PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs' Johnson finally runs with the big dogs


Count Zarth
01-02-2007, 05:49 AM
http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/articles/2007/01/chiefs-johnson-jacksonville020107.html

All year long, Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson had been stuffed by the NFL's elite run defenses.

It started in Pittsburgh, where the Steelers held him in check for perhaps his worst performance as a professional - 15 carries, 26 yards, one meaningless touchdown.

It continued in Miami, where the Dolphins limited him to just 75 yards.

When Johnson met the Baltimore Ravens , sure, he gained 120 yards, but 47 came on one play and he never sniffed the end zone. Against the Chargers a week later, a meager 84 yards was the order of the day for Johnson, and he was again held scoreless.

That left just the Jacksonville Jaguars on the schedule, and their second-ranked run defense, looming in Week 17.

Kerberos
01-02-2007, 05:54 AM
Who is this C.E. Wendler character?

ARROW2
01-02-2007, 05:57 AM
http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/articles/2007/01/chiefs-johnson-jacksonville020107.html






28 carries for 132 yards against SD the first game.......Tomlinson 15 for 66 but the SECOND game settled the debate, according to the talking heads.............I HOPE LIKE HELL WE GET SD AGAIN!!!!

ARROW2
01-02-2007, 05:59 AM
Also, they downplay the game against Baltimore because he had a 42 yard run? Stupid article. Denver started out like a great defense, LJ torched them twice, but I guess they are no longer considered a good D...

Count Zarth
01-02-2007, 06:04 AM
Also, they downplay the game against Baltimore because he had a 42 yard run?

Why not? Our offense did nothing that game.


Denver started out like a great defense, LJ torched them twice, but I guess they are no longer considered a good D...

Um, no. They certainly aren't a top 10 run defense. Frank Gore, LT, LJ, Rudi Johnson....all pretty much gashed Denver.

Direckshun
01-02-2007, 06:06 AM
Why not? Our offense did nothing that game.
How about because it's retarded to say "except for all his good runs, all he had were bad runs!"

Count Zarth
01-02-2007, 06:07 AM
How about because it's retarded to say "except for all his good runs, all he had were bad runs!"

All I'm saying is he didn't have a good game against Baltimore.

Kerberos
01-02-2007, 06:10 AM
All I'm saying is he didn't have a good game against Baltimore.

He didn't have a game against the Ravens that Priest Holmes had.

And Priest did it on THIER turf.

.

Redcoats58
01-02-2007, 06:15 AM
He didn't have a game against the Ravens that Priest Holmes had.

And Priest did it on THIER turf.

.
He didn't have the blocking Priest had either.

Kerberos
01-02-2007, 06:24 AM
He didn't have the blocking Priest had either.

True

But you would think ARROWHEAD, Homefield advantage and all that good mojo stuff would have been in LJ's favor.

Our O-line shows up when they want to. It's just too bad they couldn't do it more often.

.

Mecca
01-02-2007, 07:18 AM
28 carries for 132 yards against SD the first game.......Tomlinson 15 for 66 but the SECOND game settled the debate, according to the talking heads.............I HOPE LIKE HELL WE GET SD AGAIN!!!!

All a talking head has to do to argue LT vs LJ is say "LJ had alot more carries and still couldn't top him in yards and TD's"