Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Could McGahee challenge for starters job? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JJ Evans
- Start date
shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. I never said I knew the answers for this year. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not "complete randomness".Good luck with that, seriously.Nice try man, nice try.Average Draft Info on Antsports since 8/1/2004:Justin Fargas and Josh Scobey, both in situations I would consider close to that of Davis's last year.But go ahead and use your randomness theory to pick names from a hat without looking at talent and possible opportunity.
Justin Fargas - 44th RB taken at 9.10 in a 12-team league
Josh Scobey - 64th RB taken at 14.09 in a 12-team league
Neither of those guys are "off the radar" by any stretch of the imagination.
BingoBrown
Footballguy
That had more to do with Al Davis than anything else.
BingoBrown
Footballguy
You wrote this:
Then, when you claim that the situations of Davis and Westbrook with regards to fantasy football weren't strange occurances, I asked you to come up with your own picks of guys that won't be drafted in the majority of leagues but will have seasons similar to Westbrook and Dom Davis. You came up with Scobey and Fargas, both of which are actually being drafted this year in most leagues, thus voiding the "undrafted" portion of my request.The point is that you can't come up with an answer, thus proving my point.
General Malaise
Footballguy
My point certainly is not invalidated.I was asked to point to one example where a healthy back with Henry's on field pedigree was displaced while still on the roster?
And I did that.
If you want to argue semantics over first year vs. rookie year, fine. You and I both know that in Holmes first season of play where he touched the rock he went for 1,000 yards and 7 TDs.
Is that a better first year than Henry? It is.
Next. His 1999 was a lot better than you give him credit for.
That's a pretty dizzying YPC Average, wouldn't you say? Nothing Henry has ever sniffed. Because he was injured mid year doesn't mean he wasn't a good back on the field.He outplayed Henry in both their first years as a RB. And he's a better RB than Henry now. Period.
And yet Jamal Lewis was drafted and brought in to take his job away. It's exactly what is about to happen in Buffalo.
General Malaise
Footballguy
In short, these facts are pretty hard to dispute
riest Holmes is a better running back than Travis Henry.Priest Holmes displayed good pedigree in Baltimore.Jamal Lewis took Priest Holmes job while Holmes was healthy and playing for the Ravens.The Bills drafted McGahee 3 months after Henry put up outstanding numbers.Both Lewis and McGahee had serious ACL injuries in college.Those are the facts.
riest Holmes is a better running back than Travis Henry.Priest Holmes displayed good pedigree in Baltimore.Jamal Lewis took Priest Holmes job while Holmes was healthy and playing for the Ravens.The Bills drafted McGahee 3 months after Henry put up outstanding numbers.Both Lewis and McGahee had serious ACL injuries in college.Those are the facts.
General Malaise
Footballguy
I thought so, but I'm getting "owned".Good stuff GM
shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
Yes, I wrote this:
Not sure what this has anything to do with the chance of a similar thing happening this year, and whether or nor I personally have a good idea of who it will be.Fact of the matter of, stating that anything that happens due to "complete randomness" is assinine, in my opinion.
By the way, I just went to Antsports. Looked at 12 team, HP leagues, TE required, since August 12 (all the defaults). 64 running backs were listed.
64. Josh Scobey RB ARI 16.08.93 13.08 20.11 14
An ADP of 16.08 and you're telling me he's going in "most" leagues right now? Maybe if we're talking about 20 round drafts.
BingoBrown
Footballguy
Keep trying to cover your butt man, it's just not working.The point is that there is plenty of buzz around the backup to Emmitt Smith, whether that be Josh Scobey or Damien Anderson. Neither of them are "off the radar" like Westbrook or Dom Davis were.Is it completely random for a rookie RB to get a starting job due to injuries or ineffectiveness of 4 or 5 other RBs ahead of him on the depth chart? I'd think so. How about a guy who was bagging groceries in northern Iowa winding up leading a team to a Super Bowl victory? Or a sixth round backup QB getting a chance to start due to an injury to the Pro Bowl QB on the roster and taking the team for a Super Bowl victory? I'm sure you're going to tell me that someone drafted Kurt Warner and Tom Brady those years in your league too.
