T. Henry (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

. 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.

How about the #22 and we get Antowain Smith back???

 

[Thorpe]

If Henry gets traded, I would think that the Bills would be foolish not to bring in a cheap, veteran back to hold the starting job until Willis is ready. The Bills would trade Henry for a first rounder, then bring back Olandis Gary or someone similar. When McGahee is ready, move Gary into the backup role. If the Bills could get a top 7 WR and Will Smith, plus bring in Kordell to back up Bledsoe and a veteran RB, I would be really happy as a Bills fan.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Colin/HERDThats such an abuse of statistics its scaryEdwards running draws on 3rd down in blowouts to get 5.4 ypc doesnt mean hes still the back that went to the pro bowl as a rookie.

Of course its an "abuse of statistics." That was the point. Somebody (was it you?)offered that Edwards fit the mold of someone who had a terrible knee injury and couldn't recover. I probably could have been more clear, but my point was that comparing Robert Edwards to Willis McGahee is not exactly prudent. In fact, comparing ANY injured player to another player with a SIMILAR injury is not particularly prudent since every situation is different.I hear reports that McGahee is recovering nicely, that he worked out at mini-camp, that he's making all the cuts and feeling good. I'm not going to discount those reports because I'm thinking, "well, you know Robert Edwards never made it back.."Colin

 

[Ash]

...Somebody (was it you?)offered that Edwards fit the mold of someone who had a terrible knee injury and couldn't recover. I probably could have been more clear, but my point was that comparing Robert Edwards to Willis McGahee is not exactly prudent. In fact, comparing ANY injured player to another player with a SIMILAR injury is not particularly prudent since every situation is different.

It was me who put up Edwards as an example. I also used Edge, who was arguably the best back in the league prior to his relatively standard ACL tear. He has since dropped into the 10-15 range.The point I was trying to make was that a catastrophic knee injury like that suffered by McGahee is, at least IMO, is quite likely to take something away from his abilities in the long term. My point is that he may never get back to his pre-injury level. People are talking like all he has to do is wait until he's all better then take the NFL by storm. I'm just a bit more skeptical about guys coming back from that type of injury, especially someone who'd never proven anything in the NFL.I'm not a hater, I hope he does come back all the way, but I think a little healthy skepticism is wise.Cheers,

 

[ardethan]

I'm not a hater, I hope he does come back all the way, but I think a little healthy skepticism is wise.

A little healthy skepticism is always wise any time a player is expected to improve their performance dramatically. I am personally annoyed anytime somebody suggests that player X will never amount to anything for whatever reason--that is just as foolish as saying that player X who hasn't yet done anything will be a stud. I'm not saying you have done this, just pointing out that one can go too far in either direction.This thread has been beaten to death. I think everybody has formed their opinion about McGahee. He was a college RB with great size, speed and cutback ability. He suffered a horrific injury, an injury known to reduce other RBs' cutback ability.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

He has some character concerns as well, which I think factored in to the Bills' decision to draft WM in the first place. I think Henry will do well no matter where he ends up. He is not Olandis Gary.

What are these "character" concerns? I havn't heard of any andsaw a guy play great and nutt up with broken leg.As for whether they will trade him, I can't imagine a team wanting to be run-dominant -- and in need of two quality backs -- turning the entire load over to a guy who hasn't had his knees uninjured since he was a junior in high school.Plus, consider the source: A local talk show host? Most of these guys don't go to practice, don't talk to coaches, don't do much except open a mike and spout opinions.There's no reason I know of not to think the new HC (former Steelers OC) Mike Mularkey won't have Henry playing the Bettis role and McGahee filling the Zeroue role. At least for this year.Cheers!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There's no reason I know of not to think the new HC (former Steelers OC) Mike Mularkey won't have Henry playing the Bettis role and McGahee filling the Zeroue role. At least for this year.

I disagree with this, The only reason Coaches have a RBBC is because they dont have that 1 RB that can carry the load. I would think Henry has proven to be that type of RB that doesnt need to "share" carries.The problem for Henry is not being as talented a RB as McGahee (if healthy), and even that is debatable. I can only see Buffalo trading Henry only "IF" they feel WM is ready to go. I dont buy the fact that means they lose their depth, it would be nothing for Buffalo to draft a very competant Backup in rd 3 or 4 as a just in case WM has a case of bad luck again. Trading Henry would warrant a 1st round draft choice and buffalo could use that to fill some holes.

 

[joez crizab shizak]

I think the Bills should trade henry for a first round pick, and then take Frank Gore with that pick to be McGahee's back up. Afterall, if it hadn't been for Gore's injury, McGahee wouldn't have seen the rock at UM.

 

[Tatonka]

man, I step away for a little bit and all hell breaks lose.This is not going to happen. It's not even worth discussing, IMO.McGahee is 15 months post surgery after shredding 3 ligaments in his knee. Asking him to be the feature back would be putting way too much pressure on him and also too much strain on that knee. It's much more reasonable to work him into things more slowly while letting Henry still be the workhorse. Then, with both still under contract, you can look to make a deal next summer.As someone else mentioned, Tom Donahoe does not have a history of trading up in the draft. He almost always looks to move down and acquire more picks because he doesn't lock himself into one or two particular players. He is the prototypical BPA GM, and that was the main reason why McGahee is a Bill today.The Bills are going to be a power running team, similar to what the Steelers were like when Donahoe was there. They NEED 2 quality RBs, and they have that. It is crazy to give up a young Pro Bowl RB in order to move up to select a player who could flop and who will throw your salary cap out of whack, preventing you from extending 1 or more of your key players that will be free agents in 2005.The Bills do not need a WR that badly in order to jeapordize the one strength on their team right now - the running game. This is not Kevin Gilbride's offense anymore. Moulds/Reed/Shaw and a speed WR that will be added in the draft, will be more than adequate for Mularkey/Clements offense.I agree the Bills need a young QB badly, but they are pretty confident that Drew will succeed given all the pieces that they are putting in place right now. Trading up for Big Ben would mean that Drew is basically 1 and done in Buffalo, and I don't see that happening. One of the reasons Mularkey got the job in the first place was because he had a specific plan for how he was going to win with Bledsoe. Donahoe wants to keep Bledsoe around...they just want a young QB to groom behind him so that they are in good shape if he bombs again.This rumor, although tempting and seemingly logical to non-Bills fans, really doesn't make sense from the Bills perspective. The Bills do feel good about McGahee's chances, but they are not going to put the hopes of the franchise soley on his reconstructed knee just yet. This team is going to be competitive this year, and Henry is going to be a huge part of that.

thanks.. i was just about to post the same thing.