It's difficult to tell what exactly the common Londoner would have thought of Wycliffe. Part of the problem is that scholars have not been able to reach an agreement about what he preached, especially before the papal censure in 1377. To give an example:

Susan Brigden, a well renowned historian of London and the Reformation wrote "Wyclif himself had believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, many of his later followers, ignoring or misunderstanding his subtleties, rejected the central mystery." (New Worlds, Lost Worlds, p. 87)

Richard Rex writes that Wyclif denied "the doctrine of transubstantiation...the body of Christ made really present under the outward appearance of bread whenever a priest consecrated bread with Christ's words." (The Lollards, p. 42)

Anne Hudson, perhaps the leading authority on Lollardy, gives the middle of the road interpretation that Wyclif denied that "that Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar" but that "Christ was really present in the consecrated elements." (ODNB John Wyclif, by Anne Hudson & Anthony Kenny). Hudson is correct to emphasize the subtle nature of Wyclif's view and explanation. Dropping the Aristotelian language and trying to smooth out the inconsistencies among his writings, Wyclif argued that the bread was still bread, but imbued with the spiritual being of Christ. Put another way, the bread was not visually just bread, it was actually bread, but it also was Christ. As Christ was both God and Man, so the bread was both Bread and Christ (Hudson, Premature Reformation, pp. 281-283).

Wyclif certainly did not make the arguments of later Lollards or the protestant reformers, denying Christ's presence in any form at the Eucharist. (A good example being the heresy proceedings in Kent in 1511-1512. One William Rich confessed that he had "believed, thought, said, held, affirmed, and taught that...the sacrament at the alter is not the very body of Christ, but only material bread." Tanner, Kent Heresy Proceedings, 1511-1512, p. 28).

So, from the above information we have a good idea of what Wyclif probably believed and preached about the Eucharist between 1378 and 1382. Remember, when Wyclif was cited by the Pope in 1377, the main contentions were about Wyclif’s arguments against papal authority and the ability of temporal lords to seize clerical wealth – these were not issues important to the common Londoner. However, claims made against the Eucharist were important to the common person because one of the centers of medieval life was Corpus Christi (both feast and mass). Wyclif’s views on the Eucharist were initially for debate and discussion among the learned – not for common people. It was expected, and in all probability occurred that common people misunderstood Wyclif’s message about the Eurcharist (Hudson, Pre-Mature Reformation).

On the subject of Chronicles, one of the main arguments that the people of London sympathized with Wyclif during the Peasant’s Revolt, and in response attached the property of John of Gaunt. I gave a more substantial explanation of why the Londoners attacked John of Gaunt’s property & references to the Chronicles here. The shorter explanation is that the Londoners probably went after Gaunt because of his influence over the king in making unpopular decisions, not because he was part of the trial of Wyclif years before.

EDIT: Forgot two of my sources on the significance of the Mass & Corpus Christi in medieval England - Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, introduction; Bossy, "The Mass as a Social Institution" Past & Present, 1983, pp. 29-61).