Brant
Footballguy
Oh, so now we're working towards:"Show me one example where a RB from Tenn. was drafted by the Bills, played well for several seasons, but was then replaced by a potentially more talented RB from Miami overcoming a serious knee injury. I bet you can't find one previous example in NFL history."Somebody asked for an example, and I provided one. Whether or not Al Davis had anything to do with it is not relevant. I've showed, that in the past, an NFL team with a very productive RB went out and got another very talented RB, and replaced the former with the latter, primarily because the latter was a freakishly talented and fast athelete.I think the comparison is valid.(edited for spelling and clarity)
Last edited by a moderator:
shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
Not really sure why you think I'd need to "cover my butt".A guy in one of my leagues drafted Davis last year. His reasoning was because he felt he had a good chance to get the job and he was only using a late round pick on him. Davis earned the job last year and earned the right to keep it. IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A RANDOM EVENT. Do you even know what the word "random" means?Here's random. I went to THIS PAGE, closed my eyes, scrolled the page up and down several times, stopped, and put my finger on the screen. I landed on Kyle Johnson.I then did the same process a second time, and landed on Chris Brown.Now, according to your theory of "complete randomness", both of these guys should have the same amount of fantasy football potential this year. Correct? How about we each take one of these guys and put $50 on it? I get to pick first.Keep trying to cover your butt man, it's just not working.The point is that there is plenty of buzz around the backup to Emmitt Smith, whether that be Josh Scobey or Damien Anderson. Neither of them are "off the radar" like Westbrook or Dom Davis were.Is it completely random for a rookie RB to get a starting job due to injuries or ineffectiveness of 4 or 5 other RBs ahead of him on the depth chart? I'd think so. How about a guy who was bagging groceries in northern Iowa winding up leading a team to a Super Bowl victory? Or a sixth round backup QB getting a chance to start due to an injury to the Pro Bowl QB on the roster and taking the team for a Super Bowl victory? I'm sure you're going to tell me that someone drafted Kurt Warner and Tom Brady those years in your league too.
BingoBrown
Footballguy
I'm not saying that it's not a valid example, I'm just stating that there needs to be an asterisk next to it. Bo Jackson was a freakishly good athlete, but Marcus Allen is one of the greatest running backs of all time. Allen would never have lost playing time if it weren't for Al Davis.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
Your example is terrible. 1986: Allen - 208 carriesMcCallum - 142 carries1987:Allen - 200 carriesJackson - 81 carries1988:Allen - 223 carriesJackson - 136 carries1989:Allen - 69 carriesJackson - 173 carriesSmith - 117 carries1990:Allen - 179 carriesJackson - 125 carries1991:Allen - 63 carriesCraig - 162 carries1992:Allen splits time with Dickerson, 33/66.There was a lot of missed games in there due to injury, but Bo had 1 season where he had more carries than Allen.Colin
BingoBrown
Footballguy
You're taking the concept of a "random event" far too literally in this case. I never advocated picking a player completely randomly just for the point you just mentioned. You're just as likely to end up with a Kyle Johnson as you are to end up with a Dom Davis. You want to draft a longshot player with little chance of having any fantasy value and let him eat up a roster spot? Go right ahead. But for every Dom Davis there are dozens of players that don't provide any value for the team that drafted them.And if Dom's production wasn't so random, then why didn't you draft him?
Bob Sacamano
Footballguy
Isn't this pretty much what heppened to Cleveland Gary? He was a stud for the Rams back in the day, finishing in the top 10 in pretty much every rushing category, then some kid named Bettis came along and took his job, despite Gary remaining with the Rams - and being healthy.Edited to add: And I believe Gary was also a 1st-round pick a few seasons earlier.
Last edited by a moderator:
shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
You're fishing, right?For the record, we are on the same side of the McGahee/Henry situation and on this thread title originally being misleading.
But you said, regarding Davis:
And I was just pointing out to you that wasn't true.Nothing that happens in the NFL, when it comes to personnel decisions, is a "completely random event".
I'm off to drink some beers.
