PDA

View Full Version : Stop being predictable with LJ. More involvement with the passing game (screen like)



kilobytes
10-07-2009, 02:21 AM
PUT ASIDE YOU HATE FOR LJ FOR THIS THREAD PLEASE

I have seen LJ be very successful when getting short passes thrown to him, not really screens more like the one in the video. We need to get him involved with these things because the other team only thinks he is one dimensional and they are always ready for LJ to run. That is part of the reason for the lack of success and Charles success. LJ is hard to stop at full speed. Take a look at this play. And yes i understand this was 2 years ago but he really hasn't lost that much speed if any. He's a little lighter now too.

NFL Videos: Larry Johnson Highlight, WK 9 vs. Packers 2007 (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d803ebdb9/Larry-Johnson-Highlight-WK-9-vs-Packers-2007)


This is what Im talking about. Epic play. I want to see screens just like that to him. LJ was successful with the passing game against the Raiders when Charles was hurt. If we get him passes like this that will open up the running game. The more times LJ gets it the better IF we stop being one dimensional. Its not like other receivers are really doing anything. I think this team needs to start doing this more often which will open up other things.

Now I am not saying use him like a WR. HELL NO. He couldn't catch it. Just short screen like throws like this so theres no way to drop it.

josh1971
10-07-2009, 02:33 AM
All right, but clearly you're missing the point that the blockers on that play were great O-linemen, and we had a good blocking tight end out front, and our offense functioned better then.

I'm pretty sure we're trying to do that now, but just with much less effectiveness, given our current O-line.

jb

kilobytes
10-07-2009, 02:38 AM
All right, but clearly you're missing the point that the blockers on that play were great O-linemen, and we had a good blocking tight end out front, and our offense functioned better then.

I'm pretty sure we're trying to do that now, but just with much less effectiveness, given our current O-line.

jb
Really not that much better O line. But it will still open up other things. We had descent success against a descent Raiders D with it and the Cowboys have a sub par D. I see this working. Also this is less about O line men and more about being less predictable and keeping the D off balance. The D won't be ready for it as much as if it were Charles back there and it will leave a little more open space for LJ to get some YAC.

Hayvern
10-07-2009, 02:42 AM
To establish a good screen, you have to have the linebackers bite on the fact that you are going to go deep.

Every team knows we are not going to go deep, and if we do, it will be once or twice in a game, so they load up short since they know that we are going to have to dump the pass off short to avoid the sack.

We simply don't have the blockers for anyone to play the way we would like to play. This line is horrible, luckily we have a QB that can scramble, but he has been hit so many times, he is looking to unload the ball to the first open receiver he sees, even if that receiver is 6 yards short of the first down marker.

Hayvern
10-07-2009, 02:50 AM
Really not that much better O line. But it will still open up other things. We had descent success against a descent Raiders D with it and the Cowboys have a sub par D. I see this working. Also this is less about O line men and more about being less predictable and keeping the D off balance. The D won't be ready for it as much as if it were Charles back there and it will leave a little more open space for LJ to get some YAC.

Dude, we have not seen that kind of time for our QBs in 2 years now. That was a much better line because we were able to talk pro-bowler Shields to not retire.

Did you also notice how the linebackers had bitten on the fake reverse? Everyone was headed to the right of the play which allowed Johnson to get open on the left. That was a perfectly executed play with some fine blocking and we simply do not have the talent to pull that off anymore.

Drunker Hillbilly
10-07-2009, 01:14 PM
We clearly don't have the receivers to pose a deep threat to open things up for an effective screen play. However, I will say I wouldn't mind seeing it a few more times simply because it would at least give the RB an opportunity to make a tackler miss as opposed to getting hammered as soon as he gets the ball or having no whole to run through because the O line sucks so bad!

kilobytes
10-07-2009, 05:36 PM
Dude, we have not seen that kind of time for our QBs in 2 years now. That was a much better line because we were able to talk pro-bowler Shields to not retire.

