This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Henry left game 3 after the first quarter with an injury and missed game 4. Excluding those two games, Henry had 326/370 = 88% of the RB carries last season.So to project him at 75% of the carries is a significant reduction in the team's percentage of RB carries.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggest here that both Henry and McGahee will be top 20 backs. I have seen some suggest Henry will be top 20 and McGahee will still have good value.That said:Alstott and Dunn finished 18/19 in 1998, 15/21 in 1999, and 18/23 in 2001.Garner and Wheatley finished 9/21 in 2000.There may be other cases I didn't find in my quick search.
OK. Start naming the RBs that came back and looked like their old selves in their first year back.Some of the same schmucks who are saying "McGahee is god" with his knee injury, are saying Edgy toast and will never be the same with his.The facts are that McGahee hasn't made it through a football season without a knee injury since he was a junior in high school. But to each his own.And Rudinicki is exactly right about Henry last year. He was a man among boys and was the heart and soul of that team. You just don't slide a guy like that to the bench - in his prime - without pissing off a lot of team mates. He would have to totally suck to lose this job or more than 1/3 of Buffalo's 450 to 500 carry pie. It could happen, I suppose. Anything can happen. Hell, Emmitt could be annointed the starter by Denny Green.But what is the more likely risk scenario in Buffalo: Henry flat out sucking and losing 40% of his carries or McGahee suffering another knee problem as he has for every year since he was a junior in high school? And coming off the worst of them all?Cheers!
ickles: ickles: ickles:
### having allies in this fight against ridiculousness.
I'm glad to know there are still some rational people around these boards.
jurb26 wrote:
OK. Start naming the RBs that came back and looked like their old selves in their first year back.Some of the same schmucks who are saying "McGahee is god" with his knee injury, are saying Edgy toast and will never be the same with his.The facts are that McGahee hasn't made it through a football season without a knee injury since he was a junior in high school. But to each his own.And Rudinicki is exactly right about Henry last year. He was a man among boys and was the heart and soul of that team. You just don't slide a guy like that to the bench - in his prime - without pissing off a lot of team mates. He would have to totally suck to lose this job or more than 1/3 of Buffalo's 450 to 500 carry pie. It could happen, I suppose. Anything can happen. Hell, Emmitt could be annointed the starter by Denny Green.But what is the more likely risk scenario in Buffalo: Henry flat out sucking and losing 40% of his carries or McGahee suffering another knee problem as he has for every year since he was a junior in high school? And coming off the worst of them all?Cheers!
igskinp:You know, if McGahee had been a horse and suffered that kind of injury he would have been put to freakin' sleep!!
But why let the facts - including his own OC pegging Henry as the Bills 2004 offensive breakout player two weeks ago - get in the way of the cousin lovin'??Cheers! ickles: ickles: ickles:
I didn't make this statement as the reason for McGahee getting playing time. I used it in regards to your comments about T. Henry being "All-World." My point was teams don't draft a guy with a torn ACL in the 1st round, unless they see something in him that they don't currently have in the veteran. C'mon dude, this guy had a friggin' torn ACL!!!
By the number of yards they expect McGahee to get, if the report is accurate, I see them using him extensively. Once again, the Bills see Player A's production decreasing, while Player B's production increase. They don't have to tell me anything else, that's enough for me.
