Why is everybody so in love with McGahee (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee. His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers. I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet. No way would I consider him in the top 5.

 

[jurb26]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee. His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers. I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet. No way would I consider him in the top 5.

Care to tell us why he would be at the bottom of your top 10? With out "scaling up" his numbers (which I'm not sure how taking his avg per games does), he is still in the top 6 in most leagues (mine included). So you have a RB who is not fully healthy on an O that still has room for improvement, yet you think he will regress next seasaon?This situation hardly resembles Barlow's IMO. Barlow was never a true feature back in SF. Always having Hearst there to help shoulder the burden at least a bit. Willis has already, in mearly 10 games, proven that even when not at full speed HE CAN BE A FEATURE BACK. Barlow never did this with out a resonable doubt. Buf is a team that also appears to be on the upswing. It was well known that SF would struggle HEAVILY heading into this season. If anything, Willis resembles LT in his rookie year IMO. Only he is not fully healthy and LT was.

 

[Banger]

If anything, Willis resembles LT in his rookie year IMO. Only he is not fully healthy and LT was.

I think the comparison to LT is a stretch because Buff has one of, if not the best, defense in the league, they have a line, wr's and qb whereas in LT's first year he was the only decent player on the team. Willis stepped into a good situation with a chance to succeed whereas LT was up until this season totally supporting the team on his back. Don't underestimate the impact that the Buff defense has on Willis's success or the strength of their schedule. He is able to get 25+ carries a game because his defense keeps the game close and allows Buff to keep running the ball.

 

[jurb26]

If anything, Willis resembles LT in his rookie year IMO. Only he is not fully healthy and LT was.

I think the comparison to LT is a stretch because Buff has one of, if not the best, defense in the league, they have a line, wr's and qb whereas in LT's first year he was the only decent player on the team. Willis stepped into a good situation with a chance to succeed whereas LT was up until this season totally supporting the team on his back. Don't underestimate the impact that the Buff defense has on Willis's success or the strength of their schedule. He is able to get 25+ carries a game because his defense keeps the game close and allows Buff to keep running the ball.

I fully understand that Willis has a good D right now. However, if your going to argue that LT has EVER suffered from lack of touches, then I think I may have to take what you say with a grain of salt. It simply isn't so.Plus, untill Willis came in a sparked this O everyone was talking about how bad that Buf O was. They were said to have 1 of the WORST Olines in the game, a QB with 1 foot in the retirement grave (who was only palying because the rookie wasn't healthy yet), a WR who had lost a step, and 2 more who lacked the experience to get the job done just yet.

 

[cracKer]

McGahee will approach 2000 total yards and 20 TDs next year, no doubt.

 

[joffer]

McGahee will approach 2000 total yards and 20 TDs next year, no doubt.

with 450 carries or a huge increase in receiving yards?

 

[cracKer]

McGahee will approach 2000 total yards and 20 TDs next year, no doubt.

with 450 carries or a huge increase in receiving yards?

Neither. All he'll need is around 400 touches.

 

[Dave Stauff]

Someone mentioned that Willis is currently 10th in rushing attempts this year. That with only starting 10 games. Thus, absent injury, we could reasonably expect his position on that list to improve next year (say top 5 in attempts). Reaching top 5 status begins with opportunity and it looks like he'll get plenty next year. With a 3.9 average he'll make the top 10 pretty easily (given Buffalo's red zone preferences). If conditions improve (his own, the o-line, the offense in general), his YPC will likely improve as well. I believe this gives him a realistic shot at the top 5. Will he make it? Who knows - that's why we play this game. But I have to say I like his odds better than most. If he was to become more involved in the passing game, I'd consider him a lock (again assuming health).

 

[Holy Schneikes]