Did you also notice how the linebackers had bitten on the fake reverse? Everyone was headed to the right of the play which allowed Johnson to get open on the left. That was a perfectly executed play with some fine blocking and we simply do not have the talent to pull that off anymore.
I want to point something out. WILL SHIELDS DID NOT PLAY during the 2007 season!! So the offensive line was really not that much better. Also we had success vs the Raiders so why not continue mixing it up? This is just a thought that I think would work decently. Im not saying this will get us a first down or a TD every time but just more forward progress which we seem to never get on the first two downs.

Hayvern
10-07-2009, 06:45 PM
I want to point something out. WILL SHIELDS DID NOT PLAY during the 2007 season!! So the offensive line was really not that much better. Also we had success vs the Raiders so why not continue mixing it up? This is just a thought that I think would work decently. Im not saying this will get us a first down or a TD every time but just more forward progress which we seem to never get on the first two downs.

You're right, I guess I was thinking 2006.

rodu
10-07-2009, 07:07 PM
We ran some screens against the Giants, and they all got snuffed out immediately. The defenders were there just as the ball arrived to LJ, yet there were no blockers in place

Drunker Hillbilly
10-07-2009, 07:12 PM
We ran some screens against the Giants, and they all got snuffed out immediately. The defenders were there just as the ball arrived to LJ, yet there were no blockers in place
No deep threat to sell the screen.

Hayvern
10-07-2009, 08:53 PM
No deep threat to sell the screen.

Which is really the point I was trying to get across with my post as well.

Simply put, we need a offensive line in order to build the deep threat. We need the deep threat to pull off a screen.

It is all a vicious circle and all roads point back to the offensive line.

Drunker Hillbilly
10-07-2009, 09:04 PM
Which is really the point I was trying to get across with my post as well.

Simply put, we need a offensive line in order to build the deep threat. We need the deep threat to pull off a screen.

It is all a vicious circle and all roads point back to the offensive line.
Yes they do!!! It would fix A LOT of things if the line was better. It's simply hard for me to watch each week!!! I get soooooooooo mad!!!! Thats why most of my posts have been so negative the last 2 years! Watchin for so many years has spoiled me a bit I guess!

honda522
10-07-2009, 09:16 PM
We have done quite a few screens this year, and all have been completly blown up.

Vandelay
10-07-2009, 09:46 PM
Put Charles in.

kilobytes
10-07-2009, 09:52 PM
Put Charles in.
Everytime charles goes in the defense is ready for the screen because Charles is more of that type of back. Its too predictable. Nobody expects LJ to get screens and thats why he was successful doing it against oakland when he actually got screens. We have to sell it and call at the right times. Its not 100% Offensive line. The one in the video is mainly the playcalling because we sold it. The O line really wasn't that much better.

Nothing else is working for this offense so why not try

Isawa_mo
10-08-2009, 09:47 AM
Everytime charles goes in the defense is ready for the screen because Charles is more of that type of back. Its too predictable. Nobody expects LJ to get screens and thats why he was successful doing it against oakland when he actually got screens. We have to sell it and call at the right times. Its not 100% Offensive line. The one in the video is mainly the playcalling because we sold it. The O line really wasn't that much better.

Nothing else is working for this offense so why not try

It worked against Oakland, because they are not a very good or discaplined team. The line actually did not do horrible that game, simply because the matchup was better. We threatened them down field a few times and that opened things up more.

Unlike others, that game gives me the most hope. Other than the penalties (a correctable problem) we outplayed them. Now, whether these guys ever stop shooting themselves in the foot is a good question. I think they will start playing a bit better, just because the opposition lightens up a bit.

matthewschiefs
10-08-2009, 12:39 PM
]It worked against Oakland, because they are not a very good or discaplined team[/B]. The line actually did not do horrible that game, simply because the matchup was better. We threatened them down field a few times and that opened things up more.

Unlike others, that game gives me the most hope. Other than the penalties (a correctable problem) we outplayed them. Now, whether these guys ever stop shooting themselves in the foot is a good question. I think they will start playing a bit better, just because the opposition lightens up a bit.