nowhere in this thread or elsewhere will you ever hear me describe Henry as an "all world" RB. I recognize his limitations, but I also am more willing to recognize his strengths than a lot of people around here.McGahee pre-injury looked like a can't miss prospect, and I'm happy to see positive reports coming out regarding his progress. But, nobody knows how the knee will hold up or how he'll do once bullets start flying for real. Smart money in this instance says that Henry remains the feature back with McGahee becoming a bigger part of the offense as the season progresses.I really think it's as simple as that. For someone to claim that Henry is the riskiest pick in the 2nd round, they must also believe that McGahee would represent good value starting around round 5 or so. However, I've consistently been able to snag McGahee around the 10th round. Where is all the risk?You have a RB that has finished #8 and #11 among all RBs the past 2 seasons, despite inconsistent play from the offensive line and horrendous play calling. The team has made drastic changes that should lead to an increase in rushing attempts, yards per carry, and TDs. That RB is still the starter and the coaching staff has been consistently praising him for his running style and referring to him as a guy the offense will rely heavily on. Just b/c the GM spent a 1st round pick on another young RB doesn't mean that guy is going to come in and automatically displace a proven veteran starter who carried the offense last season while playing on a broken leg for a fraction of what most starting RBs make in the leauge.The GM picks players...he doesn't set the starting lineup. Where McGahee was drafted has very little to do with how much playing time he's going to get. If the question is a 100% healthy McGahee vs a 100% Henry, who would you expect to play, then I'd say McGahee has a better than 50% chance of winning the job eventually. McGahee has a much higher ceiling than Henry, there is no doubt about that being the reason why they spent a 1st round pick on him. But, McGahee is not likely to be 100% early on this year, and Henry is not going to go down without a fight.Also, when did the Bills "tell you" what they expect to happen? I've yet to see anything from the Bills that would suggest Travis Henry's production will decrease.Aaron Rudnicki wrote:
I didn't make this statement as the reason for McGahee getting playing time. I used it in regards to your comments about T. Henry being "All-World." My point was teams don't draft a guy with a torn ACL in the 1st round, unless they see something in him that they don't currently have in the veteran. C'mon dude, this guy had a friggin' torn ACL!!!
Fastest player in Hurricane history, I think, which is really saying something.
Well you are taking my statement out of context. I clearly said earlier that the INJURY is my main and really only concern regarding McG. On top of that, I think you countered your own arguement in the post. If McG has had a history of this knee injury sinse junior high, yet still just 2 years ago was able to perform at the highest level ever in his life. Then why assume that he will not perform and recover just as well this time as well? Plus, you are forgeting that while this will technically be his 1st year back, it has been/will be 20 monthes sinse the date of this injury for an injury that normally takes approx 24 monthes to recover from. Reading your very own statements, given McG's history of dealing with this type of thin, I don't see it out of the question that he can recover earlier than the normal curve. The bottom line is that when heathy McG is more than likely the better RB of the 2. If you don't think he is, or can stay healthy, then so be it. Of course I have no real NFL data to verify this, but then agian there is none to disprove it either. Just MO vs. your or anyone elses of the tallent levels of the 2 backs. judging by the roomers flying around, I don't think I am alone though. And I think that people on the Buf coaching staff would agree with my assumption. All I know is that labeling guys as injury prone is a very risky venture in FF. Simply look at FT or Holmes for that matter. To just assume that McG will continue to have this type of prob could prove to be a very large mistake IMO. I'm not saying that people need to sell of the farm for this guy. Just that come this time next year his status will be on the exteme end of the specturm one way or the other. He will either be a stud in the making or a waste of a #1 pick. I don't see any gray area possible at this point. I choose to believe that stud is more likely, you don't. We will both have to wait and see.jurb26 wrote:
OK. Start naming the RBs that came back and looked like their old selves in their first year back.Some of the same schmucks who are saying "McGahee is god" with his knee injury, are saying Edgy toast and will never be the same with his.The facts are that McGahee hasn't made it through a football season without a knee injury since he was a junior in high school. But to each his own.And Rudinicki is exactly right about Henry last year. He was a man among boys and was the heart and soul of that team. You just don't slide a guy like that to the bench - in his prime - without pissing off a lot of team mates. He would have to totally suck to lose this job or more than 1/3 of Buffalo's 450 to 500 carry pie. It could happen, I suppose. Anything can happen. Hell, Emmitt could be annointed the starter by Denny Green.But what is the more likely risk scenario in Buffalo: Henry flat out sucking and losing 40% of his carries or McGahee suffering another knee problem as he has for every year since he was a junior in high school? And coming off the worst of them all?Cheers!