Brant
Footballguy
Herschel Walker replacing Tony Dorsett?1985 - Dorsett goes 305 carries for 1307 yards and 7 TDs1986 - Dorsett goes 184 carries for 748 yards and 5 TDs, Walker goes 151 for 737 and 12 TDsThey split carries until 1988 (always favoring Walker), Dorsett's last year with the Cowboys. Walker ran for over 1500 yards rushing and 500 yards receiving in '88
Bob Sacamano
Footballguy
The only problem from a comparability perspective there is that Dorsett was clearly on the downside of his career. He was 31 at the time, while Walker came in as a 24 year old looking forward to the prime of his career. TD was Emmitt, trying to hold on as long as he could
Tau837
Footballguy
The difficult thing about your example is this. You focused on their first years of significant playing time. But that conveniently ignores the fact that in Henry's second and third season, he was far more dominant than Priest was in Baltimore.In short, these facts are pretty hard to dispute
Code:
+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 2001 buf | 13 | 213 729 3.4 4 | 22 179 8.1 0 || 2002 buf | 16 | 325 1438 4.4 13 | 43 309 7.2 1 || 2003 buf | 15 | 331 1356 4.1 10 | 28 158 5.6 1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 44 | 869 3523 4.1 27 | 93 646 6.9 2 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
By the way, I checked at home tonight for where I had these guys ranked last year. I had Westbrook at 55, Davis wasn't on my list.Interestingly, FBG had Westrbrook at 42. I don't think someone drafting him last year would have been a strange occurence.The guy that drafted Davis in my league took him at 15.11. No idea where he got his info.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
OK, big guy. I think you need to get your facts straight. First of all, in Holmes rookie year, he had exactly 0 carries for 0 yards. So I'd say Henry had a slightly better rookie year. In Holmes' SECOND season, he had 1008 yds and 7 TDs. Henry's second season he put up 1438 yds and 13 TDs. In Holmes' third season, he posted 506 yds and 1 TD in 9 games. Henry played 15 games and posted 1356 yds and 10 TDs. There's no comparison here. Don't twist and distort the stats to prove your own point and then gloss over whatever doesn't suit your argument. And definitely don't compound your mistake by telling me to check ESPN NFL before challenging you.... I just got these numbers from there. The ones that invalidate your point.
My point certainly is not invalidated.
I was asked to point to one example where a healthy back with Henry's on field pedigree was displaced while still on the roster?
And I did that.
If you want to argue semantics over first year vs. rookie year, fine. You and I both know that in Holmes first season of play where he touched the rock he went for 1,000 yards and 7 TDs.
Is that a better first year than Henry? It is.
Next. His 1999 was a lot better than you give him credit for.
That's a pretty dizzying YPC Average, wouldn't you say? Nothing Henry has ever sniffed. Because he was injured mid year doesn't mean he wasn't a good back on the field.
He outplayed Henry in both their first years as a RB. And he's a better RB than Henry now. Period.
And yet Jamal Lewis was drafted and brought in to take his job away. It's exactly what is about to happen in Buffalo.
What semantics? You're telling me that the 1500 yds and 8 TDs that Holmes posted in his first three seasons in the league are superior to Henry's 3500 yds and 27 TDs? Come on. You may think Holmes is a better back now, but he never put up numbers in Baltimore like Henry has in Buffalo.. that's all there is to it. YPC over limited carries is not evidence of your point... a lot of backs have put up a good YPC over limited playing time. Secondly, you need to look up the definition of "pedigree." Henry was a high draft pick brought in to be a featured back, Holmes was not even drafted. Before you start yelling about how the round in which a player is drafted is not important, look up "pedigree," and you'll understand what the point is that Woodrow was making initially. Show me a player that was a high draft pick selected to be the #1 back who came in, posted 1,200 yds and 9 TDs per season for his first three years, then was supplanted for reasons not injury-related, then we'll talk. Holmes does NOT fit this profile, I'm sorry.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
Exactly. That's what I was saying as well. Nice job.The difficult thing about your example is this. You focused on their first years of significant playing time. But that conveniently ignores the fact that in Henry's second and third season, he was far more dominant than Priest was in Baltimore.In short, these facts are pretty hard to disputeIn the two seasons prior to Lewis being drafted, Priest totalled 1514 yards. Henry almost doubled that with 2794 in the past two seasons.In the two seasons prior to Lewis being drafted, Priest totalled 9 TDs. Henry more than doubled that with 25 in the past two seasons.Also, Holmes suffered an injury serious enough that he had to miss 8 games the season before Lewis was drafted. In contrast, Henry has built a reputation as a tough RB that can successfully play through pain/injuries.Now, obviously Baltimore misjudged Holmes. Or perhaps it was more that they accurately foresaw Lewis's potential.IMO it is much more likely that Henry will be able to maintain his performance from the past two years, or perhaps even improve upon it, than it is that McGahee ever reaches the level Henry has achieved during the past two seasons.Code:+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 2001 buf | 13 | 213 729 3.4 4 | 22 179 8.1 0 || 2002 buf | 16 | 325 1438 4.4 13 | 43 309 7.2 1 || 2003 buf | 15 | 331 1356 4.1 10 | 28 158 5.6 1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 44 | 869 3523 4.1 27 | 93 646 6.9 2 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Tau837
Footballguy
My point certainly is not invalidated.