Man i wish we could play oakland everyweek that would be nice. :D

yashi
10-08-2009, 01:12 PM
Everytime charles goes in the defense is ready for the screen because Charles is more of that type of back. Its too predictable. Nobody expects LJ to get screens and thats why he was successful doing it against oakland when he actually got screens. We have to sell it and call at the right times. Its not 100% Offensive line. The one in the video is mainly the playcalling because we sold it. The O line really wasn't that much better.

Nothing else is working for this offense so why not try

That's also why Charles needs to receive more carries. Hell, I think if he gets a few between the tackles here and there to mix it up he might break through untouched.

wolfpack
10-08-2009, 06:55 PM
It is kind of surprising that screens dont work. The o-line is supose to let the dline through then go out and block. Problem is the dline always in the qb`s face so whats the difference.

pbatrucker
10-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Tim Grunhard was on with Sarin Petro this week and said they need to simplify the plays and quit running so many different formations. A few power running plays, a few screens and a few passing plays. make it simplier for the Ol were they won't have as much to think about. Hopefully they would be able to get real good at those plays and build some conststancy.

honda522
10-08-2009, 08:32 PM
Tim Grunhard was on with Sarin Petro this week and said they need to simplify the plays and quit running so many different formations. A few power running plays, a few screens and a few passing plays. make it simplier for the Ol were they won't have as much to think about. Hopefully they would be able to get real good at those plays and build some conststancy.

I agree with him if that helps these guys get off the ball and hit someone and knock them down.

pbatrucker
10-09-2009, 03:51 AM
I agree with him if that helps these guys get off the ball and hit someone and knock them down.
Amen!!! The KISS system does work most of the time. (keep it simple stupid)

Chiefster
10-09-2009, 09:04 AM
PUT ASIDE YOU HATE FOR LJ FOR THIS THREAD PLEASE...

I do not hate LJ; simply dislike his attitude most of the time. Although, it would appear, to date, that he has kind of dialed it down a notch.

yashi
10-09-2009, 10:19 AM
I do agree that the offensive play calling has seemed way too complex for a team that hasn't been together very long. Mix in some simple screen passes on 1st down and throw in some slants to Bowe here and there. We shouldn't have to be going for reverse WR passes on 3rd and 9.

chief31
10-09-2009, 10:45 AM
Yes they do!!! It would fix A LOT of things if the line was better. It's simply hard for me to watch each week!!! I get soooooooooo mad!!!! Thats why most of my posts have been so negative the last 2 years! Watchin for so many years has spoiled me a bit I guess!

Ditto.

But we were not spoiled. We got only what every fan deserves. Competetiveness.

I have been labelled "Pessemist" and "Negative" quite a bit here.

Not a big deal. Just innaccurate.

Note the way that I appear to waver on certain subjects. One day you'll see me talking about how "overrated" Larry Johnson is, only to turn and say that his poor numbers aren't really his fault, more recently.

While that does "seem to be" a change of opinion, it isn't at all. My Opinion of Larry Johnson is that he does great when he has a great o-line and piss-poor when he has a piss-poor o-line.

I didn't like the Cassel trade either. But now I refuse to blame him for a lack of a passing attack.

All of those things are merely products of o-line talent and coaching/offensive design, good, or bad.

My opinion has remained the same. Keep getting sub-par talent on the o-line, and sub-par offensive designers, and you will, forever, have a sub-par offense.


Tim Grunhard was on with Sarin Petro this week and said they need to simplify the plays and quit running so many different formations. A few power running plays, a few screens and a few passing plays. make it simplier for the Ol were they won't have as much to think about. Hopefully they would be able to get real good at those plays and build some conststancy.

I disagree with Tim here, eventhough he had a full career on the offensive line.

The plays that I am seeing are the "KISS" plays, for the most part. Especially for the o-linemen.

I am not seeing alot of lead-blocking OGs, or OTs. What I am seeing is "block your same zone", over and over.