The games they'll be favored or dogs in will have little impact on the Bills team rushing attempts, since the only potential blowout on this schedule is @ Seattle. The Rams aren't the same team and suck on the road.The fact is their defense - aided by their renewed committment to the running game - will keep the scores in the 24-21 / 20-17 area. A range that should allow them to stick to their game plan (running the rock).And if they won't stick to their game plan when trailing by less their a touchdown, they're Kevin Gilbride redux anyway. BTW, why don't the McGahee honks want to acknowledge that he might actually get hurt (again)? It's been his career history. Even a minor setback, normal for this type of injury, would make 300 carries for Henry seems fairly certain. At least to me anyway.Cheers!
ickles: ickles: ickles:
This has probably been lost in the shuffle.I strongly recommend a McGahee handcuff to Henry, if you are able to add McGahee as your 4th RB, for decent value, sometime around round 9/10/11 or so (12-team). You may not get him that cheaply, though.If you DO get him, the reason I strongly recommend that handcuff is that I could see Henry fumbling or injuring his way to the bench by around game 10 or so, and the Bills will still be a running team.I could also see what you describe - the Bills being eliminated anbd wanting to see McG run more near the end of the year. If you had been relying on Henry and your FF playoffs roll around and they suddenly make an NFL decision to play McG in the starter role "just to seehow he does" - you want him on your bench behind Henry.What I do NOT see is a 100% healthy and effective Henry losing very many carries to McGahee while the team is still in contention for the post-season. You might stick McG on your bench and never use him, or he might emereg as a nice gem if something happens to Henry. Either way, that's what your RB4 is there for.
Henry's ADP is the 17th RB off the board at 2.09 - ahead of Barber, Bennett and Westbrook.If you would really prefer one of the with later ADPs over Henry - fine. If you pick Henry early in the 2nd, you are overpaying. If you get Henry mid-2nd or later, you are getting him for the exact value you should expect - 12-1300 rushing and 10 TDs, with not much more to add, but not much more downside risk than the backs behind him.
igskinp
nly adjustment I'd make is:
Rushing, yeah, but if Bledsoe throws as much as you think he will, give McG 50+ catches for 4-500 yards and a TD or two thrown in - I project McG right now with 128 carries, 615 rush yards; 3 TDs; 56 recepctions; 436 yards; 3 TDs -that's about 1G/6 of offense from McG - and plenty of opp. to see what they've got in him - without touching my projection for Henry of 1200/10.Of course, my 1200/10 may be a bit illusory - one of the problems with EOY projections is they don't encompass little things like McG and Henry maybe splitting 50-50 during weeks 14-17 (ie - your FF playoffs). That situation could kill your FF team, but wouldn't severely impact my EOY projections.
*ahem* Bills had the #2 ranked defense last year in terms of yards allowed despite having the 30th ranked offense and finishing near the bottom of the league in takeaways.it's a minor correction, but I'd say their defense is quite a bit better than "mediocre". with a more consistent offense this year, they have a chance to be even better.
Harvey Williams (Oakland Raiders 1994-1998) was replaced by Napoleon Kaufman.Hasn't happened in a while, but it still happened. I'm pretty sure there's more examples if you search deeper.
If I can get my hand on Travis in the 2nd, I'll grab him without any hessitation. Travis Henry 2004 reminds me of Ahman Green 2003. Both were coming from a disapointing season relative to what were expected from them a year before. In Ahman's case, he predicted a career year in 2002 but did not deliver; Henry predicted a career year last year but did not deliver.
I stand corrected. Guess I was remembering only the last 3 games (28,20 and 31pts allowed.) A better run game would give the Bills a much better chance of keeping games close avoiding blow-outs like those last 3 games and games like the blowouts handed them by the Jets and the Chiefs.
Close, but I still think this is different, unless those downgrading Henry are doing so because they are predicting an injury.Williams was 9th in 1994 and 10th in 1995. In 1996, Williams only played 13 games. He averaged ~14 carries in the first 3 games, then had 9 carries in game 4 (injured in this game?), then missed 3 straight games. He only averaged 8 carries per game the rest of the season after he returned.In those first three games, Kaufman had 21 carries, which put him on pace for 112. He had 108 the previous season, so his role was unchanged through the first 3 games.Williams ended up with 121 carries in 13 games, while Kaufman had 150 in 16 games. There is no evidence that this increased role for Kaufman was due to merit as opposed to Williams' injuries. The prior season, Williams had 255 carries and Kaufman had 108, so Williams had already been successful with Kaufman getting a significant number of carries. This makes me think the problem had more to do with injuries to Williams. However, I admit that I really don't know.The bottom line is that one of the challenge criteria is
I don't think this one qualifies.