OK, but I warned you. This reeks of projecto-hype.Griffin '04, Barlow '04, Portis '04, Pittman '02, Shipp '03, O Smith '03 AND '04.These are all guys I started (or contributed to) threads about who I thought were getting way too much hype going into the year - most of them based on a couple of good games against bad defenses toward the end of the year (Portis was an exception - I didn't like him because of the enormous difference in situation). You see it every single year.To be fair, I was wrong about Rudi Johnson this year I predicted he would fall on his face and he didn't. Still don't like him all that much, but he has been a solid fantasy option this year.I'm sure I'll hear, "Yeah but McGahee is DIFFERENT.". He's better, he's faster, he's impriving, etc etc. But the fact is that a guy who has had a VERY few truly good games in the NFL most of which were against truly bad defenses is being promoted as a top 5 back. To be a true top 5 back, a lot of things have to be in place. You have to get a lot of touches (which includes receptions), you have to be a primary goal-line option (McGahee IS clearly that), you usually have to carry a decent average (not so far), you have to avoid any sort of RBBC (frequent breathers are OK, but alternating series is not good) and your team has to be able to score fairly frequently. McGahee does pretty well in most of these categories, but not all.Let's look at the current top 5 in a standard scoring scenario:AlexanderTomlinsonBarberMartinJamesThen look at how they did in the categories above in 2003 and 2004.Alexander gets a lot of touches and is fairly involved in the passing game. He is definitely the primary goal-line option. He carried 4.4 in 2003 and 4.8 in 2004. No RBBC. Seattle scores more than the average team in both years. You could see this guy coming.Tomlinson is a monster. Huge carries and is massively involved in the passing game. By far the best goal-line option. Averaged 5.3 in 2003 and 3.9 in 2004. No RBBC. Team scored poorly in 2003 but very well in 2004. Aside from the 3.9 average this year, everything you would expect in a top back.Next is the surprising (and generally under-rated) Barber. An interesting case. He gets a fair amount of carries (more than you would think) and is heavily involved in the passing game which gives him a lot of touches. In 2002 he was the primary goal-line option and in 2003 for whatever reason, he was a part-time (and less effective) goal-line option (which hurt his fantasy value tremendously). His average has been excellent for 4 straight years. He's really NOT been in a real RBBC for many years - he's too good and the team's other options are too bad. The team scores reasonably well. Basicaly, when he gets a few TDs - all the ingredients are there and he goes from a very good 2nd tier back to a great one like he was in 2002 and 2004.Martin was another "surprise" for most of us. Why? Because he was always pretty close in all the categories that matter, but has never been great in any of them. For whatever reason, he improved in most of them this year. His touches are way up, his goal-line looks are way up, and his average is way up. Part of that is health, and part of it is that the Jets are a better team this year than last. But again, the ingredients have always been there to some degree. His average was particularly telling this year - the best of his career.James was a guy I was very high on this year. Why? The categories. Lots of touches, always involved in the passing game, a fair amount of goal-line opportunities (though they were somewhat reduced by Manning this year, when they run on the goal-line it's usually Edge with the ball). His average was steadily improving throughout 2003, and you could easily see it becoming solid in 2004 which it was. He's not in a RBBC and he's on a team that scores - A LOT.So, MAYBE McGahee's average will improve enough to become an elite back in 2005. MAYBE he will become more involved in the passing game (even though Buffalo doesn't seem to throw a lot ot tailbacks), and MAYBE Buffalo will continue to be a decent offensive team when they stop playing cupcake defenses. I just think that's a lot to ask of him. Like Griffin and Barlow and Portis and Pittman and Shipp and O Smith (and Rudi) in years past, he won't be on my teams next year because someone will take him before I will.

 

[cracKer]

But the fact is that a guy who has had a VERY few truly good games in the NFL most of which were against truly bad defenses is being promoted as a top 5 back.

This is where the main argument will come from, a subjective opinion.McGahee has rushed for over 100 yards in 7 of his first 14 NFL games. He's rushed for over 100 yards in 7 of his first 10 NFL starts. He's scored 11 TDs in 10 NFL starts.

 

[joffer]

and if we change the arbitrarily round-number measuring stick from 100 yards to 106 yards, those numbers change to 3 out of 14 and 3 out of 10. We can all make the stats mean what we want them to mean.To me, the best evaluator is to compare him to Henry in the same offense in 2002 and 2003. They're not significantly different, and Henry has never been considered a top 5 "elite" RB.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But the fact is that a guy who has had a VERY few truly good games in the NFL most of which were against truly bad defenses is being promoted as a top 5 back.

This is where the main argument will come from, a subjective opinion.McGahee has rushed for over 100 yards in 7 of his first 14 NFL games. He's rushed for over 100 yards in 7 of his first 10 NFL starts. He's scored 11 TDs in 10 NFL starts.

The fact that the 9ers have a bad defense is subjective?The fact that Cleveland have a bad defense is subjective?The fact that Seattle's defense is mediocre at best is subjective?The fact that Miami gave up 141 rushing yards/game is subjective?The fact that McGahee has 21 total catches is subjective?The fact that Arizona gives up a 4.8 rushing average to it's opponents is subjective ?(McGahee averaged 3.4 while getting to his magical 102 yard game on 30 carries)The fact that he has a 3.9 rushing average is subjective?We have a different definition of subjective.What's subjective (and highly debatable) are statements like "Man, he's looked awesome out there." and "He's still only 80% and will get much better."

 

[ko-jack]

The Bills played a 5th place schedule this year

with the change in schedule format, there are no last place schedules. the pats, jets, and fins all basically played the same schedule.