These players on our o-line need to be learning the "tricks of the trade". And since they are not talented enough to handle head-to-head, then we need to be confusing defenses with moving o-linemen.

If you want to run a draw play, then it must look like a pass play, then have you opposite-side OG head through the hole to clear a path, with a running start.

I think we have been too simple, so far.

pbatrucker
10-09-2009, 12:30 PM
Ditto.

But we were not spoiled. We got only what every fan deserves. Competitiveness.

I have been labelled "Pessimist" and "Negative" quite a bit here.

Not a big deal. Just inaccurate.

Note the way that I appear to waver on certain subjects. One day you'll see me talking about how "overrated" Larry Johnson is, only to turn and say that his poor numbers aren't really his fault, more recently.

While that does "seem to be" a change of opinion, it isn't at all. My Opinion of Larry Johnson is that he does great when he has a great o-line and piss-poor when he has a piss-poor o-line.

I didn't like the Cassel trade either. But now I refuse to blame him for a lack of a passing attack.

All of those things are merely products of o-line talent and coaching/offensive design, good, or bad.

My opinion has remained the same. Keep getting sub-par talent on the o-line, and sub-par offensive designers, and you will, forever, have a sub-par offense.



I disagree with Tim here, even though he had a full career on the offensive line.

The plays that I am seeing are the "KISS" plays, for the most part. Especially for the o-linemen.

I am not seeing alot of lead-blocking OGs, or OTs. What I am seeing is "block your same zone", over and over.

These players on our o-line need to be learning the "tricks of the trade". And since they are not talented enough to handle head-to-head, then we need to be confusing defenses with moving o-linemen.

If you want to run a draw play, then it must look like a pass play, then have you opposite-side OG head through the hole to clear a path, with a running start.

I think we have been too simple, so far.
IMO a lot of fans want to much. Not only are we the second youngest team in the NFL, we are probably the slowest as far as team speed. You have not paid close attention to our OL trying to run. Not only are most of them slow, they are not athletic either. Hearing the same old complaints gets old after awhile. People need to realize, we still need to replace 8 or 9 starters, that will take a couple of years.

josh1971
10-10-2009, 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by pbatrucker http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/redbar/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160388#post160388)
Tim Grunhard was on with Sarin Petro this week and said they need to simplify the plays and quit running so many different formations. A few power running plays, a few screens and a few passing plays. make it simplier for the Ol were they won't have as much to think about. Hopefully they would be able to get real good at those plays and build some conststancy.


Coach Grunhard? :D

matthewschiefs
10-10-2009, 06:45 PM
IMO a lot of fans want to much. Not only are we the second youngest team in the NFL, we are probably the slowest as far as team speed. You have not paid close attention to our OL trying to run. Not only are most of them slow, they are not athletic either. Hearing the same old complaints gets old after awhile. People need to realize, we still need to replace 8 or 9 starters, that will take a couple of years.

I agree You have to first get the right players for you offense before you can run it that just takes time.

kilobytes
10-11-2009, 07:20 PM
SEE the one screen we threw to him got us 9 yards and a first. THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT! Come on HALEY..................Run run run doesn't work with this o line. Spread LJ in to the passing game with screens like the ONE i saw today.....

McLovin
10-11-2009, 10:11 PM
To establish a good screen, you have to have the linebackers bite on the fact that you are going to go deep.

Every team knows we are not going to go deep, and if we do, it will be once or twice in a game, so they load up short since they know that we are going to have to dump the pass off short to avoid the sack.

We simply don't have the blockers for anyone to play the way we would like to play. This line is horrible, luckily we have a QB that can scramble, but he has been hit so many times, he is looking to unload the ball to the first open receiver he sees, even if that receiver is 6 yards short of the first down marker.
Wow who did we sign? Or is this an old post and you were talking about Thiggy. Cause is sure isn't Matt I love this ball I am never letting it go Cassel.