I was asked to point to one example where a healthy back with Henry's on field pedigree was displaced while still on the roster?
And I did that.
If you want to argue semantics over first year vs. rookie year, fine. You and I both know that in Holmes first season of play where he touched the rock he went for 1,000 yards and 7 TDs.
Is that a better first year than Henry? It is.
Next. His 1999 was a lot better than you give him credit for.
That's a pretty dizzying YPC Average, wouldn't you say? Nothing Henry has ever sniffed. Because he was injured mid year doesn't mean he wasn't a good back on the field.
He outplayed Henry in both their first years as a RB. And he's a better RB than Henry now. Period.
And yet Jamal Lewis was drafted and brought in to take his job away. It's exactly what is about to happen in Buffalo.
What semantics? You're telling me that the 1500 yds and 8 TDs that Holmes posted in his first three seasons in the league are superior to Henry's 3500 yds and 27 TDs? Come on. You may think Holmes is a better back now, but he never put up numbers in Baltimore like Henry has in Buffalo.. that's all there is to it. YPC over limited carries is not evidence of your point... a lot of backs have put up a good YPC over limited playing time. Secondly, you need to look up the definition of "pedigree." Henry was a high draft pick brought in to be a featured back, Holmes was not even drafted. Before you start yelling about how the round in which a player is drafted is not important, look up "pedigree," and you'll understand what the point is that Woodrow was making initially. Show me a player that was a high draft pick selected to be the #1 back who came in, posted 1,200 yds and 9 TDs per season for his first three years, then was supplanted for reasons not injury-related, then we'll talk. Holmes does NOT fit this profile, I'm sorry.
GM =
again...
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
The thing that drives me nuts is that GM is saying I am dealing in semantics by comparing Holmes' ACTUAL rookie season to Henry's. He'd rather wait until Holmes was named the starter to begin comparing numbers. He'll compare Holmes' second year to Henry's first....why? First off, if Holmes was that good in Baltimore, why didn't he even sniff the field during his rookie year. GM will take his numbers in year 2, after having a full year to practice with the team and learn the offense and then compare those numbers to the ones Henry compiled being thrown right into the fire. I know some will say there's not a steep learning curve at RB, and that the extra year doesn't mean much, but that's crap. Look at what Travis did after having a year to learn the offense. I watched Holmes play dozens of times while he was in Baltimore, on TV and in person, and there were VERY few times I said to myself... "there's an every down back who is going to drive an offense for years to come." Anyone who wouldn't say that about Travis Henry is nuts - and that's the whole crux of the debate.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Evil, stop changing the verbiage of what Woods asked me to do. Okay? Are we really going to argue that Holmes doesn't have any pedigree because he wasn't a top pick in the NFL? Is that really what we're doing now? Holmes doesn't have any pedigree because he wasn't taken in the first round of the NFL draft? Did T. Davis have pedigree? Curtis Martin? Charlie Garner?Things happen to players in college that cut down their chances of being a top pick. You know it and so do I. Holmes was busted up in college and played behind Ricky Williams. But to say he didn't have any pedigree is foolish - he's shown it.Woods asked for an example and I gave him one. You are the one that keeps this ridiculous argument alive by changing the verbiage of his initial challenge. He said "find me an example where a healthy back of Henry's pedigree was replaced" and I did. Period. There's no question that Holmes is a better back than Henry. You aren't going to win that argument. He clipped 1,000 his first year as a feature back. Something Henry didn't do. He was hurt his second year (despite putting up great numbers his final 5 games) and didn't get a chance to duplicate his first year rushing the ball. Then, he was benched.Those are facts. He never had the chance Henry did. He was injured his 3rd year, replaced his 4th. End of story. Just because you didn't see Holmes as having any talent doesn't mean he just found it in KC. Outside of that, I can't think of anything else to fit Woods initial challenge. Which has been conveniently rewritten by you.