 

[cracKer]

I haven't looked at the NFL schedule over the next few years. Has Buffalo removed all of their opponents with weak defenses? That would certainly hurt McGahees stock.The Buffalo Bills (along with the FF community) see something in Willis McGahee that Travis Henry doesn't possess. Henry's value over the last couple of years was largely a result of his opportunity in Buffalo. We knew who would get the carries, we knew who would get the TDs. He did not appear to be a gamebreaker/difference maker. McGahee does.But this is just my opinion. You've obviously put much more thought into the situation than I have, but my gut tells me that you are wrong

 

[ko-jack]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee. His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers. I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet. No way would I consider him in the top 5.

barlow hype? :rotflmao: barlow plays on one of the worst teams in the league and had zero impact on the 49ers last season. barlow was hyped by the stud rb theory.

 

[ko-jack]

We can all make the stats mean what we want them to mean.They're not significantly different, and Henry has never been considered a top 5 "elite" RB.

which is why stats mean nothing and why henry sits on a bench. with henry the best the bills could do was 8-8, and they finished 6-10 last year. and they started 0-4 with him this year

 

[joffer]

The Buffalo Bills (along with the FF community) see something in Willis McGahee that Travis Henry doesn't possess. Henry's value over the last couple of years was largely a result of his opportunity in Buffalo. We knew who would get the carries, we knew who would get the TDs. He did not appear to be a gamebreaker/difference maker. McGahee does.

And they (and you) may very well be right. I'm just saying the numbers don't show that.

 

[joffer]

We can all make the stats mean what we want them to mean.They're not significantly different, and Henry has never been considered a top 5 "elite" RB.

which is why stats mean nothing and why henry sits on a bench. with henry the best the bills could do was 8-8, and they finished 6-10 last year. and they started 0-4 with him this year

I'll be sure to mention that to Priest Holmes and Eric Rhett when I see them.

 

[ko-jack]

We can all make the stats mean what we want them to mean.They're not significantly different, and Henry has never been considered a top 5 "elite" RB.

which is why stats mean nothing and why henry sits on a bench. with henry the best the bills could do was 8-8, and they finished 6-10 last year. and they started 0-4 with him this year

I'll be sure to mention that to Priest Holmes and Eric Rhett when I see them.

still doesnt change the fact that with henry , the bills suck. with willis, they are great.

 

[ko-jack]

The Buffalo Bills (along with the FF community) see something in Willis McGahee that Travis Henry doesn't possess. Henry's value over the last couple of years was largely a result of his opportunity in Buffalo. We knew who would get the carries, we knew who would get the TDs. He did not appear to be a gamebreaker/difference maker. McGahee does.

And they (and you) may very well be right. I'm just saying the numbers don't show that.

with henry, the bills have gone, 8-8, 6-10 and started 0-4 this year. whats thier record with willis starting?

 

[joffer]

The Buffalo Bills (along with the FF community) see something in Willis McGahee that Travis Henry doesn't possess. Henry's value over the last couple of years was largely a result of his opportunity in Buffalo. We knew who would get the carries, we knew who would get the TDs. He did not appear to be a gamebreaker/difference maker. McGahee does.

And they (and you) may very well be right. I'm just saying the numbers don't show that.

with henry, the bills have gone, 8-8, 6-10 and started 0-4 this year. whats thier record with willis starting?

a valid point. A 3rd-ranked defense doesn't hurt either.

 

[ko-jack]

The Buffalo Bills (along with the FF community) see something in Willis McGahee that Travis Henry doesn't possess. Henry's value over the last couple of years was largely a result of his opportunity in Buffalo. We knew who would get the carries, we knew who would get the TDs. He did not appear to be a gamebreaker/difference maker. McGahee does.

And they (and you) may very well be right. I'm just saying the numbers don't show that.

with henry, the bills have gone, 8-8, 6-10 and started 0-4 this year. whats thier record with willis starting?

a valid point. A 3rd-ranked defense doesn't hurt either.

i think last season, buffalo was 2nd. point is, the better the team, the better the rb, or at least more opportunity for the rb. last year the only top 10 rb on a losing team was lt2

 

[Tau837]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee. His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers. I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet. No way would I consider him in the top 5.

barlow hype? :rotflmao: barlow plays on one of the worst teams in the league and had zero impact on the 49ers last season. barlow was hyped by the stud rb theory.

Wrong. First off, Barlow ran for 1024/6 (5.1 ypc) and added 307/1 receiving last year. He was the 17th best RB last season, despite being in RBBC with Hearst and starting only 4 games.Now, let's look at those 4 starts:

+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK  OPP  |  RSH   YD   |  RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 14  ari  |   18   154  |    23  |  1 || 15  cin  |   18    85  |    66  |  2 || 16  phi  |   30   154  |    33  |  2 || 17  sea  |   14    40  |    38  |  0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  TOTAL   |   80    433  |   160  |  5 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

He averaged 150 total yards and 1.25 TDs per game. And note that the only one of those games that wasn't great was in week 17, when the 49ers had nothing to play for, Owens sat out, etc. This was the whole reason for the Barlow hype last season, not "stud rb theory." McGahee should fare better than Barlow, primarily because his team isn't losing all surrounding talent this offseason, but also because he has a larger sample size of starts, which makes him less of a risk to project to a full season feature back.On the other hand, the defenses Barlow ripped in his late season starts last year are of about the same caliber as those McGahee has been excelling against.

