What's new
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.

T. Henry (1 Viewer)

:thumbup: Am I taking crazy pills or every single year are there not a least a couple teams in the league that simply cant run the ball? The Bears, The Lions, The Cardinals, The Steelers. How'd those teams make out last year?
Yes, bad teams in this league tend to be bad at everything it seems--running, throwing, defending, etc. I will not deny that a good running game is very very helpful to winning a championship. While I disagree with your assertion that NE is a good running team (or has the ability to run well, or however you define it), I do think that they are an anomaly.At bottom, though, I don't think that trading Henry and the #13 pick for, say, Robert Gallery is a downgrade to the running game. I think it's a substantial upgrade, and it benefits the passing game too. You are risk-averse in this regard, which is fine; I am not.
 
You have officially lost me. Chicago had more rush yards then New England and more Rush TDs.....
So you are of the opinion that CHicago had a superior running game than New ENgland did? I disagree. New ENgland could run for a first down when the needed to. They could rush in a TD at a critical time. They could eat the clock. Antoine Smith may not be LT2 but he has a talant for ripping off a backbreaking run the minute the defense stops respecting him. Kevin Faulk is a serious threat out of the backfield, but can pick up first down on the ground as well. Chicago was terrible at all of those critical things. Statistics dont tell the whole story.Would you consider New ENgland a one dimensional offense? And is it really a contraversial stance to say that running the football effectively is a key to the game of football? Even if I ceded the NE point (which I wont) is that the exception or the rule?
 
Is this the place where we come to discuss the New England running game? If so, the title of this thread is misleading. ;)

 
So you are of the opinion that CHicago had a superior running game than New ENgland did? I disagree. New ENgland could run for a first down when the needed to. They could rush in a TD at a critical time. They could eat the clock. Antoine Smith may not be LT2 but he has a talant for ripping off a backbreaking run the minute the defense stops respecting him. Kevin Faulk is a serious threat out of the backfield, but can pick up first down on the ground as well. Chicago was terrible at all of those critical things. Statistics dont tell the whole story.Would you consider New ENgland a one dimensional offense? And is it really a contraversial stance to say that running the football effectively is a key to the game of football? Even if I ceded the NE point (which I wont) is that the exception or the rule?
We cannot have a discussion if everytime I refute your point, you offer subjective analysis to try and qualify it. It is a FACT that Chicago had more rush yards and rush TDs then New England. What part of that allows the New England running game to be "Better?" You cannot just say, "well, New England could rush it in in a pinch" without offering evidence to back that up. Neither team was particularly good at running the ball, but it is a statistical fact that Chicago was better. They had more yards per carry, more yards per game, and more rush TDs. Edit: I'm seriously not trying to be rude, really. I think both teams were marginal at best on the ground. Truthfully, we've gotten way off topic, but I'm trying to understand your logic so I can learn from it. Colin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not going to happen. It's not even worth discussing, IMO.
Not going to happen this year, next year, or ever? I see it happening before the start of the 2005 season so I see it being worth discussing. Besides, what eles is there to talk about today? You can only say so much about McAllister losing weight or Sunday Ticket raising their price to $199. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not going to happen this year, next year, or ever? I see it happening before the start of the 2005 season so I see it being worth discussing. Besides, what eles is there to talk about today? You can only say so much about McAllister losing weight or Sunday Ticket raising their price to $199. ;)
To quantify: I think there is a better than 50% chance that Henry is shopped next offseason, but I think there is a less than 5% chance that he is moved this offseason.
 
"It is a FACT that Chicago had more rush yards and rush TDs then New England. "So little things like 'attempts' dont mean anything to you. Whoever has the most rushing yards at the end of the day has the better rushing game? That is absurd. You could rush for 3 times a series for 3 yards a carry 20 times a game and get wiped out. Or once per series on third and 2, for 2 yards a carry and kick ###. Context is _everything_.For instance, NE tail backs rushed for 71 first downs. Chicago rushed to 61. Assuming the BEars had as many or more rushing attempts that tells you a heck of a lot more about who had the more effective running game.