General Malaise
Footballguy
and you wonder why you don't do this for a living?
just kidding. okay, you and your buddy win. i lose. i rest my case as the loser here. you own me. happy?
General Malaise
Footballguy
This is dumb. So it's Holmes fault that he was hurt enough to have to sit out? come on...Holmes has proved just as durable over the last few years as Henry. He had a pretty serious knee injury that sidelined him. If Henry had that, I'm sure he'd sit out too. I know you think he's one tough SOB and so do I. But even King Kong would have to sit out with a knee injury.
Maybe KC just saw more in Holmes than Baltimore did. I'm not sure they are upset by their decision to sign him, are you? Wonder if Baltimore saw Lewis potential for dealing coke and blowing ACLs?
Sig bet?
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
#1 - I never said I owned you - re-read the posts. Others said that based on what they read from each of us. I just like a good debate.#2 - The meaning of pedigree seems to be a sticking point. I never said that Henry is a better back than Holmes. The odds are, he'll never post numbers like Holmes is now. When you're discussing pedigree, the connotation is different. In horse racing, the term pedigree is used to describe (among other things) the bloodlines of a horse, which they use to try to gauge future performance. In football, it can be used to describe a players' college career, draft position, and performance up to present. At the time Holmes was replaced in Baltimore, he had not put up the numbers that Henry has thus far, and that is a fact. I will put Henry's numbers his first three years up against Holmes' numbers in seasons 2-4 any day of the week . It's not close, even if you conveniently ignore the fact that Holmes didn't touch the ball his first season and had a full year with the team before stepping into the role of starter in what you call his "rookie year." Henry had a better college career, a higher grade coming into the league, a higher draft position, and he has done more to this point than Holmes did in Baltimore. Which part of this can you possibly argue? The numbers are right there. Maybe Holmes is a better back. Maybe he has proven that since then. It has nothing to do with his "pedigree," or his level of production preceding his being ousted in Baltimore. THAT was the point Wood originally made. Who is re-writing this, me or you? What verbiage did I change? I am making my case based on the initial question he posed... you saying Holmes is a better back is completely beside the original point !#3 - I just wanted to discuss this. Trace back and you'll see that you were the one punctuating your posts with "sigh........................" and your condescending "big guy" notes. You also flat-out called me out by asking me not to challenge you without looking at the stats. If you think I'm going to roll over for that, think again. I looked at the stats, and it doesn't prove your point. Take another look... if you want to tell me that Priest Holmes was a more well-established back in his Baltimore career than Travis Henry has been in Buffalo thus far based on his YPC over 89 carries one year, go for it. I don't know how many people would agree with you.Holmes' BAL career (4 yrs.) - 48 games 2102 yds 10 TDHenry's BUF career (3 yrs) - 44 games 3523 yds 27 TDYet somehow, Holmes was as established as a feature back as Henry is now when the Ravens drafted Jamal Lewis............... 