 

[Tau837]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee. His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers. I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet. No way would I consider him in the top 5.

Care to tell us why he would be at the bottom of your top 10? With out "scaling up" his numbers (which I'm not sure how taking his avg per games does), he is still in the top 6 in most leagues (mine included).

I'd like to see the numbers on your average that places him in the top 6.I used one of my leagues as a reference (1/10, 6/TD), and he is currently 14th in total points, with 187.4.In order to convert that to average, I'll assume any 0.0 fantasy point game is a DNP and will not use that in the average. That makes his average 14.4 fantasy points per game.With a quick look, it appears that the following backs all have higher averagesriest HolmesShaun AlexanderLadainian TomlinsonTiki BarberCurtis MartinEdgerrin JamesDomanick DavisCorey DillonBryant WestbrookMichael PittmanLarry JohnsonAnd the following backs are not far behind:Chris BrownAhman GreenClinton PortisFred TaylorRudi JohnsonDeuce McAllisterJamal LewisAnd that is including every one of their games that wasn't a 0.0, many of which crushed averages with scores like 0.2, 1.7, etc. If you looked critically at each game and tried to count only the ones that were "feature" games, I expect the names would be different to an extent, but an equal or greater number of backs would still have higher averages.Looking at the last 3 weeks, McGahee ranks 7th, with 49.9 fantasy points. Other backs not mentioned above that also are in the top 10:Kevin Jones (58.1)Warrick Dunn (50.5)Jerome Bettis (49.4)Nick Goings (48.4)Looking at the last 6 weeks, he again ranks 7th, with 110.3 fantasy points. Other backs not mentioned above that also rank in the top 10:Goings (115.7)Julius Jones (106.4)Kevin Jones (106.1)So, that's 23 other RBs besides McGahee that are above or not far below him in average, either total season average or in recent weeks. I doubt anyone will be in my top 10 next season that isn't listed above. Even if I throw out 1/3 of them (Goings, Larry Johnson, Bettis are examples) because their situations will not persist, that still leaves 15 other guys besides McGahee that are worth considering.And that completely ignores anyone who emerges into a potentially top 10 worthy situation (Travis Henry, Lamont Jordan, Steven Jackson, Ricky Williams, Onterrio Smith, etc.) that we don't foresee right now. The point is, we don't foresee it now, so we discount them.I fail to see why it so clear cut that McGahee belongs in the top 5 with all of this strong competition. All I said was that I'd probably consider him in the bottom of my top 10. Why is that so hard to understand?---And, by the way, take a look again at McGahee's 14.4 fppg average for this season to date. Henry averaged 16.2 fppg in 2002 to finish as RB8 and 14.5 fppg in 2003 to finish as RB11. Joffer's comparison is dead on.

 

[Tau837]

Oh, and by the way, the point about scaling up numbers refers to total points. Plenty of backs have had great averages when playing less than a full season in a feature role, leading fantasy owners to scale up their part time numbers and predict top 5 seasons. Almost every time, they were disappointed, whether due to injury, change in situation, ineffectiveness, whatever.There are a number of other players who also did not claim the feature back role until partway through their breakout season and maintained essentially the same role & situation in their next season: Dillon, Lewis (one season removed to avoid the injury), Green, Alexander, and Portis. This is a group of very talented backs, likely more talented than McGahee (or at least no less talented). It seemed similarly promising to scale up the statistics of each of these guys, just as people will inevitably do for McGahee.But here's the rub: They averaged a gain of only 4% in total fantasy points in the season following their breakout season (from their straight numbers, not from scaled up numbers).In general, it is much harder to break into the top 10 than it is to break into the top 15-20, as it typically requires excellent performance sustained over an entire season. And it is similarly much harder to break into the top 5 than the top 10, which typically requires significant involvement in the passing game as well as the rushing attack and further typically requires the player to be injury free.

 

[ko-jack]

I totally agree with Banger, Joffer, and the rest who are not as high on McGahee.  His hype right now is reminding me a lot of the Barlow hype last year after he closed the season so strong.Joffer's Henry comparison is a great one IMO.Also, I would caution against scaling up his numbers.  I posted several times last offseason about that practice and showed evidence that players' numbers rarely scale up as expected with the full workload the following season.I might consider him at the bottom of the top 10, but I'm not sure yet.  No way would I consider him in the top 5.

barlow hype? :rotflmao: barlow plays on one of the worst teams in the league and had zero impact on the 49ers last season. barlow was hyped by the stud rb theory.

