Could McFadden be Gaileys "Slash" player?

by DJ on Apr 2, 2008 6:09 PM CDT Comment 18 comments

From the diaries. -Chris

I still maintain what I have said all along, that our top 3 targets in the 2008 draft will be J. Long, Dorsey or Ellis.

But what if all three are gone? What if the best player in the draft, McFadden is still there?

The reasons to NOT take him have been gone over many times. We already have an elite RB in Larry Johnson who we have a ton of money tied up in. Do we really want a huge chunk of our salary cap tied up in one position?

But, what would the Chiefs offense look like with Darren McFadden AND Larry Johnson (and Kolby Smith)?

We know the Chiefs want to run the ball... a lot. We also know Chan Gailey has a history for being an innovative play designer and caller. He created the "Slash" position for Kordell Stewart who was not a good QB but was extremely athletic and they used him in a variety of ways other than QB (sometimes lined him up as a receiver or RB).

What if Darren McFadden was the new SLASH player?

He would not replace Croyle as QB, but could be brought in in certain situations to do crazy things to keep the defense off balance.

At Arkansas, McFadden excelled in the "Wild Hog" formation where he took snaps in the shotgun (like a QB) with two other RBs beside him. You never knew which RB McFadden might hand it off to, or whether he would run it himself, or whether he would pass it (he frequently passed it).

Think of McFadden doing something similar with the Chiefs. Some plays he might be lined up in the backfield with LJ. The Defense doesn't know if they are going to run a sweep to McFadden on the outside or get smashed in the mouth by LJ.

What about McFadden lining up at WR? Could take quick passes to get him in space or run an end around where he could either run it or even pass it.

What about a Chiefs "Wild Hog" formation with McFadden taking the snap with LJ and Kolby Smith on either side of him? Is he going to hand it off to LJ to the right? Flip it to Kolby on the left? Run it up the middle by himself? Or throw it over the run stacked defense to Bowe for a long touchdown?

All these are possible. AND he returns kicks.

Think of the things a guy as creative as Chan Gailey could do with Darren McFadden.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That's a hell of an idea

Herm would be the biggest obstacle to that.

by Chris Thorman on Apr 2, 2008 6:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

I don't think you would do the gadget plays all the time. LJ has earned the right to be the bell cow RB and I don't see that changing. But if the Chiefs get "stuck" with an athlete like McFadden, they are going to want to use him as much as possible.

McFaddens college career gave him unique skills that, if used correctly, could affect how the defense plays us merely by his presence in the game.

Would the defense stack the box so much if McFadden was in the game and you knew he could throw the ball? He's not a QB by any stretch of the imagination, but he does have more experience throwing than any RB you would try to do a halfback pass with.

What do you think as a defense if McFadden lines up at WR sometimes? With all the potential for gadget plays that McFadden would provide, how much affect would McFaddens presence in the game mess with the defenses head, even if you just run a standard play?

Even if you just went plain jane vanilla, an LJ/McFadden duo would be deadly.

by DJ on Apr 2, 2008 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

Any mixing up the Chiefs could do on offense would potentially work wonders. That's what screwed us last year (part of at least) - unimaginative offense. The defense knew what we were going to do.

by Chris Thorman on Apr 3, 2008 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus this offense

is supposed to be built to the strengths of the players here. I would not say LJ's strength is blocking and he would have to do that in these formations. Good idea, good write up.

by Eric on Apr 2, 2008 6:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Scouts (Mayock) knock him for his lower body and

say he can't break tackles, but if you look at him in uniform, he "resembles" Priest Holmes.

Priest wasn't known for breaking tackles either, but he kicked ass, and he wasn't even drafted.

Priest proved you don't have to break tackles if you can avoid getting hit and have the vision to run through the field.

If we had to draft him, I would be happy. We can get an OT in the 2nd.

by DThomasReigns on Apr 2, 2008 7:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

McFadden

He's the worst-case scenario as far as I'm concerned but I think that if we got him he'd still be an asset to the team. Personally I'd still prefer Jake Long, Ellis, Dorsey, or Chris Long (in that order).

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Apr 2, 2008 8:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The 2 back system works

But what comes first, the line or the backs?

My #1 is Jake Long but McFadden/Dorsey/Ellis would all be fine IMO.

by Joel Thorman on Apr 2, 2008 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those three would be our top choices

I've just been considering what the Chiefs would do if J. Long, Dorsey and Ellis were gone by the time it was our turn to pick (which is a real possibility. I can easily see J. Long going #1 or 2 and Dorsey & Ellis going 3 & 4).

The options in that scenario seem to be:

A) Draft C. Long or Gholston and trade Jared Allen since it makes no sense to have 3 big name DEs since one of them will always be on the bench.