 
:suckedintothreadhijack:The Bears ran the freaking option with Kordell Stewart for the first half of the season. That would lead to an inflated number of rushing yards, but surely doesn't suggest that their running game was anything above putrid. Neither team could run the ball...but I do agree, that it did seem New England was a little more effective at doing it when they needed to, mainly because of their passing game. The Bears had NO passing game, so their only real option was to run the ball, kill clock, and hope like heck their defense could save them at some point.edit to add: I also think the Bears played a much weaker SOS against the run. Teams like the Vikings, Lions, and Packers probably had some of the worst run defenses in the league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those that say it won't happen, you just never know.Deuce McAlister was drafted by the Saints coming off an injury. Everyone was sure he would not take Ricky Williams job, and that first year I don't think Deuce did anything. Now it is a few years later, Deuce is the starting RB for the Saints, and Williams is now in Florida. So it can happen. I personally do not see it happening this year, but I do not think Henry and McGahee will be RBBC next year (2005). I think one will be traded. I think Buffalo is still waiting to see which one will be the better back for them, and since McGahee has not had his chance yet, and Henry is not costing a fortune, I think they can wait one more year.As for all of the Pats talk and there running game. The Pats did not have a superior running game to anyone, but were able to keep attempting it to keep the defense honest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for all of the Pats talk and there running game. The Pats did not have a superior running game to anyone, but were able to keep attempting it to keep the defense honest.
Ok, im gonna attempt to circle this back to the thread at hand at long last. :) The above is exactly right. The Pats had an 'effective' running game in that it did what they needed it to do for their offense to succeed. It had to be respected. My point in Buffalo is that without Henry or a legit FA pickup, McGahee is a very dangerous option. If he is not effective, or gets hurt again, Buffalo could easily find themselves with no running game to speak of (IE, a running game that cannot do what they need it to do). That would be disasterous for the Buffalo offense, which is even more predicated on keeping defenses honest than New England is. I guess thats my argument, does your rushing game do what you need it to. New Englands demonstrably does. Without Henry and without McGahee playing at least as well as Henry, I suggest the answer to Buffalo would be NO, which woudl have nasty consequences.
 
This has completely gotten out of hand. There is no evidence, NONE, that suggests the Patriots had a better running game then the Bears. Both were terrible. The Bears were slightly less terrible. I initially responded to the assertion that the Patriots could run when they needed to, but the Bears could not, which simply is not true. Colin

 
I don't think Henry will be traded this year, but one thing that keeps me from totally blocking it away is his value now. McGahee is unproven in the NFL at this point. Henry is coming off two 1300+ yards seasons. If McGahee does real well in 2004 and proves to be a great back and can be the #1 w/o a solid back-up couldn't that decrease Henry's value? His value to the Bills will go down and other teams may not be willing to offer as much then. I see trading Henry now being a higher risk higher reward, I guess it all depends on how much Buffalo is willing to gamble.

 
Buffalo should try to trade him. I don't think there is anything special about Henry. He put up stats because he had opportunities to do so.
Did Lewis gain 2000 yards w/o opportunities or did Priest score 27 tds w/o opportunities? I don't understand this comment. I'm not saying Henry is a top 5 rb, but he is a pro bowler who has been productive 2 years in a row. He also played with injuries last year that proved his toughness and played when a lot of players would have been sidelined or at the very least ineffective. A team in need of a rb could do worse than trading for Henry. He is a proven commodity at a very good value contract wise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I initially responded to the assertion that the Patriots could run when they needed to, but the Bears could not, which simply is not true
I have no clue how you can say that without specifics stats about rushing on third and short or on the goalline.The proof that New England had an adquate running game is the superbowl rings their team is wearing.
 
I have no clue how you can say that without specifics stats about rushing on third and short or on the goalline.The proof that New England had an adquate running game is the superbowl rings their team is wearing.
They had the 27th rated rushing offense in the league. You can spin it however you want, if they were "adequate", then so were 26 other teams....COlin
 
Did Lewis gain 2000 yards w/o opportunities or did Priest score 27 tds w/o opportunities? I don't understand this comment. I'm not saying Henry is a top 5 rb, but he is a pro bowler who has been productive 2 years in a row. He also played with injuries last year that proved his toughness and played when a lot of players would have been sidelined or at the very least ineffective. A team in need of a rb could do worse than trading for Henry. He is a proven commodity at a very good value contract wise.
I'll tell you why you don't understand it because the original comment is dumb. Is/was Emmitt Smith the most talented back... no. THenry is a miny tank who isn't stoped especially near the goal line. I could honestly see him getting a career high in TDs this year. Oh and BTW THenry has put up big numbers without opporutnity as he has been on a team that passes 66% of the time.
 
