In 2005 - behind Willie Roaf - he carried the team. In 2006 he lost about 1 yd/carry off his average and wasn't close to the same back.

And of course, in 2007 without Green and Shields and Richardson, his production went into the dumper.

He was the same back. It was NOT the same line.

Sure, he lost a yard per carry on his average.

But to say that 400+ carries and almost 1800 yards, with DAMON HUARD as the starting QB isn't "carrying the team" is asinine.

Agreed. He's devastating once he hits a hole - but you have to give him a hole, he can't create one like either Barry Sanders (butterfly) or Jim Brown (bee).

That was Faulk's whole point.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a completely unrelated note, if ChiefsPlanet is going to keep logging me off, I'm going to have to get an easier password to type. Can anyone tell me how to prevent that (the logging off)?

As I understand it, Faulk said something to the effect that LJ misses Tait.

LJ had about 20 carries in their only season as teammates, so Faulk's point is clearly mis-informed.

Well, thats the chance you take. To be great, you have to take chances.

Boom or Bust.

Faulk mentioned Tait as one of about a half-dozen stars gone from the Chiefs offense since LJ came to explain the crash of the Chiefs offense.

Concentrate on a half-second mention of Tait and ignore the rest.

Then here, we have a so-called Chiefs fan, claiming Tait was "long gone" by the time LJ came, and Faulk's research really doesn't look so bad after all.

I didn't watch it.

Just going by what I read.

But if he used the words "He misses John Tait", regardless of how little time he spent on Tait, that is mis-informed.

if he only mentions Tait without referencing LJ then my point is moot.