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!
The underage girl thing had nothing to do with his performance on the team, which is what I said. And, even though he complained about the McGahee pick in that ESPN article, he quickly changed his tune afterwards and hasn't brought it up anywhere since, that I'm aware of.His teammates and coaches all like him from what I can tell.
what if McGahee gets hurt and then the Bills go from having 2 good RBs to none?which seems more likely - that Henry will stay healthy and perform well as he has done over the past 2+ seasons OR that McGahee will be able to handle 300+ carries on a knee that is about 1.5 years post major reconstructive surgery?McGahee had 1 monster season in college while playing on a team loaded with talent. He's also had a full year without football, and is recovering from one of the worst injuries I've ever watched take place. Let's not put this guy into the HOF just yet people. Give him a year to show what he can do, and then expect a decision.
Good points - the most important one? You don't trade away a cap-friendly guy who started for you (and played well) on a broken leg based on the mere presence of a back who missed his first year in the league due to a pre-existing injury - an injury which has yet to be tested in a game.Like you said earlier, Aaron, Donahoe is not a stupid man.The smart move would be to use Henry and McGahee this year, anticipating that Henry runs as he always has - very well - and then make a "Portis to the skins" trade next offseason - the team will get more for Henry after another year of good performances than they would right now, and Henry's performance will be (IMO) maximized this year by the presence of McGahee, not diminished. I see the addition of McGahee as either not affecting, or helping, Henry's FF numbers for four reasons; 1) McG will improve the O and keep the O on the field more, 2) he will be able to spell Henry w/o losing anything on O in the backfield, 3) he will spark the O and get them closer to the GL more often - ala Foster - thus giving Henry MORE opps (not less) to put up FF numbers, 4) with a lead, Henry is the guy you give the ball to - not McG - thus more 100 yard games for him.Essentially, Henry's the feature back, McG is the spark plug. Unless Henry starts putting the ball on the carpet, or gets injured, I don't see how McG's presence affects the feature back numbers Henry has been putting up.Like I mentioned in another thread, the Bills lost 50-60 catches from the backs when they lost Centers, and that loss was not made up by Henry last year - there is a ton of opp for McGahee in the receiving game to see the field and use his ability to break open games. Add in 5-7 carries a game for McG, and Henry will still get his 315-345 carries to be efficient in the Bills' offense and to still maintain a top-12 FF RB status. We forget that Henry's numbers of 335 carries, 1350 yards, and 10 TDs (in 15 games) are what make him worth a starting RB role - not the 28 catches for 158 yards and 1 TD he put up as a receiver.Overlook Henry this year because of McGahee at your own risk. As for the trade rumor, I dismiss it out of hand unless it is the Bills' #1 PLUS Henry for a top-5 pick - and that would occur on draft day when the team KNOWS it can get a specific player.
This is the key question to the whole issue.I think teams may be willing to trade a mid 1st round pick for him, maybe in the NE/Dallas range.Another related question: how much will Henry be worth in a trade next year if he losed his job to Magahee? My guess is a lower 1st round pick or high 2nd round pick. I don't think it will depreciate too much.On the flip side, will Buffalo part with Henry for that amount? His contract is friendly. He is not a problem. He is productive. I don't see a big incentive for Buffalo to move him unless a team comes up with a great offer.
pretty much sums up my points exactly.Teams won't offer up enough for the Bills to trade Henry now, because his value to the Bills is greater than a lot of people realize. Next year, he'll still have the same value (or at least similar) to other teams, but he won't be as valuable to the Bills if McGahee proves he can carry the load. Thus, next year is when the Bills will use him as trade bait. If his value drops a bit, so what? Point is that he is too valuable of a commodity for the Bills to part with him now unless they are just blown away by an offer for him. Since I don't expect that to happen, I believe Henry will finish 2004 as a Bill.If there is another team out there that loves Henry and wants to overpay for him, then sure, the Bills may move him b/c it would be the smart thing to do. But, I don't anticipate the demand being that high for him nor do I think the Bills will give him up easily.If the Patriots have taught the NFL anything, it's that you don't need players that were drafted highly and are paid a lot of money to be successful. You need players that are reasonably priced, productive, and capable of doing all that they are asked to do. Henry is exactly that, and he'll fit in great in Mularkey's new offense.