Priest Holmes, Top 11 in 1998, lost his job midway through the next year, was out of town that offseason.Colin
Nope.
I'm not going to dispute your stats, but its worth mentioning that NFL personel people and coaches don't look at Pro-Football-Reference for their decisions. If McGahee adds something to the offense that Henry doesn't, he will see the field. If, in that time on the field, he plays well, he'll earn more playing time. If, in that playing time, he outperforms Henry, he'll take over the job. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. But to think that this is a black and white issue is foolish and its going to lead to some problems for some owners this year. There WILL be a game or two (maybe more) where the Bills leave McGahee in for extended periods of time because they're winning and want to get him some carries. There WILL be a game or two where the Bills leave McGahee in for extended periods of time because the team is behind and wants to take advantage of his pass-catching abilities out of the backfield. There will also be a game or two where they go to a no-huddle and leave Henry in. Etc. etc. etc.
Mostly b/c of the team's O probs and two games missed due to injury. Had he played the full 16 instead of only 14, and had he lived up to the receiving game numbers he was supposed to (his rec. numbers declined last year despite losing Centers), he would have finished as a top-8 or higher RB.
Good points all - except for one thing - noone is saying Henry is a RB1 or top-RB2.But, people ARE arguing he is a good value pick at RB17 with an ADP of 2.09 and a potential 1200/10 EOY number. Others are arguing (blanketly, I might add) that Henry carries too much risk to be taken there purely b/c McGahee is on the team.Not a single individual in this thread has stated Henry should be considered a viable RB1 or top RB2. IMO, the folks in the second camp are making baseless assertions with no reasoning greater than "McG is more talented and he was a first round pick"I DO disagree with a couple things - 1) team is behind and wants to pass more so McG is in there - if they are WAY behind, yeah, if they are within 10, strongly disagree AND 2) team is winning and wants to get McG more carries. With Henry's numbers, they want him in there for the tough downs and they want him in there at the end of games getting stronger. These two situations are not any more likely to see McG being used extensively, IMO. No huddle - maybe, but Aaron can tell you when the last time this team used that offense.
Centers had 43 receptions for the team in 2002, and Henry had 43. All of Centers'receptions VANISHED. Henry's receiving numbers actually regressed to 22 catches. You really need to think harder sometimes before posting. SOMEone was supposed to pick up Drew's receiving numbers out of the backfield - that someone was supposed to be Henry. I predicted somewhere near 60 catches for Henry in 2003, the FBGuy staff predicted somewhere upwards of 45/50. Instead, he ended up with 22.I appreciate you asking me to justify my reasoning, though - I enjoy doing it when I get a silly question like this.
Re-read my posts if you feel like attacking me on my stance on Henry - I'm an ally to you in this thread, not an enemy.ahemHenry should be considered a viable RB1 or top RB2.But go ahead and keep talking him down with all the RBBC stuff folks - I'd be very happy to snag him in the 2d, maybe even late first. I do not fear McG. nearly as much as most, apparently.
I don't disagree with the preseason 2003 projections of an increase in Henry's reception totals. As you pointed out, the loss of Centers had everyone (including myself) projecting Henry to catch more balls.I disagree with you using 2003 preseason projections that were not reached during the 2003 season to support a position for 2004 projections. Pointing out that Henry's catches actually declined after the loss of Centers is an indictment of Henry's use in the passing game, not evidence that Henry should have finished higher in the RB rankings.Not sure why you don't see the fallacy of your logic. Should we revisit all 2003 preseason projections and re-rank RBs according to where they would have been ranked had they met expectations?