For those that say it won't happen, you just never know.Deuce McAlister was drafted by the Saints coming off an injury.  Everyone was sure he would not take Ricky Williams job, and that first year I don't think Deuce did anything.  Now it is a few years later, Deuce is the starting RB for the Saints, and Williams is now in Florida.  So it can happen.  I personally do not see it happening this year, but I do not think Henry and McGahee will be RBBC next year (2005).  I think one will be traded.  I think Buffalo is still waiting to see which one will be the better back for them, and since McGahee has not had his chance yet, and Henry is not costing a fortune, I think they can wait one more year.As for all of the Pats talk and there running game.  The Pats did not have a superior running game to anyone, but were able to keep attempting it to keep the defense honest.
this is the most common analogy made, but I think there are many differences between the two situations that make it problematic to compare the two.#1 Deuce had some minor injuries and was thought to not be very durable coming out of college. McGahee had his knee torn to shreds in a bowl game, and some teams probably took him off their boards thinking that he'll never fully recover. There is a pretty big difference in the risk associated with each player, IMO.#2 Deuce was fully healthy and on the active roster with Ricky for a full season before they made a move. He didn't get a lot of carries, but he contributed on special teams and had a full year of practice to show the team what he was capable of. McGahee was on the PUP list for the first half of the season, and then was inactive the rest of the way. He practiced with the team a little but was less than 1 year post surgery and probably didn't get a chance to show very much.#3 Ricky Williams was a mess and a huge distraction. The team had traded away a king's ransom to get him and the weight of the franchise was on his shoulders. He had social anxiety disorder, acted strange and gave interviews with his helmet on. Travis Henry has lacked judgment in some of the things he's done, but he works hard and does everything he is asked to do, including playing while injured. The need to get rid of Henry for the good of the team is nowhere near as great as it was in New Orleans.#4 Ricky Williams was one of the best college running backs of all time, and the Saints were able to get 2 first round picks for him. I don't think Henry would bring that much in return, and thus the value for trading him now would likely not be enough to make up for what the Bills would lose with him no longer on the team.#5 I think Ricky was also very unhappy about his ridiculous incentive-laden contract at the time, and was probably a threat to holdout. Despite some early complaints by Henry in an ESPN article, I think he's been pretty quiet. Even when asked if he regretted signing the 1-year extension just before they drafted McGahee, he said that he didn't because it was a good deal for him. He's not nearly the angry, disgruntled RB that he is sometimes made out to be, and him and McGahee should easily be able to co-exist on the team for at least 1 full season.Bottom Line: The Bills would really have to be blown away by an offer to move Henry. If they get a team who is willing to give up a ton in a deal that will dramatically improve the team, then I guess trading him is an option. But, I really don't think they will actively shop him. Even Gallery doesn't make sense when you consider the fact that they are not getting anywhere close to value for what they paid for Mike Williams, and are pretty happy with Jonas Jennings at LT.Related question: How much do you think Henry is worth? What would another team be willing to give up in order to get him?Unless the Bills can find a team who is willing to give up a lot to get him, Henry is much more valuable to keep on the team under his very cheap contract.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They had the 27th rated rushing offense in the league. You can spin it however you want, if they were "adequate", then so were 26 other teams....
And yet they seemed to do alright for themselves. How did the other teams in the tank do last season? Is it more likely that NE has reinvented the wheel or that their number are deceiving?
 
Well this is the main reason I say Buf. should trade down if they deal Henry. This would give them 2 1st rd. picks. They can address QB very easily with Rivers (assuming Pitt doesn't take him at 11, which I doubt they will) and get a top tier WR (or whatever else they may be targeting) in the middle of the 1st. They could very easily find a suitable back-up RB in the 2nd or 3rd rd after that.
Actually, NE is a perfect candidate for a trade such as this. And if Buffalo DOES trade away Henry, then they can always pick up a FA like Stewart or Atowain Smith who aer still available.
 