Wrong. First off, Barlow ran for 1024/6 (5.1 ypc) and added 307/1 receiving last year. He was the 17th best RB last season, despite being in RBBC with Hearst and starting only 4 games.Now, let's look at those 4 starts:

+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK  OPP  |  RSH   YD   |  RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 14  ari  |   18   154  |    23  |  1 || 15  cin  |   18    85  |    66  |  2 || 16  phi  |   30   154  |    33  |  2 || 17  sea  |   14    40  |    38  |  0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+|  TOTAL   |   80    433  |   160  |  5 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

He averaged 150 total yards and 1.25 TDs per game. And note that the only one of those games that wasn't great was in week 17, when the 49ers had nothing to play for, Owens sat out, etc. This was the whole reason for the Barlow hype last season, not "stud rb theory." McGahee should fare better than Barlow, primarily because his team isn't losing all surrounding talent this offseason, but also because he has a larger sample size of starts, which makes him less of a risk to project to a full season feature back.On the other hand, the defenses Barlow ripped in his late season starts last year are of about the same caliber as those McGahee has been excelling against.

he got 84% of his tds in 4 starts and about 50% of his yards, yet many had barlow in their overall top 10. i was in leagues where he went before moss/harrison/culpepper/manning, etc. if you are drafting barlow over other proven studs at other positions and you werent using the stud rb theory, id like to know what you were doing

 

[Family Matters]

What I am thinking on McGahee is that this was his first year playing in the NFL and first year playing after the injury. 2 very important factors to understand. There are 2 more to bear in mind, 1 is the developement of Evans and the other is the QB change forthcoming 1-2 years from now.1. First year NFL. Successful beginning for sure. Primary concern is the 3.9 YPC. I think it's safe to assume this will improve due to 2 factors. First being experience. Second being the developement of Evans. The passing game will be improved next year as Evans is proving to be a threat and Moulds always has been.2. Injury return/concerns. He has taken some big hits and has bounced back. This is important for 2 reasons. First it demonstrates his knee has held up and can take the hits. Secondly and perhaps more important is the impact on his confidence. A confident runner will perform better than one who is hesitant.3. Evans developement was already discussed but you have to think that the Bills will not be viewed as 1 deminsional next year with Evans and Moulds. Of course Bledsoe's confidence has to be increasing as well. Knowing you have a solid running game and an effective passing game as a QB you feel you can play to what the D gives you. Even a slight improvement by the O line will likely translate into better production in the running game.4. Here's the big wildcard. We were close to seeing Losman in the game before they got things turned around. However, it's just a matter of time before he is the starter. Perhaps next year. He will be given the opportunity to win the job next year. If he does, there will likely be a negative impact to McGahee unless Losman is able to master the offense right away. Something to watch in preseason.Based on these factors, he could easily be top 5. As others have posted, top 5 may be overly optimistic. Yop 10 is very realistic IMO.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

1. First year NFL. Successful beginning for sure. Primary concern is the 3.9 YPC. I think it's safe to assume this will improve due to 2 factors. First being experience.

This is one of the big fallacies I have a problem with.RBs do NOT consistently improve their average with a year of experience. A back's YPC is as likely to drop in his second year as go up. I can't tell you why, and I'm not claiming they don't become better backs in some ways, but YPC just doesn't get better on average in the 2nd year. The trend is actually for the YPC to drop somewhat after a succesful rookie (or 1st year starting) season.A look at the top guys right now:Alexander's average dropped in his 2nd year of starting (high in his 1st year).James' went up, but slightly.Martin's dropped significantly (never all that high).Dillon dropped significantly (very high his 1st year).Barber dropped to 3.2 in his second year (not many carries though).Rudi Johnson's dropped considerably.LT went up a lot - an exception.Portis and Fred Taylor stayed the same (both high).Ahman Green was pretty consistent (high).Dunn dropped.Bettis dropped almost 2 YPC between his rookie season and his sophmore season.Westbrook dropped significantly from his first starting year to his 2nd.Dom Davis dropped significantly.There is just very little evidence to think that just because it's his second year, his YPC is going to get better and there is significant evidence to the contrary.Now if you think the injury is the bigger factor, that's fine, but history suggests experience alone won't do it.

 

[Family Matters]

1. First year NFL. Successful beginning for sure. Primary concern is the 3.9 YPC. I think it's safe to assume this will improve due to 2 factors. First being experience.