General Malaise
Footballguy
#1 - I never said I owned you - re-read the posts. Others said that based on what they read from each of us. I just like a good debate.#2 - The meaning of pedigree seems to be a sticking point. I never said that Henry is a better back than Holmes. The odds are, he'll never post numbers like Holmes is now. When you're discussing pedigree, the connotation is different. In horse racing, the term pedigree is used to describe (among other things) the bloodlines of a horse, which they use to try to gauge future performance. In football, it can be used to describe a players' college career, draft position, and performance up to present. At the time Holmes was replaced in Baltimore, he had not put up the numbers that Henry has thus far, and that is a fact. I will put Henry's numbers his first three years up against Holmes' numbers in seasons 2-4 any day of the week . It's not close, even if you conveniently ignore the fact that Holmes didn't touch the ball his first season and had a full year with the team before stepping into the role of starter in what you call his "rookie year." Henry had a better college career, a higher grade coming into the league, a higher draft position, and he has done more to this point than Holmes did in Baltimore. Which part of this can you possibly argue? The numbers are right there. Maybe Holmes is a better back. Maybe he has proven that since then. It has nothing to do with his "pedigree," or his level of production preceding his being ousted in Baltimore. THAT was the point Wood originally made. Who is re-writing this, me or you? What verbiage did I change? I am making my case based on the initial question he posed... you saying Holmes is a better back is completely beside the original point !#3 - I just wanted to discuss this. Trace back and you'll see that you were the one punctuating your posts with "sigh........................" and your condescending "big guy" notes. You also flat-out called me out by asking me not to challenge you without looking at the stats. If you think I'm going to roll over for that, think again. I looked at the stats, and it doesn't prove your point. Take another look... if you want to tell me that Priest Holmes was a more well-established back in his Baltimore career than Travis Henry has been in Buffalo thus far based on his YPC over 89 carries one year, go for it. I don't know how many people would agree with you.Holmes' BAL career (4 yrs.) - 48 games 2102 yds 10 TDHenry's BUF career (3 yrs) - 44 games 3523 yds 27 TDYet somehow, Holmes was as established as a feature back as Henry is now when the Ravens drafted Jamal Lewis...............
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: thanks for that.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
:rotflmao: That was funny. I'll be the first to admit, I would have NEVER seen this coming from Priest. That comment did make me look at this from a different perspective, though. I don't think Holmes would ever have been as effective in Baltimore's offense as Jamal Lewis has been. Conversely, Jamal would not have anywhere near the success Holmes has were he playing for the Chiefs. Lewis fit better what Baltimore wanted to do.. grind out long drives on the ground and let the defense win games. Holmes is a better fit in KC's spread offense based on his speed and agility. Maybe Buffalo is looking to open up the offense going forward; with Losman, Evans, Moulds, etc. on board, maybe they feel McGahee's superior speed and moves are a better fit for the offense they envision. It is this that is the only thing I can think of that might force Henry out. it certainly isn't lack of production.and you wonder why you don't do this for a living?
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
It seemed to need clarification. You had said earlier that in Baltimore, "Holmes displayed good pedigree." By playing well, you can't really DISPLAY good pedigree, either you have one and live up to it, or you don't and overcome it. The latter certainly describes Holmes' career... I can't think of anyone recently who was less heralded coming into the league, yet blew up the way he has.#1 - I never said I owned you - re-read the posts. Others said that based on what they read from each of us. I just like a good debate.#2 - The meaning of pedigree seems to be a sticking point. I never said that Henry is a better back than Holmes. The odds are, he'll never post numbers like Holmes is now. When you're discussing pedigree, the connotation is different. In horse racing, the term pedigree is used to describe (among other things) the bloodlines of a horse, which they use to try to gauge future performance. In football, it can be used to describe a players' college career, draft position, and performance up to present. At the time Holmes was replaced in Baltimore, he had not put up the numbers that Henry has thus far, and that is a fact. I will put Henry's numbers his first three years up against Holmes' numbers in seasons 2-4 any day of the week . It's not close, even if you conveniently ignore the fact that Holmes didn't touch the ball his first season and had a full year with the team before stepping into the role of starter in what you call his "rookie year." Henry had a better college career, a higher grade coming into the league, a higher draft position, and he has done more to this point than Holmes did in Baltimore. Which part of this can you possibly argue? The numbers are right there. Maybe Holmes is a better back. Maybe he has proven that since then. It has nothing to do with his "pedigree," or his level of production preceding his being ousted in Baltimore. THAT was the point Wood originally made. Who is re-writing this, me or you? What verbiage did I change? I am making my case based on the initial question he posed... you saying Holmes is a better back is completely beside the original point !#3 - I just wanted to discuss this. Trace back and you'll see that you were the one punctuating your posts with "sigh........................" and your condescending "big guy" notes. You also flat-out called me out by asking me not to challenge you without looking at the stats. If you think I'm going to roll over for that, think again. I looked at the stats, and it doesn't prove your point. Take another look... if you want to tell me that Priest Holmes was a more well-established back in his Baltimore career than Travis Henry has been in Buffalo thus far based on his YPC over 89 carries one year, go for it. I don't know how many people would agree with you.Holmes' BAL career (4 yrs.) - 48 games 2102 yds 10 TDHenry's BUF career (3 yrs) - 44 games 3523 yds 27 TDYet somehow, Holmes was as established as a feature back as Henry is now when the Ravens drafted Jamal Lewis...............:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: thanks for that.