And yet they seemed to do alright for themselves. How did the other teams in the tank do last season? Is it more likely that NE has reinvented the wheel or that their number are deceiving?
Reinvented the wheel. They won with a coach that gameplanned better then anyone in the NFL, a top-notch defense, and a QB that limits mistakes. If you are trying to suggest that the Patriots 27th ranked defense was much better then "lower third" of the NFL, you are, and will continue to be mistaken.COlin
 
Reinvented the wheel. They won with a coach that gameplanned better then anyone in the NFL, a top-notch defense, and a QB that limits mistakes. If you are trying to suggest that the Patriots 27th ranked defense was much better then "lower third" of the NFL, you are, and will continue to be mistaken.
If 'better' is taken to mean demonstrably more effective, I stand by it. The proof is in the pudding. San Diego ran for a billion yards and they sucked. Its converting when it counts that matters.
 
It's funny, but I didn't think this topic was going to get this many responses for or against the dealing of Henry, even though half of the posts here are really about the formula of success of the NE Patriots and they lack of a running game.

 
Did Lewis gain 2000 yards w/o opportunities or did Priest score 27 tds w/o opportunities? I don't understand this comment.
I think you understand my comment just fine. Lewis and Holmes were both in great situations with plenty of opportunities to put up numbers, just like Henry. The main difference is that Henry doesn't have equal talent as Lewis and Holmes and that is why Lewis and Holmes did so much better. Henry is a good RB. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. I just don't view him as a top 10 talent. If Ron Dayne was given 330+ carries with Buffalo, I think he'd be able to have close to 1200 yards and 10 TD's. Not as good as Henry, but those numbers would make Dayne look good.
 
RB is probably the most critical position on the field to at least be competant in. You can get by with a crappy QB by altering your system. I dont know of any system short of the empty backfield that get you by without a running back. Running the football wins games.
If 'better' is taken to mean demonstrably more effective, I stand by it. The proof is in the pudding. San Diego ran for a billion yards and they sucked. Its converting when it counts that matters.
:confused:
 
I think you understand my comment just fine. Lewis and Holmes were both in great situations with plenty of opportunities to put up numbers, just like Henry. The main difference is that Henry doesn't have equal talent as Lewis and Holmes and that is why Lewis and Holmes did so much better. Henry is a good RB. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. I just don't view him as a top 10 talent. If Ron Dayne was given 330+ carries with Buffalo, I think he'd be able to have close to 1200 yards and 10 TD's. Not as good as Henry, but those numbers would make Dayne look good.
Henry is better than you or TommyGunz think. That is all. :football:
 
Related question: How much do you think Henry is worth? What would another team be willing to give up in order to get him?
Possibly a mid-late 1st round pick.No team with a top 10 pick would give it up for Henry. With a top 10 pick a team wants a superstar. Henry has shown himself to be solid, but definitely not superstar material.While I highly doubt Henry gets traded, the Buffalo organization knows how McGahee is progressing. I'm sure he has been checked out many times by the doctors and his knee has been evaluated constantly.It is all risk/reward based, if Buffalo feels that McGahee is basically back to where he was before the injury, then Henry becomes somewhat expendable. A healthy McGahee will relegate Henry to the bench, so taking a risk and trading Henry makes sense if Buffalo is confident in McGahee's knee.People forget how damn good McGahee was, 80% of McGahee is superior to Henry.
 
Even if McGahee is healthy and ready to contribute, expecting 300+ carries from a player who is less than 2 years removed from having his entire knee rebuilt is not smart. I happen to think that Donahoe is a smart man.

 
Henry is better than you or TommyGunz think. That is all. :football:
I agree that Henry is a much better player than he is getting credit for in the majority of the thread. However I see the overwhelming theme here as being that Henry is at a point right now where his market value is at its highest for him and Buf. Therefor, they should take what the can right now and move on. Now I am in no way saying that this is correct (I think it is), but in order to make sense of this to the others, you will have to find a way to prove to them/us/me that somehow over the next season his market value will increase or at least not decrease. Which is not very likely with a healthy Willis on his heals.
 
