LJ IS MY CLEAR #1 (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

10 games is too small a sample size for my liking. SA and LT are more proven. Too much lost on the KC OL and FB is now gone to MIN.

OK, I thought I was done having to explain this. LJ's sample size IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT 10 games. His sample size is the 5 years that the KC running game has been posting astronomical numbers for their running backs.Here's what I posted in the LJ Player SPotlight thread:

For the unconvinced, let's try making this a Player Spotlight on KANSAS CITY CHIEFS STARTING RUNNING BACK instead.

I went back and added up the totals of the starting RB for all games from 2001-2005 (5 seasons). The majority obviously was Holmes and Johnson, but there were also times where Mike Cloud and Derrick Blaylock were added in. Only stats as a starter were counted, so if LJ had 110 rushing yards when he wasn't starting, they didn't count in the totals. Under that banner of KC STARTING RB, here's what the numbers were (total yards/total TD):

2001 2169/10 (Holmes 16 games)

2002 2357/24 (Holmes 14 games, Cloud 2 games)

2003 2110/27 (Holmes 16 games)

2004 2203/28 (Holmes 8 games, Blaylock 3 games, Johnson 5 games)

2005 2275/24 (Holmes 7 games, Johnson 9 games)

That works out ON AVERAGE to 2223 total yards and 23 total TD per season. Again, that DOES NOT count any production from any other RB, nor does it count numbers from RB when they were not the starting back.

So on average, the STARTING KC RB over a full 16 game season has averaged 360 fantasy points a season for the past 5 years.

IMO, that's the number we should be using as a baseline and debate if Johnson will do better or worse than the 5-year average for the starting back in KC. The starting point should be 22.5 fantasy point per game and adjusted based on how well you think he will do. And remember, this factors into account all other RB getting a piece of the pie or the 2 series/1 series ratio from last year. THIS IS THE PRODUCTION LEVEL FOR JUST THAT ONE PLAYER.

As for NOT STARTING KC RB, here are the annual numbers for all "other RB" clumped into one:

2001 520/8

2002 441/6

2003 535/4

2004 693/7

2005 613/6

And remeber, all of these numbers were excluded in the STARTING RB numbers.

By comparison, here are the yearly totals for LJ's competition:SA: 262, 272, 269, 307, 364

LT: 220, 307, 344, 288, 318

Only Alexander did better than THE AVERAGE year for the Chiefs #1 guy--and it took a record setting season for TD to do it.

There's plenty to like about LJ this year, and even if he did slightly worse than he did last year (or Holmes did before him) due to the personnel changes, he's still has the potential to put up crazy fantasy numbers and his ceiling is higher than SA or LT.

Completely irrelevant. Different head coach, different OC and different personnel. The comparison you are trying to make is completely invalid.Good luck with those 2,300 yards and 23 TDs.

 

[jurb26]

Completely irrelevant. Different head coach, different OC and different personnel. The comparison you are trying to make is completely invalid.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand to people? So they have their Oline coach back... sorry but I'm not all that impressed.

 

[Chaka]

Completely irrelevant. Different head coach, different OC and different personnel. The comparison you are trying to make is completely invalid.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand to people? So they have their Oline coach back... sorry but I'm not all that impressed.

LJ will probably be very good this year, maybe top 3 and he has a shot at #1, Herm has a history of force feeding the ball to his #1 guy, but to consider 2,200 yards and 23 TDs a baseline for anybody is just bughouse loco.

 

[David Yudkin]

Completely irrelevant. Different head coach, different OC and different personnel. The comparison you are trying to make is completely invalid.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand to people? So they have their Oline coach back... sorry but I'm not all that impressed.

LJ will probably be very good this year, maybe top 3 and he has a shot at #1, Herm has a history of force feeding the ball to his #1 guy, but to consider 2,200 yards and 23 TDs a baseline for anybody is just bughouse loco.

LJ, SA, and LT all appear to have situations that changed for the worse since last year. IMO, the Chiefs baseline of RB production has been much higher over the past 5 years than SA or LT, so IMO Johnson can stray farther from the norm and still be the top back.The Broncos have swiched linemen, running backs, line coaches, tight ends, fullbacks, etc. over the span of a decade. They had Pro Bowlers retire and new ones emerge. Yet they still have been a dominant force in terms of producing top shelf running back numbers.

I DON'T expect Johnson as a matter of course to get 2,200 yards and 23 TDs. However, of the Big 3 I think he has the best chance of getting it. I generally would not project anyone more than 1500/500/20 as anything above that is very uncommon. I suspect Johnson will post similar numbers this year as last, just spread out across 16 games.

 

[joffer]

IMO, the Chiefs baseline of RB production has been much higher over the past 5 years than SA or LT, so IMO Johnson can stray farther from the norm and still be the top back.

there's the rub

 

[Chaka]

Completely irrelevant. Different head coach, different OC and different personnel. The comparison you are trying to make is completely invalid.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand to people? So they have their Oline coach back... sorry but I'm not all that impressed.

LJ will probably be very good this year, maybe top 3 and he has a shot at #1, Herm has a history of force feeding the ball to his #1 guy, but to consider 2,200 yards and 23 TDs a baseline for anybody is just bughouse loco.

LJ, SA, and LT all appear to have situations that changed for the worse since last year. IMO, the Chiefs baseline of RB production has been much higher over the past 5 years than SA or LT, so IMO Johnson can stray farther from the norm and still be the top back.The Broncos have swiched linemen, running backs, line coaches, tight ends, fullbacks, etc. over the span of a decade. They had Pro Bowlers retire and new ones emerge. Yet they still have been a dominant force in terms of producing top shelf running back numbers.

I DON'T expect Johnson as a matter of course get 2,200 yards and 23 TDs. However, of the Big 3 I think he has the best chance of getting it. I generally would not project anyone more than 1500/500/20 as anything above that is very uncommon. I suspect Johnson will post similar numbers this year as last, just spread out across 16 games.

But they have never switched head coaches during this period, and they never lost an OC until this year, and they never had to deal with the massive amount of turnover in a single off-season that KC is going through.If you want an optomistic baseline try Curtis Martin 2004 1,900 yards and 14 TDs. Great numbers but those expecting 2,000+ yards and 20+ TD as a baseline are reaching.

btw doesn't Will Shields have a 3 week ankle problem now?

One of the greatest strengths of the Chiefs during this arcade style run of dominant RB performances has been the continuity on the O-line (a trend that exists for a bunch of the dominant performances over the years e.g. SA - 2005, Curtis - 2004, Jamal and Ahman - 2003, KC circa 2001-, Emmitt back in the day). You want to find the next great RB performance? Start with the o-lines, the longer they have been together the more likely there will be a dominant performance from the RB.

This year along with the loss of Wellbourne and Roaf there are injuries up and down the line, nothing major but significant enough to prevent the new group from practicing together on a daily basis. This is a big deal and those that fail to recognize that are burying their heads in the sand.

 

[Routilla]

Since I'm a lifelong Cowboy fan I'll compare LJ to Emmitt in early-mid 90'sTake away Daryl Johnston, Larry Allen, and Norv Turner and it WOULD HAVE effected Emmitt's production greatly. I think LJ is facing a similar situation. I do think LJ is a great back, but #1 over SA and LT, not so much.

Flawed. You are taking away Johnston and Allen in their prime and replacing them with T Rich(12th year) and Roaf(14th year).

 

[gocats]

IMO, the Chiefs baseline of RB production has been much higher over the past 5 years than SA or LT, so IMO Johnson can stray farther from the norm and still be the top back.

there's the rub

 

[gocats]

how is Larry Johnson not the #1 RB???games where he played fulltime:game 6 - 23-93, td; 1-26game 8 - 22-107, 2 tds; 3-48game 9 - 27-132; 5-46game 10 - 36-211, 2 td; 1-6game 11 - 31-119, td; 5-53game 12 - 30-140, 2 tds; 2-9game 13 - 26-143, 3 tds; 3-28game 14 - 31-167, 2 tds; 2-17game 15 - 32-131, td; 4-48, tdgame 16 - 26-201, 3 tds; 2-21So, in 10 games as a full-time back (he only started 9 games, i added week 6 because he got 20 carries), he had a grand total of:284-1444, 17 rushing TDs; 28-302, td recieving...now, let's multiply those numbers by 3/5 (.6) to figure out what 6 games would be...170-866, 10; 17-181now, let's combine these numbers... Larry Johnson was on pace, last year, to have THIS as a complete season:454-2310, 27 tds rushing; 45-483, td recieving...and I think he'll be almost as good this year... say... 400-2000, 45-450, 25 total touchdowns...

SA and LT are more proven.

and older, with more wear and tear

LT has worn down two years in a row now when his owners need him the most, the playoffs

 

[Chaka]

Since I'm a lifelong Cowboy fan I'll compare LJ to Emmitt in early-mid 90'sTake away Daryl Johnston, Larry Allen, and Norv Turner and it WOULD HAVE effected Emmitt's production greatly. I think LJ is facing a similar situation. I do think LJ is a great back, but #1 over SA and LT, not so much.

Flawed. You are taking away Johnston and Allen in their prime and replacing them with T Rich(12th year) and Roaf(14th year).

I like the comparison to Emmitt. From 1991-1995 Emmitt put up a run of some sick numbers, averageing 1,604 yards rushing, 345 yards receiving and 17.8 TDs per year. Larry Allen was not a big part of those teams though a rookie in 1994 and he didn't even make the pro bowl in 1995 (let alone the All Pro Team). It was Stepnoski, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei and Erik Williams who were the driving force behind Emmitt's great run.Roaf on the other hand has been an All Pro right up until his retirement, and KC isn't replacing him with a Larry Allen nor is there a player on par with Stepnoski, Newton or Tuinei remaining on that line. Will Shields is the only remaining potentially dominant OL on this team and 1) he had to be talked out of retirement this offseason (ironically Willie Roaf allegedly had much to do with that) and 2) he is hurting.Moose was a pro-bowler in 1993 & 1994, Richardson in 2003 & 2004.Look these types of debates can run in circles ultimately leading nowhere. I don't see KC surviving the loss of an All-Pro left tackle and a pro bowl fullback, along with the HC and OC, and multiple injuries along the new OL while producing at the same level as the previous five seasons. You do.I am also not saying that LJ shouldn't be spoken of among the top 3 RBs, he should. What I am trying to do for those of you projecting the pinball type of numbers we have seen for the past five seasons, is provide the argument for a level of temperance among you. KC has suffered significant losses this offseason and you need to factor those in before projecting the same type of numbers we have seen in the past from what is essentially a different team.Call it a cautionary tale if you will.