This is one of the big fallacies I have a problem with.RBs do NOT consistently improve their average with a year of experience. A back's YPC is as likely to drop in his second year as go up. I can't tell you why, and I'm not claiming they don't become better backs in some ways, but YPC just doesn't get better on average in the 2nd year. The trend is actually for the YPC to drop somewhat after a succesful rookie (or 1st year starting) season.A look at the top guys right now:Alexander's average dropped in his 2nd year of starting (high in his 1st year).James' went up, but slightly.Martin's dropped significantly (never all that high).Dillon dropped significantly (very high his 1st year).Barber dropped to 3.2 in his second year (not many carries though).Rudi Johnson's dropped considerably.LT went up a lot - an exception.Portis and Fred Taylor stayed the same (both high).Ahman Green was pretty consistent (high).Dunn dropped.Bettis dropped almost 2 YPC between his rookie season and his sophmore season.Westbrook dropped significantly from his first starting year to his 2nd.Dom Davis dropped significantly.There is just very little evidence to think that just because it's his second year, his YPC is going to get better and there is significant evidence to the contrary.Now if you think the injury is the bigger factor, that's fine, but history suggests experience alone won't do it.

I think without question his injury is the bigger factor and his confidence should be higher. Thanks for the stats but I think they are misleading. How many of these guys had a high YPC? Of course they are more likely to come down. Guys with a low YPC are in a better position to increase. Guys with a high YPC are more likely to decrease.Alexander went from 4.9 to 4.3.Dillon 4.8 to 4.3.Rudi 4.5 to 4.1Dunn 4.4 to 4.2Westbrook 4.2 to 5.2 to 4.6. The only problem is he wasn't the fulltime starter until this year.So while I see your point, the majority of guys you list as examples are coming down from above avg. YPC numbers to more realistic but still good numbers. I'll take any of these listed above any day for a guy that gets 325+ carries.I still say he is more likely to improve on the YPC.

 

[gman8343]

I'm thinking his ypc will improve because I still don't think he's completely healed. Usually takes 2 years at least to recover, and his was one of the worst I've seen. MacGahee was a very special talent before he got hurt, if he's all the way back next year I don't see any reason he can't be a top 5 RB.

 

[Horses Mouth]

I don't see what I saw at Miami.

This is the major point right here. Thats becuase he isn't there yet! If and when he is though, WAHTCH OUT. I think many like myself are confident he can be at that point next year much like Edge was this year.

the main for me being "if"

Agreed, but even IF he does not get there again, he is still playing well enough to be a top 5 RB. Thats impressive.

he's putting up similar numbers to what Henry put up in 2002 and 2003 (and in some cases worse). I don't think Henry was ever a top 5 RB.

Henry never got/gets respect. talk about underrated. He and A. Thomas could be HUGE value picks next year if they land in a decent situation.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

McGahee wants to rush for 2,000 yards next year and I don't doubt for a second that he could get it done.Just remember the pre-draft hype: A combination of Terrell Davis and Walter Payton. I BELIEVE IN WILLIS! he didn't start a game until week 5, yet he finished as a top-10 RB in his first year returning from a devastating injury. Any RB playing on a team with Bledsoe at QB is going to have a ####ty YPC average because NOBODY respects the passing game and teams load up to stop the run. Well, you know what? McGahee MOVES piles. The dude is a monster, and he combines that size and strength with unbelievable patience and vision. He showed great awareness and cutback ability, and if you get him out in the open field, his stiff arm is a thing of beauty. This guy is the complete package, and if he gets his explosion back, you could be looking at some competition for LT2 as the best RB in the league. Even if he doesn't, he's guaranteed about 15 TDs a year playing in Mularkey's system with the Bills defense and special teams consistently providing great field position.RB is a young man's position for the most part, and McGahee's time has arrived. If he stays healthy, he's a lock for a top-10 season next year, assuming Henry is moved in the offseason.McGahee also showed a lot of toughness this season. There were many times that he got knocked out of games, was limping around on the sidelines, yet he came back in and finished strong. The more confidence he gains in that busted up knee, the scarier he is going to be.I watched every snap he took this year, and I just can't see any RB out there with as much upside as McGahee has right now. The hype is 100% justified, IMO. He's a very special talent, and he has the work ethic and the desire to be one of the best. It's just a matter of getting efficient play from the QB and the OL...but, he has shown that he can make things happen even without great blocking.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I think you guys are putting too much into the numbers. Watch this guy play week in and week out and you will see why some people have him in their top 5.

 

[Family Matters]

I think you guys are putting too much into the numbers. Watch this guy play week in and week out and you will see why some people have him in their top 5.

Now you're pimping him too? Uh oh. Better watch McGahee owners.

 

[3nOut]

What does it take to impress me? SERIOUSLY? A lot more than 3.9 ypc for starters.

