PDA

View Full Version : Why could LJ run in the first half and not the 2nd?


FringeNC
10-14-2007, 02:40 PM
Two hypotheses seem to have been refuted by the facts:

1) O-line can't run-block
2) LJ isn't trying

One hypothesis has not been refuted:

The Chiefs' play-calling has been the cause of running woes.

Hammock Parties
10-14-2007, 02:42 PM
O-line still isn't very good. I think I have a pretty good idea why, actually...I'm going to write about it this week. There's a trend I've noticed that's quite disturbing. The coaches need to correct it.

mikey23545
10-14-2007, 02:42 PM
Huard lied,
LJ died....

Mecca
10-14-2007, 02:43 PM
How about....when a guy is beaten down...like to many carries/touches tends to do to a RB...

He gets tired faster and is even more dead at the end of games?

chiefsfan1963
10-14-2007, 02:43 PM
Why could LJ run in the first half and not the 2nd?


Our coaches SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hammock Parties
10-14-2007, 02:44 PM
The Chiefs' play-calling has been the cause of running woes.


DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kcchiefsus
10-14-2007, 02:44 PM
Because we went too conservative and the Bengals were able to get away with stacking the line.

Smed1065
10-14-2007, 02:45 PM
How about....when a guy is beaten down...like to many carries/touches tends to do to a RB...

He gets tired faster and is even more dead at the end of games?

Hell, he has no legs based on your post but over 100 in a half. That dumbazz forgot your opinion then saw your post I bet.

Wow.

Bwana
10-14-2007, 02:46 PM
A little of both. He was doing well when he was running north and south for the first time this year. The rest of the time, he looked like he was trying out for dancing with the stars. I also watched him slow down and head out of bounds to avoid contact a few times in the second half. As a bonus, his little delay of game call by tossing the ball was really neat. The guy could of run for 300 yards and it still wouldn't change the fact he's a punk.

Smed1065
10-14-2007, 02:48 PM
How about....when a guy is beaten down...like to many carries/touches tends to do to a RB...

He gets tired faster and is even more dead at the end of games?

Because he gets haircuts?

Maybe you are wrong after preaching the all I know mighty?

I do not care if he gets tired after 100+ yards in a half.
I wish I could get 100 yards in an NFL career.

kcxiv
10-14-2007, 02:49 PM
i didnt see that he was tired or even slow. What i did see is him getting hit 1-3 yards behind the line. Hell, AP couldnt do much with that shit.

Mecca
10-14-2007, 02:50 PM
Because he gets haircuts?

Maybe you are wrong after preaching the all I know mighty?

I do not care if he gets tired after 100+ yards in a half.
I wish I could get 100 yards in an NFL career.

We'll see at the end of the year, but to this point I still don't believe he even remotely resembles being the same player...

He carried it what 30 times for 120 yards against a bad defense missing several guys....It's obviously better than what he'd been the week before but his burst and drive just isn't remotely the same.

Smed1065
10-14-2007, 02:51 PM
he should be able to run for 300 if he had 100 in a half, Mecca WOULD.

ROFL

but mouth yards do not count in the NFL.

FringeNC
10-14-2007, 02:52 PM
What i did see is him getting hit 1-3 yards behind the line. Hell, AP couldnt do much with that shit.

Yep -- after the threat of the pass was gone -- he couldn't run -- which is what most of us have been saying since the Indy embarrassment.

Psyko Tek
10-14-2007, 03:01 PM
wer can't block them off the line so we have to get them to back off and cover the pass

if they don't do that LJ gets a big boo-boo

HemiEd
10-14-2007, 03:04 PM
Less effort, he got comfortable.

Hydrae
10-14-2007, 03:05 PM
We'll see at the end of the year, but to this point I still don't believe he even remotely resembles being the same player...

He carried it what 30 times for 120 yards against a bad defense missing several guys....It's obviously better than what he'd been the week before but his burst and drive just isn't remotely the same.


At one point he had 25 carries for 126 yards. Finished with 31 for 119. So we lost 7 yards on his last 6 carries.

HemiEd
10-14-2007, 03:07 PM
A little of both. He was doing well when he was running north and south for the first time this year. The rest of the time, he looked like he was trying out for dancing with the stars. I also watched him slow down and head out of bounds to avoid contact a few times in the second half. As a bonus, his little delay of game call by tossing the ball was really neat. The guy could of run for 300 yards and it still wouldn't change the fact he's a punk.

Yep, how about that total ****ing lack of a block when DH got sacked.

Bwana
10-14-2007, 03:09 PM
Yep, how about that total ****ing lack of a block when DH got sacked.

Heh, which one? :hmmm:

Basileus777
10-14-2007, 03:11 PM
It was the playcalling. We were just trying to run out the clock in the 2nd half, and abandoned the passing game. We went with too many tight formations that basically telegraphed that it would be a run.