I'll tell you why you don't understand it because the original comment is dumb. Is/was Emmitt Smith the most talented back... no. THenry is a miny tank who isn't stoped especially near the goal line. I could honestly see him getting a career high in TDs this year. Oh and BTW THenry has put up big numbers without opporutnity as he has been on a team that passes 66% of the time.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how 332 carries doesn't equal a good opportunity to put up numbers. I don't care if Buffalo passed the ball 75% of the time. The fact that Henry got 332 carries last year says he was given every chace to put up numbers! The team passing 66% of the time is a meaningless stat in this argument. And if are are going to continue to use it please get it right. Buffalo passed the ball 502 times last year. They ran the ball 427 times. That makes it a 54/46 split not 66/33. And since Henry got the ball 332 of those 427 times that makes it that he got 78% of all the teams carries and about 36% of the teams plays. And that isn't adding in his receiving stats that would rais it to around 39% of the teams plays. How is that not a good opportunity?
 
I don't think I have to show that his market value will increase. What I believe is that trading him will HURT the team more than it will HELP the team.The value of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady might be at an all time high right now, but that doesn't mean they are going to be traded.There is no need to part with Henry right now. His value to the team is greater than what he could bring back in a trade.

 
The value of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady might be at an all time high right now, but that doesn't mean they are going to be traded.There is no need to part with Henry right now. His value to the team is greater than what he could bring back in a trade.
Funny to hear you say this, considering if they'd waited a year, I doubt the Patriots could have gotten nearly as much from the Bills (or anyone else) for Pro-Bowl Quarterback Drew Bledsoe. Colin
 
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how 332 carries doesn't equal a good opportunity to put up numbers. I don't care if Buffalo passed the ball 75% of the time. The fact that Henry got 332 carries last year says he was given every chace to put up numbers! The team passing 66% of the time is a meaningless stat in this argument. And if are are going to continue to use it please get it right. Buffalo passed the ball 502 times last year. They ran the ball 427 times. That makes it a 54/46 split not 66/33. And since Henry got the ball 332 of those 427 times that makes it that he got 78% of all the teams carries and about 36% of the teams plays. And that isn't adding in his receiving stats that would rais it to around 39% of the teams plays. How is that not a good opportunity?
numbers don't tell the whole story. It was readily apparent to anyone that watched the Bills play that the Bills did not run the ball nearly as much as they should have. Sure, his total number of carries suggests that he got a pretty good opportunity, but in reality he probably could have gotten quite a few more. This was a team under Kevin Gilbride that absolutely refused to commit to the running game, and it led to a disaster of a season.The Bills % of running plays was well below the league average.
 
I don't think I have to show that his market value will increase. What I believe is that trading him will HURT the team more than it will HELP the team.The value of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady might be at an all time high right now, but that doesn't mean they are going to be traded.There is no need to part with Henry right now. His value to the team is greater than what he could bring back in a trade.
Yes but the major diff. on those guys and Henry is that they don't have a guy sitting on the bench that is perceived to be of superior tallent or ability. Thus Henry is expendable where as they are not.
 
Funny to hear you say this, considering if they'd waited a year, I doubt the Patriots could have gotten nearly as much from the Bills (or anyone else) for Pro-Bowl Quarterback Drew Bledsoe. Colin
they had to get rid of his contract and he would have become a distraction if kept on as the backup to Brady. there is no similar incentive for the Bills to part with Henry.also, there is no way to say with any degree of certainty what the Pats could have gotten if they had waited a year longer. For an example, look at what the Eagles got for AJ Feeley even though his last playing time came in 2002.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes but the major diff. on those guys and Henry is that they don't have a guy sitting on the bench that is perceived to be of superior tallent or ability. Thus Henry is expendable where as they are not.
McGahee will not be riding the bench. Both RBs will get playing time. RB is not like QB where only 1 guy plays, and the other guy watches.Since when can an NFL team not carry 2 starting-calibre RBs on its roster?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And he's not as studly as you or iceman think. That is all. :football:
I don't think he's the most talented guy around, but he's above average in terms of NFL starting RBs, and he's cheap. It is simply too early to turn over the reigns to McGahee right now, IMO.
 