Vandelay
10-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Bench LJ's sorry a$$, or even better, release him.
I don't understand why we won't just let Charles play.
The offense seems to move so much better when Charles is in the backfield.
Then here come LJ back in, run up the middle for no gain, and the drive stalls.

honda522
10-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Bench LJ's sorry a$$, or even better, release him.
I don't understand why we won't just let Charles play.
The offense seems to move so much better when Charles is in the backfield.
Then here come LJ back in, run up the middle for no gain, and the drive stalls.
Agreed. :bananen_smilies046:

honda522
10-11-2009, 10:30 PM
SEE the one screen we threw to him got us 9 yards and a first. THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT! Come on HALEY..................Run run run doesn't work with this o line. Spread LJ in to the passing game with screens like the ONE i saw today.....
9 yards? I saw a -2 yard.

Hayvern
10-11-2009, 10:31 PM
Wow who did we sign? Or is this an old post and you were talking about Thiggy. Cause is sure isn't Matt I love this ball I am never letting it go Cassel.

Funny, but at one point he led us in rushing yards and I am not sure he did not end the game with a lead in rushing yards.

Hayvern
10-11-2009, 10:32 PM
9 yards? I saw a -2 yard.


I saw a couple of those -2 yard screen plays today, heck, I saw a couple -7 yard screens.

chief31
10-12-2009, 11:30 AM
IMO a lot of fans want to much. Not only are we the second youngest team in the NFL, we are probably the slowest as far as team speed. You have not paid close attention to our OL trying to run. Not only are most of them slow, they are not athletic either. Hearing the same old complaints gets old after awhile. People need to realize, we still need to replace 8 or 9 starters, that will take a couple of years.

I have not been paying attention to our o-line?

Both Waters and Goff are very agile for interior linemen and Albert is young and quick as well. But it's easy to understand how you might have missed that, as we don't get them on the move, except for screens that we are projecting to our opponents, and taking too long to get the ball out on.

I think the only plays that Haley knows how to design are downfield passes. But we don't get to do that very often, due to poor protection.

Drunker Hillbilly
10-12-2009, 11:34 AM
Poor protection..............O line SUCKS!!!!!!!!

chief31
10-12-2009, 11:41 AM
Poor protection..............O line SUCKS!!!!!!!!

Yes. They suck at pass protection. And they suck at implementing Haley's generic running game.

Maybe they would suck less at something else?

kilobytes
10-12-2009, 06:00 PM
9 yards? I saw a -2 yard.
Look at the box score.....
The one you saw was a lateral that was obivious and was a terrible play call and decision to throw.............LJ got ONE screen pass. It was more of a short throw which I want to see more of but people are so ignorant and just don't understand that this works and has worked. Get him involved with this stuff and stop being predictable...

It seems Im the only one who actually remembers every play...

chief31
10-13-2009, 09:21 AM
Look at the box score.....
The one you saw was a lateral that was obivious and was a terrible play call and decision to throw.............LJ got ONE screen pass. It was more of a short throw which I want to see more of but people are so ignorant and just don't understand that this works and has worked. Get him involved with this stuff and stop being predictable...

It seems Im the only one who actually remembers every play...


That's odd. Because I was thinking that it seems like you are the only one who doesn't remember every play.

I'll go back and get an exact count for you. But, in the two games that I have recorded, I seem to have counted about seven screen passes, with only one of them going for positive yardage.

I think that the horrible results are the reason they have gone away from that.

Though that hasn't been the case for alot of other plays.

kilobytes
10-13-2009, 12:10 PM
That's odd. Because I was thinking that it seems like you are the only one who doesn't remember every play.

I'll go back and get an exact count for you. But, in the two games that I have recorded, I seem to have counted about seven screen passes, with only one of them going for positive yardage.

I think that the horrible results are the reason they have gone away from that.

Though that hasn't been the case for alot of other plays.
Im talking about the ones to LJ. LJ got one screen vs the Cowboys for 9 yards and a first. The other one was a lateral and a very dangerous one too, with defenders right there. Thankfully he caught it or we would turn it over.