Why don't the Henry honks want to acknowledge that Henry could dislocate and fracture his hip and never play football again? Thus making McGahee the top RB in Buffalo?There is ZERO correlation between past and future injuries. ZERO.Anyhow... I believe McGahee is the best college RB since Marshall Faulk (and I hate the Hurricanes). How quick we all forget just how blazing fast, big and strong McGahee is. His injury will hold him back... but only for awhile. At best, Henry is a decent #2 RB this season and I certainly would not want to have to count on him late in the season during the FF playoffs.
???We were TALKING about his 2003 numbers - I stated that he would have been a solid top-8 RB in 2003 HAD HE: 1) not missed two games; 2) lived up to his receiving hype.As for 2004, I would be surprised if Henry got even the 20-ish catches he got in 2003. I expect 1200 rushing, 10 total TDs and not much from the receiving game.I responded to YOUR statement here:
He was SUPPOSED TO have 50+ catches in 2003, not 22. There's a nice couple of hundred yards and 20+ more FF points for Henry that went unfulfilled by his failure to meet receiving expectations.
Yeah, but there is a TON of correlation between past and continuing injuries - McG hasn't played since injuring himself, and he is, by all accounts, still recovering from the injury. I don't think many are saying "what if McG gets injured again," but many are saying "what if McG isn't fully healed yet."Also, the big difference when you mention Henry getting injured is that, at least if last year is any indication, Henry plays at a very high level even with an injury.
Tell it to Chris Chandler...Ao, how is it players get tagged as "injury prone"? Just a vast media conspiracy? Gimme a break!The facts are McGahee hasn't been unijured since his junior year in high school. And WAY too many people are projecting stats for Willie (5.0+ YPC??) as if nothing ever happened.Hey, Marc Levin... There's another survey for you to make: What is the average YPC difference, up or down, for players in their first year back from an ACL injury, compared to the year previous.Obviously, it couldn't apply to a college boy like Supermcgahee. But it would establish a black and white track record for these fools to, no doubt, try to explain away. RBs who came back as if nothing happened are likely as rare as four leaf clovers.Cheers!
ickles: ickles: ickles:
Wow, your reaching with that comparison. Chandler had problems with concusions which have a very tangible habit of repeating themsleves. Much more so than McG's knee probs. Even still you have avoided the fact that McG has been able to recover perfectly fine several times already from knee injuries. Why I must ask you agian, is this time so much different in your eyes. People are not anointing McG as the new starter, just that he has a very realistic chance to dip into the production of Henry. If he heals well and proves to be the player he was in college than why is this such an outlandish thought?heyshady wrote:
Tell it to Chris Chandler...Ao, how is it players get tagged as "injury prone"? Just a vast media conspiracy? Gimme a break!The facts are McGahee hasn't been unijured since his junior year in high school. And WAY too many people are projecting stats for Willie (5.0+ YPC??) as if nothing ever happened.Hey, Marc Levin... There's another survey for you to make: What is the average YPC difference, up or down, for players in their first year back from an ACL injury, compared to the year previous.Obviously, it couldn't apply to a college boy like Supermcgahee. But it would establish a black and white track record for these fools to, no doubt, try to explain away. RBs who came back as if nothing happened are likely as rare as four leaf clovers.Cheers!
Hehe - it's not. If that's the way others in this thread presented it, we'd have a mellow discussion. This got heated by a couple of opinions that: 1) have McG eating into Henry's production as a foregone conclusion; 2) see Henry as a "huge" risk because of that assumption.I see McGahee's presence significantly eating into Henry's production - my projections have him with minimal receiving numbers - and one less TD than last year, even though he is expected to play all 16 games, due to no receiving TDs.I ALSO see a risk in him losing carries late in the year, and I see a selection of Henry as requiring a selection of McGahee as a handcuff. So, IMO, I have already accounted for McGahee actively impacting Henry's numbers. If McGahee tore his leg off tomorrow and was unavailable for 2004, I would elevate Henry to a first round prospect - as it stands, I think he begins accumulating value in the draft after the first 14 RBs are selected, and has real nice value at his current ADP of RB17 and 2.09