So you are more impressed (and thus must be better RB) with Troy Hambrick's 5.1 YPC average in 2001? Or maybe Trung Canidate's 5.7 YPC in 2001? I'm sure I can find others.And FYI, Curtis Martin had three seasons where he averaged less than 4.0 YPC. He's overreated too I guess.

TYhe point is, stats are good but can be skewed. there's more to evaluating a RB than just numbers and 40 times.

 

[Family Matters]

What does it take to impress me? SERIOUSLY? A lot more than 3.9 ypc for starters.

So you are more impressed (and thus must be better RB) with Troy Hambrick's 5.1 YPC average in 2001? Or maybe Trung Canidate's 5.7 YPC in 2001? I'm sure I can find others.And FYI, Curtis Martin had three seasons where he averaged less than 4.0 YPC. He's overreated too I guess.

TYhe point is, stats are good but can be skewed. there's more to evaluating a RB than just numbers and 40 times.

Especially if you isolate 1 stat and pass overall judgement.

 

[hawaiiankrush]

 

[jurb26]

McGahee wants to rush for 2,000 yards next year and I don't doubt for a second that he could get it done.Just remember the pre-draft hype: A combination of Terrell Davis and Walter Payton. I BELIEVE IN WILLIS! he didn't start a game until week 5, yet he finished as a top-10 RB in his first year returning from a devastating injury. Any RB playing on a team with Bledsoe at QB is going to have a ####ty YPC average because NOBODY respects the passing game and teams load up to stop the run. Well, you know what? McGahee MOVES piles. The dude is a monster, and he combines that size and strength with unbelievable patience and vision. He showed great awareness and cutback ability, and if you get him out in the open field, his stiff arm is a thing of beauty. This guy is the complete package, and if he gets his explosion back, you could be looking at some competition for LT2 as the best RB in the league. Even if he doesn't, he's guaranteed about 15 TDs a year playing in Mularkey's system with the Bills defense and special teams consistently providing great field position.RB is a young man's position for the most part, and McGahee's time has arrived. If he stays healthy, he's a lock for a top-10 season next year, assuming Henry is moved in the offseason.McGahee also showed a lot of toughness this season. There were many times that he got knocked out of games, was limping around on the sidelines, yet he came back in and finished strong. The more confidence he gains in that busted up knee, the scarier he is going to be.I watched every snap he took this year, and I just can't see any RB out there with as much upside as McGahee has right now. The hype is 100% justified, IMO. He's a very special talent, and he has the work ethic and the desire to be one of the best. It's just a matter of getting efficient play from the QB and the OL...but, he has shown that he can make things happen even without great blocking.

Finally coming to our side.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

What does it take to impress me? SERIOUSLY?  A lot more than 3.9 ypc for starters.

So you are more impressed (and thus must be better RB) with Troy Hambrick's 5.1 YPC average in 2001? Or maybe Trung Canidate's 5.7 YPC in 2001? I'm sure I can find others.And FYI, Curtis Martin had three seasons where he averaged less than 4.0 YPC. He's overreated too I guess.

TYhe point is, stats are good but can be skewed. there's more to evaluating a RB than just numbers and 40 times.

Especially if you isolate 1 stat and pass overall judgement.

Actually, I mentioned three distinct areas of conern - YPC was one of them. Not the be-all-end-all of statistics, but yeah, all things equal I'd like my top 3 / top 5 prospects to not be in the bottom 3rd of the league when it comes to a fairly good indicator of rushing performance.Another is the fact that he had a sizeable chunk of his production against very bad teams.

Finally, I expressed concern that he doesn't seem to be involved in the passing game. It is VERY difficult to be a great fantasy beack without that aspect in your game.

Now, as most of you seem to believe, maybe he's not 100% and will get better. That is one possibility, but not one I am willing to bank a very high pick on.

For all of you who want me to "just watch him play" and ignore the numbers and other relevant facts: I HAVE seen him play - one full game (unfortunately for Willis, the full one I saw was against Baltimore, a real defense) and parts of several others, including Seattle - his monster game. I thought he looked pretty good, but I did NOT see anything that made think he was head and shoulders more talented than any other starting NFL RB.

 

[Family Matters]

What does it take to impress me? SERIOUSLY?  A lot more than 3.9 ypc for starters.

So you are more impressed (and thus must be better RB) with Troy Hambrick's 5.1 YPC average in 2001? Or maybe Trung Canidate's 5.7 YPC in 2001? I'm sure I can find others.And FYI, Curtis Martin had three seasons where he averaged less than 4.0 YPC. He's overreated too I guess.

TYhe point is, stats are good but can be skewed. there's more to evaluating a RB than just numbers and 40 times.

Especially if you isolate 1 stat and pass overall judgement.