HemiEd
10-14-2007, 03:13 PM
Heh, which one? :hmmm:

No kidding, but one of them, he didn't even acknowledge the safety when he flew by him to clobber Damon. He already had his hundred with a TD, I mentioned it in the game thread.

I can't wait to see Priest get a chance again. He has heart.

Bwana
10-14-2007, 03:22 PM
I can't wait to see Priest get a chance again. He has heart.

I hope it happens and........he can fricken block.

redbrian
10-14-2007, 03:45 PM
Because he is an over hyped and over paid diaper baby.
(His diapers get too loaded in the 2nd half and it slows him down.)

Extra Point
10-14-2007, 04:05 PM
The play calling in the fourth quarter sucked. We needed to put the nail in the coffin. Instead, we made a series of inept o-play calls (3-and-out-and-LJ-throw-the-helmet-because-we-don't-want-to-lose-the-game-because-we-think-we-can-control-the-game-reaction-so-get-tackled-and-get-to-the-bench-and-no-more-whining-about-it-delay-of-game-penalty) leviathan for the sport of it.

Sure-Oz
10-14-2007, 04:08 PM
Our O line is shit, thats the main problem

BigRock
10-14-2007, 04:56 PM
The sucking of the offensive line not only wasn't refuted, it was reinforced by this game.

Even in the first quarter when Larry got 100+ yards, there were still several plays where he either got no yards or went backwards because he was hit immediately. It got much worse in the 2nd half. And that's to say nothing of the sacks given up.

It would have looked a whole lot worse if we hadn't been playing the Bengals.

FringeNC
10-14-2007, 04:59 PM
The sucking of the offensive line not only wasn't refuted, it was reinforced by this game.

Even in the first quarter when Larry got 100+ yards, there were still several plays where he either got no yards or went backwards because he was hit immediately. It got much worse in the 2nd half. And that's to say nothing of the sacks given up.

It would have looked a whole lot worse if we hadn't been playing the Bengals.

What team doesn't get negative running plays? We had 100+ yards on the ground in the first half. How common is that in the NFL? Not very.

Deberg_1990
10-14-2007, 05:00 PM
O-line still isn't very good. I think I have a pretty good idea why, actually...I'm going to write about it this week. There's a trend I've noticed that's quite disturbing. The coaches need to correct it.


Let me guess...They just are not very talented. There, i saved alot of people some $$$$$$$

BigRock
10-14-2007, 05:04 PM
What team doesn't get negative running plays?

5 or 6 in a single half? On straight-ahead runs? It's not like they were running tricky double reverses that took a few seconds to develop. Larry was taking the ball and getting hit before he reached the line.

We had 100+ yards on the ground in the first half. How common is that in the NFL? Not very.
The odds increase considerably against Cinci.

FringeNC
10-14-2007, 05:15 PM
5 or 6 in a single half? On straight-ahead runs? It's not like they were running tricky double reverses that took a few seconds to develop. Larry was taking the ball and getting hit before he reached the line.


The odds increase considerably against Cinci.

Does Cinci have a good defense? No. Do we have a very good run-blocking offensive line?

The point is no team in the NFL can run the ball effectively when the D is putting 8-9 in the box. If a team is doing that, you pass EVERY f'n DOWN until they stop. To me, it seems Herm ALMOST allowed Solari to do that (edit: in the 1st half), and we moved the ball.

blueballs
10-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Bennett would come in last year and have some nice runs
not this year

DementedLogic
10-14-2007, 06:54 PM
I think LJ is waiting for running lanes to develop and it's not happening. Last year, if there wasn't a lane, LJ would just pound it in there, drag a few guys with him and pick up 4 or 5 yards. This year, he is slowing down and waiting for blocks, and instead the defenders are coming to him when he has no momentum and can't run through them.

chiefsfan1963
10-14-2007, 07:00 PM
Does anyone have a clue our O coaches SUCK ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

LJ may be jerkoff but the only reason why LJ isn't producing is the freakin COACHES!!!!!!!!!

blueballs
10-14-2007, 07:02 PM
Saunders has more than tea at 4 pm

keg in kc
10-14-2007, 07:19 PM
Tosses and misdirection along with a successful passing game opened things up in the first half. We'll see more of that, I'll bet, as the season goes on. In the second half, from what I've seen so far, we got conservative, and we continue to try to pound the football behind a light center. We're smacking our heads against a wall and wondering why the wall's knocking us out, instead of vice versa.

Iowanian
10-14-2007, 07:37 PM
LJ is being a whiny bitch. Someone should wrap about it.

If Johnson put in 2/3 of the effort into his runs that Marion Barber does, he'd be unstoppable.

He might try running hard and oh, maybe picking up a blitz here and there instead of pouting.

if he sticks his lip out any further, a bird is liable to shit on it.

Logical
10-14-2007, 07:39 PM
Truthfully, I believe it is because LJ is a pussy.