General Malaise
Footballguy
I know...I don't disagree. I was just lauging at you explaining pedigree to me in horse racing terms.If you study Holmes closely, you'll find a man that dominated at the HS level in Texas, came to UT, got hurt, then found himself playing with Ricky Williams - one of the best college backs ever. Hard to fault Priest for not showing any pedigree on the college gridiron. There are those who saw him in HS who thought he was the next coming of God in shoulder pads.It's been a good debate, I concede defeat. I apologize for being snide. I tried to find the only example I could of what Woods wanted and I thought I did. Outside of this, there isn't much out there. It just seemed like you kept changing the original challenge on me, you know? I still contend that Holmes had a very solid year in Baltimore and wasn't able to duplicate it because of injury the following year. Let's face it, he was a 7th round pick and not many of those get a chance to start their rookie year. His first year with the rock, he showed more to me (IMHO) than did Henry in his first year.Henry never got hurt. Holmes did.
General Malaise
Footballguy
In my heart of hearts, I truly feel McGahee has better pedigree than Henry. I really do.In the anals of college football history, you'll have trouble finding a better one season performance than the one McGahee put up against the schools he faced. It was, in a word, incredible.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
Good enough. Well, when it's all said and done, one thing no-one can argue is that a LOT of teams dropped the ball on Priest Holmes.... the guy is going to go down as one of the all-time greats.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
....this I can't and won't argue. I think McGahee would have been a top-3 pick if not for that injury in the title game. If he comes back 100% of what he was pre-injury, he could end up in the top-10 rushers all-time. If the Bills are looking to keep him long-term and move Henry, I wouldn't play McGahee much this year at all, though. I'd give Travis 90% of the carries - keep Willis intact while continuing to get the confidence in his knee back (and keep miles off of his odometer) and maximize Henry's trade value at the same time.
Tau837
Footballguy
I am just getting back to this thread and see that you conceded defeat to Evil, and I am essentially arguing the same viewpoint he is.Even so, I want to clarify. You seem to think I was saying Henry is better than Holmes as of today. Not at all.What I have been saying is that Henry's performance in his career to date has been more impressive than Holmes' years in Baltimore. Even if you only use Holmes' best year in Baltimore since he was injured the following year, he still had only 1268 total yards and 7 TDs. Compare that to Henry the past two seasons: 1747/14 and 1514/11. Not even close.Thus, Henry's value to the Bills is (or should be, at least) higher right now with McGahee in camp than Holmes' value was to the Ravens in 2000 with Lewis in camp. Consequently, the fact that Lewis beat out Holmes doesn't really bear on whether or not McGahee will beat out Henry.
Obviously KC is happy. I haven't addressed this, and I'm not sure how it bears on the subject of our debate. We are talking about Baltimore Holmes, not KC Holmes.
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but if there is a parallel it favors the Bills sticking with Henry, not McGahee. Which is what I have thought they should do all along.
Perhaps I wasn't fully clear. Consider two scenarios:1. Buffalo sticks with Henry as a feature back.2. Buffalo doesn't stick with Henry as a feature back, which leads to McGahee being the feature back, whether this year or in the future.What I meant was that I think if Buffalo stuck with scenario 1, it is much more likely Henry would repeat his recent Pro Bowl caliber performance than it is that McGahee will ever put up such a performance in scenario 2.Only one of those things can happen, not both. So there is no way to bet on it.Sig bet?