I think this attitude about McGahee's talent is one of the WORST assumptions fantasy football players are making regarding this situation.
Good GOD I would love to see this happen, being a Lions fan. Doubtful, but hey, if Buffalo would go for it, I'd be all over it. We need a good, strong RB badly. And if we could simply move down in the 1st round, rather than lose it altogether, then GO FOR IT! I doubt Henry would come that cheap though..
RUSHING RECEIVING Year G-S Att Yards Avg. TD LP No. Yards Avg. TD LP 2002 13-13 282 1753 6.2 28 69 27 355 13.1 0 77 2001 8-0 67 314 4.7 3 21 1 -7 -7.0 0 -7 2000 DID NOT PLAY - Redshirt Season
I think this is a classic case of "the grass is always greener." At this time, I think Henry is underappreciated and McGahee is overrated, at least by a good portion of the media and the fans. I doubt Buffalo shares their opinions.Really? I assume you are saying that McGahee's talent is not substantially superior to Henry's (since the original statement had the "if completely healthy" stipulation).Based on sheer talent, I would put McGahee somewhere in the top 7, and Henry around 12-15. Where would you put them?
All of this is true, but we also saw what happened to the Miami O once he got hurt vs. OSU. Miami wins that game running away if he hadn't gone down.Those are his college numbers. I agree totally that, for one college season, he was an elite runner and, to a lesser degree, receiver. That's ONE college season.And don't forget that in that one season:- he was playing behind arguably the best offensive line in the country- he was playing with arguably the best defense in the country keeping his team comfortably ahead most of the time and thus feeding the running and dumpoff game- he was playing with a Heisman candidate at QB and with one of the most talented sets of WRs and TEs in the country, so the passing game was definitely good enough to keep defenses from stacking against the running gameAs for blocking, I've never heard that he was a standout blocker at the RB position, although it may be true. I don't recall him being great at breaking tackles... I recall his speed and elusiveness as being more impressive. Again, could be true.As for "everything," what else is there beyond running, receiving, and blocking? He's not going to play defense is he?Code:RUSHING RECEIVING Year G-S Att Yards Avg. TD LP No. Yards Avg. TD LP 2002 13-13 282 1753 6.2 28 69 27 355 13.1 0 77 2001 8-0 67 314 4.7 3 21 1 -7 -7.0 0 -7 2000 DID NOT PLAY - Redshirt Season
It wasn't that far below the league average.Buffalo - 427 rushes (20th) for a 46.063% (18th)
Im not one who is saying that he will be better than Henry.... but its not hard to think that he can be a productive enough RB that trading Henry would prove wise in that it allows the Bills to fill other holes.Im just saying your argument was that WM hasn't played a down and we can't judge him....yet I would imagine you probably have some idea of what you expect from Jackson and Jones though they aren't even on a team yet.
I agree that McGahee has probably lost some cutting ability (although sports medicine is rapidly improving), as did Edge. I would gladly take post-ACL Edge or post-ACL Jamal Lewis over Henry, and if I had one of the post-ACL guys and Henry, I would trade Henry in a heartbeat.Some people seem to act as though guys who haven't yet played in the NFL are totally worthless. I'll take an "unknown" Willis McGahee or Kevin Jones over a "known" Correll Buckhalter any day. And if the whole NFL did a re-draft this year, I'm pretty sure McGahee would go before Henry, but not by much.
OK, fair enough, although those numbers seem a little bit off from what I've seen reported elsewhere. But, if you also take into consideration how good their defense was, then the % of run plays last year was ridiculously low. The formula should have been to run the ball and shorten the games to give your team a chance to win late. But, Gilbride refused to do that and kept calling pass play after pass play, especially in situations that screamed out for a running play like 3rd and short.Regardless of how the statistics look, everybody in Buffalo and on that Bills team knows they did not commit to the run game as much as they should've. When you have a top-5 defense, it makes no sense to come out and throw it 60% of the time.