McGahee will not be riding the bench. Both RBs will be played. RB is not like QB where only 1 guy plays, and the other guy watches.Since when can an NFL team not carry 2 starting-calibre RBs on it's roster?
Thats not the point. The point is that Henry having to split carries next season can't possibly be good for his value on the open market. Is that incorrect? If Willis blows up then where is he and Buf.? Then all they have is a very, very good back-up. This very good back-up could be traded in now for a very good player at a need. Where as next year that may or may not be the case.
 
they had to get rid of his contract and he would have become a distraction if kept on as the backup to Brady. there is no similar incentive for the Bills to part with Henry.
You don't think having "First Round Pick Willis McGahee" chomping at the bit is going to be a distraction? Its not going to be distraction the first time McGahee outrushes Henry in a game? Colin
 
Aaron: if you could swap Henry for a player like Manning, Gallery, or Fitzgerald, wouldn't you do that? Seems to me any of those guys (and a couple others) could put Buffalo over the top... Correct me if I'm wrong but there don't yet appear to be any such blue chip players at the top of next year's draft... Seems like they're all coming out now. If I were Donohoe AND I had confidence in McGahee's knee holding up (I'm not saying he does, but he might), AND Oakland was interested in a deal, I would have to think pretty hard about it... Wouldn't you?

 
You don't think having "First Round Pick Willis McGahee" chomping at the bit is going to be a distraction? Its not going to be distraction the first time McGahee outrushes Henry in a game? Colin
I don't know that it will or it won't. I'm not much of a fortune teller, and I don't know Henry well enough to know how he would react. I do know that he's been a model player on the team ever since he arrived and has done everything the coaches have ever asked of him. He is also highly motivated to be considered one of the best RBs in the league, and generally performs at his best when people doubt him or when he matches up against other elite RBs. I think he'll respond well to the challenge, hold onto his starting job, and be very attractive trade bait next offseason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think he's the most talented guy around, but he's above average in terms of NFL starting RBs, and he's cheap. It is simply too early to turn over the reigns to McGahee right now, IMO.
While I agree that it is in Buffalo's interest to keep Henry this year, if Buffalo really feels that McGahee is ready to get the lion's share of carries, then it makes sense to deal Henry if the price is right.Henry will not take a demotion easily and could end up a huge distraction if he is benched. He was more than vocal how pissed he was that Buffalo drafted McGahee in the 1st place. Once McGahee takes his job Henry could become a huge problem and his stock will likely plummet in other teams eyes.There is something to be said for selling high, and Henry's stock probably isn't going to get higher during this year with him splitting carries with a very very good RB who could outright relegate Henry to the bench.Your right about Donahue, he isn't dumb, so if he trades Henry Buffalo fans can be happy knowing they have a hell of a RB taking over for him.
 
Aaron: if you could swap Henry for a player like Manning, Gallery, or Fitzgerald, wouldn't you do that? Seems to me any of those guys (and a couple others) could put Buffalo over the top... Correct me if I'm wrong but there don't yet appear to be any such blue chip players at the top of next year's draft... Seems like they're all coming out now. If I were Donohoe AND I had confidence in McGahee's knee holding up (I'm not saying he does, but he might), AND Oakland was interested in a deal, I would have to think pretty hard about it... Wouldn't you?
I guess this is where we differ. I don't think there's any way Oakland trades down from the #2 spot to the #13 spot. Also, giving up the #13 spot means you are not really swapping Henry for one of those players. You would be swapping Henry (starting RB) and Rivers or Will Smith or some other highly regarded athlete for one player that may or may not contribute to the team this year or in the future but will also demand a huge signing bonus and restrict your financial flexibility under the cap, making it more difficult to re-sign players like Jonas Jennings, Aaron Schobel, Pat Williams, and Nate Clements.So, I don't see trading up in the draft as all that helpful to the Bills chances. They can get a very good player at #13 and hold onto a young pro-bowl starting RB until they know for sure whether McGahee can take over.
 
I don't know that it will or it won't. I'm not much of a fortune teller, and I don't know Henry well enough to know how he would react. I do know that he's been a model player on the team ever since he arrived and has done everything the coaches have ever asked of him.
You don't remeber Henry whinning and moaning about Buffalo drafting McGahee last year?Or him boning 15 yr old girls?If he's a model citizen then I nominate Clarett as the next Pope.
 
Fair enough; you make some excellent points and you know your team better than I do... Still I am starting to think of this kind of deal as slightly more of a possibility the more I think about it... Still improbable, but not impossible. Guess we will see in a couple weeks how things are going to play out... :)

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top