's very inexperienced. That being said, Cruz is a whiner and complained that he wasn't getting a shot as a HB. Only until Cruz spoke with father did Cruz start to think being a FB was acceptable for his skill level. He better step it up or I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced next year. He isn't that talented as a lead blocker and has cost us some drives. He still could improve with every game, but as of now, he's replaceable. The Cruz missle is more like a skud missle at this point.

Count Alex's Wins
10-04-2006, 08:56 AM
Someone down the line, Pit or SD is going to run it straight at us

That's pretty much all San Francisco did, and they couldn't do it well enough to beat us, or even move the ball.

tiptap
10-04-2006, 09:37 AM
That's pretty much all San Francisco did, and they couldn't do it well enough to beat us, or even move the ball.

The fumble stands out with the ability to score off the turnover (though only 3). The running game for SF was effective 93 yds on 21 carries. They had to get away from the run in order to have a chance. What I liked about our defense was that we were effective on predictable running downs in stopping the run and in getting to 3rd down situations and stopping SF from getting 1st downs.

This will be different with Pit or SD when those teams will run, run and run some more. There is a different aspect.

I am going to enjoy the road victory of Cardinals and then I will start worrying about Pit.

Easy 6
10-04-2006, 09:42 AM
Here's a good example of Cruz's poor blocking.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8292/cruzfv2.gif (http://imageshack.us)
Hey, what in the hells goin' on in that clip??? I just watched I-65 put a guy on his azz. Jordan "pitch" Black!!! LMAO

listopencil
10-04-2006, 10:20 AM
Looks to me like Cruz whiffed and good ol' #88 gave the defender a shot with his right arm that eliminated the defender's last chance at an impact on the play. Cruz did however appear to fall into the back of the guy Black was trying to block making it look like Black planted a guy.

Rain Man
10-04-2006, 10:25 AM
Here's a good example of Cruz's poor blocking.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8292/cruzfv2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I think that's the very play I was going to mention, unless it happened more than once. During the game thread, I made a comment akin to "how did Cruz completely whiff on a block in a phone booth"? I must say, the loss of T-Rich was not a good decision at this point, and I hope that Cruz improves.

Easy 6
10-04-2006, 10:26 AM
Looks to me like Cruz whiffed and good ol' #88 gave the defender a shot with his right arm that eliminated the defender's last chance at an impact on the play. Cruz did however appear to fall into the back of the guy Black was trying to block making it look like Black planted a guy.
No way!!!! Pitch Black pancaked his sorry azz all by himself, thats my story n' i am stickin' to it!!! :)

Easy 6
10-04-2006, 10:44 AM
I think that's the very play I was going to mention, unless it happened more than once. During the game thread, I made a comment akin to "how did Cruz completely whiff on a block in a phone booth"? I must say, the loss of T-Rich was not a good decision at this point, and I hope that Cruz improves.
Yeah, Tony would have made contact and just rode right along with his guy, Cruz is thinkin' he can just blast somebody and they'll fall over.

Rain Man
10-04-2006, 10:53 AM
Yeah, Tony would have made contact and just rode right along with his guy, Cruz is thinkin' he can just blast somebody and they'll fall over.

Yeah, T-Rich was unusual in that respect. He wasn't a human battering ram like most fullbacks; he tended to just guide his guys out of the play.

I had a theory on why they let T-Rich go. His style of blocking is great for a halfback like Priest, who was masterful at using his blockers and biding his time and then bursting through a hole as it appeared. Larry is more of a traditional running back in that he has more of a tendency to use his speed and power to hit a hole quickly. That type of runner may be better suited to have a battering-ram fullback in front of him, which is more Cruz' style.

Does this theory make any sense, or am I just jabbering about things that I'm clueless about. Oh, and neg rep for anyone who says the latter.

Lzen
10-04-2006, 11:15 AM
They let T-rich go because he was only used on 1/3 of the offensive plays and they didn't feel it was worth paying a FB the kind of money they would've had to pay to keep him. Plus, he was getting old for a RB.

As for Cruz, I haven't watched him very closely. But I do know that SF did a good job against our running game pretty much all day (at least until late in the game when Larry was wearing them down). I doubt Cruz was in on even half of the offensive snaps. So, it's not all on Cruz. Also, I'd like to see more than just one clip to make a judgement.

Easy 6
10-04-2006, 11:19 AM
Yeah, T-Rich was unusual in that respect. He wasn't a human battering ram like most fullbacks; he tended to just guide his guys out of the play.

I had a theory on why they let T-Rich go. His style of blocking is great for a halfback like Priest, who was masterful at using his blockers and biding his time and then bursting through a hole as it appeared. Larry is more of a traditional running back in that he has more of a tendency to use his speed and power to hit a hole quickly. That type of runner may be better suited to have a battering-ram fullback in front of him, which is more Cruz' style.

Does this theory make any sense, or am I just jabbering about things that I'm clueless about. Oh, and neg rep for anyone who says the latter.
I will say that LJ really looks like he learned a thing or 2 from Priest about patience and setting up blocks, i noticed it big time at dinver.

jspchief
10-04-2006, 12:19 PM
They let T-rich go because he was only used on 1/3 of the offensive plays and they didn't feel it was worth paying a FB the kind of money they would've had to pay to keep him.

So what percentage of plays does Ryan Sims get used on right now, and how does his salary compare to the 1.5 mil that the Vikings paid T-Rich? Or how about William Bartee and his $2 million salary?

I'm sorry, but money is a lame excuse for letting a Pro Bowler and veteran leader get away. His salary would be a drop in the bucket of NFL salaries, and while he may have been in on a small percentage of plays, they were typically the most important plays (goal-line, red zone, 3rd/4th and short).

Demonpenz
10-04-2006, 12:27 PM
Tony had a knack of sealing guys just enough and going to the second level and chipping another guy. He was a good one.

TEX
10-04-2006, 02:06 PM
So what percentage of plays does Ryan Sims get used on right now, and how does his salary compare to the 1.5 mil that the Vikings paid T-Rich? Or how about William Bartee and his $2 million salary?

I'm sorry, but money is a lame excuse for letting a Pro Bowler and veteran leader get away. His salary would be a drop in the bucket of NFL salaries, and while he may have been in on a small percentage of plays, they were typically the most important plays (goal-line, red zone, 3rd/4th and short).


Agreed. Penny -wise and dollar - foolish. I can't remember a move that I was more disgusted with. Losing Donnie Edwards comes to mind, but that involved much more cash, at least initially. :shake:

Lzen
10-04-2006, 03:50 PM
So what percentage of plays does Ryan Sims get used on right now, and how does his salary compare to the 1.5 mil that the Vikings paid T-Rich? Or how about William Bartee and his $2 million salary?

I'm sorry, but money is a lame excuse for letting a Pro Bowler and veteran leader get away. His salary would be a drop in the bucket of NFL salaries, and while he may have been in on a small percentage of plays, they were typically the most important plays (goal-line, red zone, 3rd/4th and short).

I couldn't care less if they got rid of Sims and Bartee, as well. I'm also not saying the move turned out to be the wisest decision they ever made. I'm just saying why they did it. In hindsight, it would've been nice to have Trich with the tackle problems we've had. But hindsight is 20/20.

milkman
10-04-2006, 05:28 PM
I couldn't care less if they got rid of Sims and Bartee, as well. I'm also not saying the move turned out to be the wisest decision they ever made. I'm just saying why they did it. In hindsight, it would've been nice to have Trich with the tackle problems we've had. But hindsight is 20/20.

And if they had foresight, they might considered the possibility that LJ is potentially the best pure runner in the game.

Why not keep a guy that could help achieve that status?