While this may be true, ardethan, my response was to this comment:
I think it is a horrible assumption that a purpotedly heathy McGahee can run circles around Henry and, therefore, that Henry's expendable or that McGahee will straight up beat out Henry for the starting role. That is the premise being bandied about here. Again, as I said before, it is the WORST assumption FF players can make when evaluating this situation.In response to where I "rank" McGahee verssus Henry - they aren't in the same league - Henry's played NFL downs, McGahee has yet to play football in the pros.
do these numbers include sacks? b/c Bledsoe was real good at that, and that might push the Bills numbers much further down.I assume that they do, but the numbers you reported seem quite different from what I've seen reported in other places and I'm just wondering if something simple like that might account for any discrepancy.
I like seeing these numbers - if Buffalo gets to the league average of approx. 450 carries in a season, giving Henry 315 carries still leaves an average of over 8 carries a game to other players. Giving McG an average of 4 catches a game and 8 carries a game will be significant use for the kid, and still allows Henry to put up top-12 RB numbers, which is, actually, pretty much exactly how I see it playing out this year. Since Bledsoe aint exactly a rushing QB, I don't think many carries wil lbe stolen away from these two backs. Also, I believe Henry will be given more of the GL opps as the bigger back and a north-south runner, and he will be in there to block more often given his blitz pickup experience.
I've had this debate with someone else on these boards before, but can't remember who it was with. I agree that Henry seems better suited to GL work, but it was pointed out to me that McGahee is a pretty big back in his own right, which is certainly true. I like Henry to hold onto that role role primarily b/c he has a lower center of gravity and I think he's a bit more powerful.As for blocking, there were some reports last year that the Bills didn't trust Henry to pass protect and that was part of the reason why Sammy Morris was given the 3rd down back job. I don't think Henry is a liability, but I see that as one key area where McGahee should be able to earn some time provided he proves himself to be a reliable blocker during preseason.
If your talking about Fantasy Football purposes then I agree. But if your talking about how actual NFL teams view these guys then you are WAY off.There would be quite a few NFL GM's who would take McGahee over Henry, or at least look at them as relative equals value wise.The reasoning that he isn't as good because he hasn't played a down in the NFL yet is quite a statement. I guess those 1st round NFL draft picks aren't worth all that much then.
See earlier posts from others for why noone is saying rookie round backs aren't "worth anything." It is simply unfair to rank a back who has never played a down on the same lists with the backs who have proved themselves.Is Quentin Grifin as "talented" as McGahee - why or why not? What's the basis for comparison?Now - what folks might be TRYING to say is that McGahee has more athletic ability than Henry. THAT, I'll agree with - but I will not say he has more "talent" as an NFL running back - how could I POSSIBLY make that judgment. And I WATCHED almost every UMiami game for the last 5 years, so I'm not ignorant to what McG can do.
Nice hypothetical - I am sure you can imagine a thousand of them for why McG should start, but the point is the two are different runners, and the flip flop would take a buttload from McG.This will be the classic "grass is greener" thing while McG whenever McG busts off a 20 yard run. Which will happen a bunch this year.
Yeah, I agree the board is going to be all over this all year long... I am not counting on WM starting (although it would be nice for my fantasy team's chances) but I would not rule it out altogether as a possibility.By the time the season starts it will have been, what, 21 months since his injury? I think one thing we can all agree on is that if he doesn't look like himself by then, he probably never will... Which would be unfortunate for him, for the Bills, and for the NFL as a whole. The kid has worked VERY hard to get back into playing shape; I happen to think he is going to take his chance and run with it, but watching it happen is going to be 100 times more fun than arguing about it... 
It certainly might happen. But, I don't see that as a bad thing. If McGahee wins the job fair and square, then so be it - play the kid and trade Henry next summer. As long as Henry doesn't play poorly (which I don't expect him to do all of a sudden), then I don't think his value is going to drop. If anything, teams may appreciate the fact that he didn't take another pounding with a 350+ touch season as RBs can only last so long with that heavy of a workload.I just don't understand this overwhelming need that some people around here seem to have in trading away any valuable player that might actually not be a huge contributor to your team. The Patriots had about 40 different starters last year. Teams need depth in today's NFL to succeed, and having an inexpensive player like Travis is one of the best ways to build a deep team. Packaging Henry with the #13 pick in a great draft to attempt to fill just 1 position on the team with an overpriced high draft pick is not a great way to do so. Throw in the fact that the rumor that started this thread suggests the Bills might be interested in a backup QB or a WR2, which I don't consider to be positions critical to building a great team, and it makes even less sense.So, some here are suggesting that the Bills might as well get something for Henry now b/c McGahee might be better and Henry might ride the bench. But, one of the players the Bills are rumored to be interested in is Ben Roethlisberger, who would absolutely sit behind Bledsoe for the 2004 season anyway. So, how do you trade a starter (Henry) and a potential starter (#13 pick) for a backup QB and improve your team?Meanwhile, the Bills could keep their young and inexpensive starting RB, stay at #13 and possibly grab Rivers who many believe is almost as good as Roethlisberger. You'd have a young QB that you wanted, but he would cost less in terms of salary, and you'd still have 2 potential stud RBs that are as good as any RB tandem in the league. If anything, the Bills should be looking to move up ahead of the Steelers to assure that they get Rivers, but it definitely would not take trading Travis Henry to get that type of deal done.And trading up for a chance at Mike Williams makes even less sense to me because (a) he's not a speed WR which is exactly what the Bills need most, and (b) he could very easily be available when they pick at #13 anyway.So, would the Bills make this deal for a chance to get Roy Williams? Possible, but very unlikely, IMO, especially given that this is one of the deepest WR drafts in ages.EDIT TO ADD: Also note that the rumor came from a sports radio guy. In my experience, sports radio is about the least reliable source you can find for information like this. It all sounds like pure speculation and possibly a McGahee owner's wishful thinking.
No they don't. I forgot to add them in.w/ sacksBuffalo - 427 rushes, 980 total plays (502 passes + 51 sacks), 43.571% League Average - 453.375 rushes, 1002.906 total plays, 45.206% (I came up with a total of 14,508 rushes and 32,093 plays)So it does make a difference. Thanks for the catch.
I think the rumopr is fully squelched as making no sense - but as you mentioned, the team is in a prime position to get an EXCELLENT receiver by standing pat. Or to fill a defensive need. Or, best yet, if Rivers goes to the Steelers, trade DOWN in the first if possible, get that receiver or b/u QB (Losman) later in the first, and stock picks.Trading Henry right now makes zero sense.
Think about what yer saying man.... Teams do this all the time on Draft day. The Saints with Duece. Denver with Portis. (yes I know WM hasn't played a down) I know that each situation is different but the point is that teams will make a move on what they peceive as potential productive talent even if they have "proven" talent thinking they can...A. have depthorB. Trade to improvehypothetical --- if WM wasn't even aroundWould it REALLY be THAT MUCH of a horrible decision to see the Bills trade Henry and end up with a deal that allows them to..say draft Jackson as well as fill in some other holes?? It would be risky, yes. But if the improvemt to your team as a whole out shines any drop off from Henry then it is a good decision. I would say that though some would have a hard time agreeing with this you can make a very good case for doing something like it.... so why not insert WM instead of Jackson? A guy who has been exposed (somewhat) to NFL life - practice and such...someone who you have been able to study under close watch for a year with total and complete access to any information you deem crucial to determining potential success.....Sure its a gamble and to look at it as simply Henry -v- WM makes it seem VERY risky... but when considered with the possibilities of upgrading other areas and the possibility of bringing in another sufficient RB as security... I can't argue to much with that.
and that may be... but without speculating at who they may target in the draft and how they might use their picks the idea of trading Henry to improve the team as a whole is not so idiotic as some are making it sound. Wether or not they could actually do that is another story, but to suggest that they are ignorant or something to attempt or consider such a thing seems ignorant in itself. I am in the camp that doubts they do it but the idea is not as laughable as some make it out to be.Edited: cause evidently I am ignorant when it comes to spelling (and probably NFL trades but hey.... I did stay at a Holiday Inn)
I guess what you are really arguing is what may be playing out in Denver - with noone behind Portis they traded him and he has unquestionable "talent."The Donkeys taking Jackson or Jones in the first would be the situation you are describing. Banking on a rook - or lesser back on the squad - to improve other areas. In that respect, tradfing Henry could make sense for the right price.I think the only point I disagree with is that just b/c they have McG doesn't mean trading Henry is a greater or lesser possibility. For the right price, any player ios obtainable - at least if you are talking to Dan Snyder across the tabl and it is a player he wants.Think about what yer saying man.... Teams do this all the time on Draft day. The Saints with Duece. Denver with Portis. (yes I know WM hasn't played a down) I know that each situation is different but the point is that teams will make a move on what they peceive as potential productive talent even if they have "proven" talent thinking they can...A. have depthorB. Trade to improvehypothetical --- if WM wasn't even aroundWould it REALLY be THAT MUCH of a horrible decision to see the Bills trade Henry and end up with a deal that allows them to..say draft Jackson as well as fill in some other holes?? It would be risky, yes. But if the improvemt to your team as a whole out shines any drop off from Henry then it is a good decision. I would say that though some would have a hard time agreeing with this you can make a very good case for doing something like it.... so why not insert WM instead of Jackson? A guy who has been exposed (somewhat) to NFL life - practice and such...someone who you have been able to study under close watch for a year with total and complete access to any information you deem crucial to determining potential success.....Sure its a gamble and to look at it as simply Henry -v- WM makes it seem VERY risky... but when considered with the possibilities of upgrading other areas and the possibility of bringing in another sufficient RB as security... I can't argue to much with that.
They seemed to run it quite a bit last year, where were the wins? The team has many needs to fill if they want to compete in their division. IMO Henry isn't anymore talented than Clarett, Cobbs, J. Jones or M. Turner who could probably be had in the 3rd rd. Well, maybe not Clarett, but you never know. O. Smith fell down the charts last year.
I think you understood where I am coming from... basically... that teams will make a move banking on what they perceive to be potential even though it hasn't actualyl materialized yet. Of course you would prefer to have something a little more concrete but if the benefit (of the whole)out weighs the risk (of a part) then why not make such a move? Again, Im not saying I would do it...I just can't argue against such an idea as though it has no logic. Its risky but risk doesn't mean that it is void of logic.
Robert Edwards was an NFL Pro Bowler as a rookie, had a horrendous injury, and now he's officially fully recovered and back playing football.Not quite the same as before though, is he?Same could be said about Edge, and his injury was just a straight ACL tear. An injury like Willis had is bound to take something away, IMO. I think Buffalo would be mad to trade Henry, but then I think they were mad to take him in the 1st.Cheers,
As a rookie, Edwards had 1115 yards, 12 TDs and a Pro Bowl appearance. The Patriots cut him, he latched on with the Dolphins, and was a more then able backup to Ricky Williams averaging 5.4 yards per carry and scoring 2 TDs in spot duty. Considering he was a 3.8ypc guy in his pro-bowl season, I'd argue that he didn't lose his talent so much as he lost his opportunity...Colin
Just a couple comments:Martin wasn't traded to the Jets. He was signed as a RFA and the Pats got compensation for not matching the offer he signed. Drew Bledsoe was traded within division, but I don't see any reason to compare that with this situation: his contract was huge, they were highly motivated to trade him, and the Bills were the ONLY team in the NFL that was willing to give up a 1st round pick for him. Henry meets none of those criteria as far as I can tell.If they could get the #22 pick for Henry, I'm sure it would be considered. Who would they take at that spot though, and would that player make them a better team than they would be with Henry? I'm not so sure that it would.As for the likelihood of him being traded, that seems really high to me. As I said earlier in this thread, I place it closer to 5%. But, Donahoe's actions are pretty tough to predict, and often surprise me so I could be off. I just think it would be a mistake unless the offer is too hard to turn down. A #22 pick seems like decent value, but not exactly a steal.
Technically you are correct. My bad. But you say Po-TA-to, I say Po-TAH-to ... the Patriots let him go for a draft pick, which is what the Bills would be doing. Being that it was in the division, I'm not sure they made the right decision. C-Mart is still a worth running back.