ProudestMonkey
Footballguy
Wow, I had been ignoring this thread up until now and I wish I hadn't changed my mind. This thread has some seriously harsh karma and I can't believe I'm going to let myself get pulled in but...Here's my take:The general discussion we should be having here is more around what the RB situation will look like in BUF this year and less about has this or that happened in the past. Historical data is always nice to use in a comparison, but ultimately each situation is unique. Given that McGahee still isn't 100%, I think it's safe to say that Henry will be the man for the early part of the season and after BUF's bye week (3), McGahee will start to factor into the offense more and more. I would say that prior to the bye week McGahee will see 3-5 carries/game. I think that BUF will be 0-2 going into the bye (just my personal prediction, nothing to get too hung up about) - JAX is going to be a lot tougher this year and I don't think that this BUF team can in OAK. Coming out of the bye week, BUF plays NE, @NYJ, MIA. I think these three intra-division games will determine the fate of the RB battle in BUF this year. I think that BUF will ride Henry hard in these games, but if they start to get blown out in any of them, McGahee will see some decent carries (5-10/game). After BUF gets done playing their division, they go to BAL. I just don't see BUF throwing McGahee to the wolves there and starting him in this game - it's too much risk to start him for the first time against this D. If he were to start and get shutdown, then the masses would jump down their throats for benching Henry.So...I see week 8 @ ARI as the first opportunity for McGahee to start a game. If BUF is 2-4 or worse I could see McGahee being given the opportunity to help turn things around. 3-3 or better and Henry is the man with McGahee getting the mop up duty to the tune of 5-10 carries/game. If McGahee doesn't grab the starting job in week 8, the next opportunity I see is in week 14. CLE comes into town to play BUF that week and BUF has already played the teams in their division 2x. They should have a good idea by this point of how their playoff chances look (my prediction = nil). If this is the case McGahee would face CLE, @CIN, @SF, and PIT to round out the season. He could easily do a lot of damage against those teams (SOS is better than average) and create enough momentum for BUF to ship Henry to another team for next year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
Good analysis. I can see things shaping up pretty close to the way you laid it out.Don't worry about the harsh karma - GM and I had a heated debate, but nothing more than two guys who believed in the point they were making and knew enough to back it up. All is well, he's a stand-up guy...........
General Malaise
Footballguy
as are you, sir.
Evilgrin72
Footballguy
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
joffer
Footballguy
from Pastabelly on ESPNThe ol' "Tip Sheet" was on hiatus during our training camp trek but, while the whole Buffalo Bills tailback story is old news, we can't help take a look back at a situation that was (and remains) much ado about absolutely nothing. Why Travis Henry had to spout off about the possibility of losing his starting job to Willis McGahee is insane. Unless Henry is still rehabbing from the rib injury he suffered last week (which came after his public rant about wanting to be traded if he dropped to No. 2 on the depth chart), he is going to be the Bills' starter for 2004. The guy ought to listen to top Buffalo officials, who admire his toughness and productivity, instead of being so insecure as to create ghosts where there really are none. The Bills honestly feel that McGahee still isn't 100 percent recovered from his catastrophic knee surgery, and won't be until sometime around October. Henry is their guy and McGahee, who is still misreading some holes, will get "touches" as the backup. But once Henry went public with his conjured-up hysterics, the McGahee camp felt compelled to answer back. The so-called "source close to McGahee," who hinted that the former Miami star had requested a trade if not the opening day starter was, of course, agent Drew Rosenhaus. Unlike a lot of league people, we love Rosenhaus, and not just because he has always shot straight with us. Nope, the guy does his job, and sees part of that job as getting McGahee into the most advantageous position possible. Think part of the rationale in airing the McGahee trade story wasn't aimed at maybe trying to get the former University of Miami star dealt to the tailback-needy Dolphins? So we've got no quibble with the McGahee camp, other than the fact there really has been no demand for a trade. McGahee's day will come. Probably by 2005. If he demonstrates to the Bills that he is whole again, one of the two backs will be trade bait for next season, as general manager Tom Donahoe tries to recoup a high-round pick to compensate for the No. 1 choice in '05 that he spent this year to get quarterback J.P. Losman. But as for immediate impact, all the rhetoric did was spawn senseless stories for some media outlets desperate for a story.
Northern Voice
Footballguy
Just thinking out loud here but does the Bills draft strategy add up all that well?2003: Use 1st round pick on a player that will make no impact in 2003, possible impact in 2004, major impact (but not neccesarily on your team due to the prescence of Travis Henry) in 2005.2004: Use 1st round pick and the next year (2005)'s first round pick to draft the QB of the future (J. P. Losman).2005: Try to use the 2003 first round pick (or Travis Henry) to recoup the 2005 pick used to draft Losman.Haven't they basically deferred their 2003 pick to 2005?
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