B) Draft Matt Ryan which because of the amount of money you are paying him will pretty much guarantee that Croyle will be out no matter what and Ryan will be starting. Big potential for another QB bust with an over inflated Ryan.

C) Draft McFadden who is probably the best player in the draft but we already have a high priced RB.

D) Reach for another OT that would be overpaid at #5 for the skills he would bring.

Of those options, I think the McFadden one would provide the best value for the team as far as the money we would have to spend on the #5 pick.

by DJ on Apr 2, 2008 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wild Hog

Seriously, the Wild Hog is the most retarded formation ever. No one in their right mind is afraid of McFadden's throwing arm at the NFL level. By the end of the year every college defense was putting nine men in the box when the "Wild Hog" was on the field. I'm pretty sure that running the Wild Hog in the NFL would have a 97% chance of resulting in broken bones for the poor running back picked to blindly slam into a 9-10 man front.

by Andy on Apr 2, 2008 10:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed (except for your word choice)

McFadden barely ever threw the ball either. It's a college thing.

I liked the diary, DJ. Totally forgot about the Gailey/Kordell connection.

by Joel Thorman on Apr 2, 2008 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're running with 10 defenders in the box already

When the line was still halfway decent in 2006, defenses were putting 9 or 10 guys in the box and LJ still got 1700 yards. Teams run against defenses that are expecting the run all the time and can still gain yards with a decent line.

The offensive line will be rebuilt, its just a matter of time.

The Wild Hog formation wouldn't work well in the NFL if used on a regular basis, but it would confuse defenses as a gadget play. Teams like Denver occassionally run a form of it when they have the QB line up as a WR and have a RB take the snap. Sometimes they just run it, sometimes they hand off to another RB, sometimes they throw it. That is in essence the Wild Hog formation.

Just like having Jared Allen catching touchdown passes in the end zone, you can't overuse it or it would be ineffective, but when used on occassion it could catch defenders by surprise and cause confusion.

Especially think of having 2 RBs and a FB in the backfield on a 4th and 1 with McFadden taking the snap. Will he give it to the FB? Will he give it to LJ up the middle? Will he keep it himself and go the other direction?

With someone of McFaddens athletic talents, the possibilities are endless.

by DJ on Apr 2, 2008 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd bet money

that the falcons take him...he's the perfect replacement "face" of the franchise. They can get a decent QB in round 2 (Andre Woodson, maybe they like Ainge) - then they might have the beginnings of something to build a team around. Remember, in the NFC they could be in the playoffs in 2 years with McFadden, a QB who isn't Harrington, and 2009 1st round pick to fill there biggest need.

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 2, 2008 10:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought they would

until they signed Michael Turner. Since they got him, that would seemingly eliminate the Falcons from contention for the same reasons as the Chiefs. The only reason I bring it up that the Chiefs might consider him is that there is a possibility that the guys that would help us most might be gone by the time our turn to pick comes up. That is unlikely to happen to the Falcons at #3.

by DJ on Apr 2, 2008 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Turner is good

but he doesn't have that big name hype that I will get the Falcons' fans back into the stadium. That was my only reasoning behind them taking McFadden - he's the sexiest pick in the draft (not everyone drafts responsibly :))

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 3, 2008 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed for the most part

with ATL not taking him. They just invested $15M guaranteed in Turner and just like the slim chance we take McFadden based on money in the position, the same goes for the Falcons. Also, they still have Jerious Norwood who is still young (yet injury prone) and I am pretty sure they still don't know what they have in him exactly.

I would be willing to bet McFadden will be picked by the Raiders and they'll cut Lamont Jordan. With all the activity in FA on defense, they Raiders are almost guaranteed to O with the #4.

by dkugler838 on Apr 3, 2008 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Their starters

are going to have to play special teams if they keep spending money like this - the Raiders may end up with so many big names that they can't both field a 53 man roster and comply with the cap :)

by PVChiefsfan on Apr 3, 2008 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DJ...What are you smoking?

I don't think we could take McFadden
The idea of two of the highest paid players on your team splitting time turns my stomach. LJ can't be traded for another 3 or so years because This is an extremely important draft and its crucial we get players that will fill holes and be able to contribute immediately.
McFadden is a great player and I would love to have him BUT with LJ, there isn't room for another back of that salary amount and you'd be splitting carries between two great players meaning they are half as effective as they could be on their own. the cap hit would destroy us.

Sound familiar? It's the argument you used AGAINST drafting McFadden when I made the argument if he's available we should take him! I agree w/ you, JLong is our #1 option. We don't draft DMac if by some miracle JLong is still there. But, if JLong is gone, which is it? Do you believe that drafting McFadden could provide "endless opportunities" or is there "not enough room, and two great RB's will be half as effective?" I'm not very smart, but these sound like pretty contradicting arguments here...

by 3rdAndLong44 on Apr 3, 2008 11:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs