KC Media Blasts LJ Again

Reporters almost always trumpet the company line. Don't believe me? Look at the incestuous White House Press Corps.

So, the continuous bashing of Larry Johnson in the Chiefs biggest hometown paper, The Kansas City Star, is notable. Last week, he was exclusively blamed for the loss in Dallas for missing a block on which Trent Green was stripped and fumbled and which the Cowboys later turned into points. That happened in the second quarter before L.J. rambled for three TDs.

This week, Johnson was mostly sidelined on obvious passing downs in favor of Tony Richardson, a better blocker. Here's what lead Johnson basher Jason Whitlock said in today's paper:

"It's not just Larry Johnson. The Chiefs -- as a group -- are soft."

Larry Johnson is soft? Better tell the defenses that he's bludgeoned for 1,100 rushing yards in seven starts, with 12 TDs.

But there's more:

"The only thing worse was the offensive strategy that relegated Johnson to sideline-watcher on obvious passing downs. 'Larry Lite' is the best description of KC’s offensive game plan. 'Larry Lite' tastes great and is a lot less filling."

He continues: "I don't blame Dick Vermeil and Al Saunders for the 'Larry Lite' offense. It seems quite obvious now that Johnson is refusing to block. After scoring just 10 points in the opening half running the 'Larry Lite' offense, Vermeil and Saunders stuck Johnson in the game on a couple of passing downs in the second half. Johnson's blocking effort was soft."

Still more: "It's impossible to properly explain just how limited Kansas City's offense is when its most-explosive player, its most-consistent scorer has to stand on the sideline on third and 4. Priest Holmes was brilliant at turning third and 6 into first and 10 by catching a screen pass, a swing pass or running a draw. Tony Richardson is a tremendous blocker. He did an awesome job of picking up free rushers. Richardson, however, did not pick up one first down on Saturday."

And, finally:

"Johnson's refusal to block handicaps Kansas City's offense. Pretty much, when he's on the field, the defense knows he's going to carry or catch the ball 90 percent of the time. The other 10 percent, the Chiefs will fake a handoff to Johnson and throw the football."

Where to begin? How about Holmes turning all of those third and sixes into first downs with screens and draws? This year for Holmes on thirds and between thee and seven: zero carries, one catch for two yards. 2004? Four carries for 13 yards, one catch for six and one lost fumble. 2003? Three carries for 13 and eight catches for 117 yards (we'll grant the receiving impact in 2003). 2002? Six carries for 11 yards and four catches for 36 yards (one a 22 yarder, so he basically made one play that season). You get the point. Not a big deal. More anecdotal bullshit for another reporter who can't take his fat fingers on a simple Google search before spewing drivel.

There's obviously a faction in the Chiefs' hierarchy that doesn't like Johnson. Benching him on third downs for one missed block was an overreaction by Vermeil, so he's the primary suspect. Of course, there was the famous outburst last year about how Johnson was still in diapers, which Vermeil eventually apologized for. This is very important for fantasy owners because, if Holmes decides to return, it's very likely the Chiefs would welcome him back as the unquestioned starter even though Johnson is running right now as well as any back ever has.

Even Joe Posnanski, one of the better and more enlightened columnists around, gets in on the act by saying straight out that Johnson "refuses to block." Again, he tried to block the Cowboys linebacker last week. He picked him up properly. But he tried to cut him and was jumped over. He was beat. Remember, blockers are often instructed to cut block in order to clear the passing lane for the QB. This is such a nit-picky criticism for a back that's looking like a modern Jim Brown with his speed, power and no-nonsense running style.

Speaking of Brown, here's what the Sporting News said about his blocking: "...that grunt work offended him."