Actually, I mentioned three distinct areas of conern - YPC was one of them. Not the be-all-end-all of statistics, but yeah, all things equal I'd like my top 3 / top 5 prospects to not be in the bottom 3rd of the league when it comes to a fairly good indicator of rushing performance.Another is the fact that he had a sizeable chunk of his production against very bad teams.

Finally, I expressed concern that he doesn't seem to be involved in the passing game. It is VERY difficult to be a great fantasy beack without that aspect in your game.

Now, as most of you seem to believe, maybe he's not 100% and will get better. That is one possibility, but not one I am willing to bank a very high pick on.

For all of you who want me to "just watch him play" and ignore the numbers and other relevant facts: I HAVE seen him play - one full game (unfortunately for Willis, the full one I saw was against Baltimore, a real defense) and parts of several others, including Seattle - his monster game. I thought he looked pretty good, but I did NOT see anything that made think he was head and shoulders more talented than any other starting NFL RB.

Holy, I agree with the point of not being involved in the passing game. For me, if he's at 40+ catches then he has a ligitimate shot at top 5. As for the theory he will get better, I think history has shown that most great RB's didn't have their best year as a rookie or first year starter. They get better with experience. Further, history has shown that players returning from the type injury he did they are most effective the 2nd-3rd year back. Year 3 is next year.If you want to say that these historical facts won't apply to him then you are selectively elimainating him from evaluating and projecting catagories that most of us use on all the players. Once you start making exceptions in the evaluating criteria then that player will never fair well in your thinking. That's ok because somewhere we have to make a call on a guy stand behind the call. Just letting you know how most of us are looking at it and why we see the potential.

 

[Payne]

McGahee will be the 2005 version of Barlow.He will be drafted WAY above where he will produce. BOOK IT!

 

[Burning Sensation]

McGahee will be the 2005 version of Barlow.He will be drafted WAY above where he will produce. BOOK IT!

What do you base this from? Barlow was certainly not thoght of as an elite back coming out of college, it took him 3 years to get the starting job from a RB who no one will mistake for a hall of famer. He had one good stretch against horrible defenses at the end of 2003 in which he had a good supporting cast/offensive line. In 2004 the 49ers lost half their Oline, and Probowl WR and QB. So Barlow was a bust waiting to happen. To compare him to Macgahee makes absolutely no sonse. The skill and situations are totally different. Mcahee single handedly turned a horrible offense into an offense that averaged almost 30 points a game once he took the job. He was widely thought of as the most talented back to come out of college since Tomlinson. Only a horrific knee injury dropped him onto the late first round(still higher then where Barlow was drafted) and a injury which he will be more than two years removed next year. Now if you could point out some facts that you think would hurt Mcgahees production next year, i would love to hear them.

 

[switz]

What do you base this from? Barlow was certainly not thoght of as an elite back coming out of college, it took him 3 years to get the starting job from a RB who no one will mistake for a hall of famer.

I agree with everything you said except the above. Most people on these board were shouting out how talented Barlow is, Mike Shanahan called him the best back in the draft, and he was considered a higher round talent that fell due to attitude/discipline problems.

 

[Family Matters]

What do you base this from? Barlow was certainly not thoght of as an elite back coming out of college, it took him 3 years to get the starting job from a RB who no one will mistake for a hall of famer.

I agree with everything you said except the above. Most people on these board were shouting out how talented Barlow is, Mike Shanahan called him the best back in the draft, and he was considered a higher round talent that fell due to attitude/discipline problems.

As far as his attitude problems, how much did this effect him thsi year if at all? I remember reading numerous quotes that left me with the impression he may not be a team player. In fact he has had trouble getting along with his lead blocker, Beasley. Not exactly the guy you want not liking you.

 

[Jinerator]

4. He's still not 100 percent of the way back from his knee injury. It isn't unusual for a player to really return from this type of injury until his third year (look at Edge this year, for example). If that's the case than the ceiling could be very high for McGahee next season which will be the third year removed from his injury. If you look at what he's done already and think he could be even better next season, that definitely is going to give you cause for optimism.

The Edge isn't 100% and never will be. Edge use to make these great cutbacks and he doesnt do em anymore... He's still great but he's definately not the same edge he use to be. He doesnt have the acceleration and the cutback abilities he once had.Still great RB though

I'm not high on McGahee... I think they really stabbed Henry in the back.

 

[beef]

I'm not high on McGahee... I think they really stabbed Henry in the back.

So do you not like McGahee because of being a Henry fan and the way they treated him, or you just don't think McGahee is as good of a RB? If it's the first and because of the personal reason of being treated right, that's fine for being a fan, but can be devastating fantasy wise. I'm just curious. There are plenty of players I don't rather like, personally, but I'd never down grade them for it when it comes to fantasy or performance.

 

[Jinerator]

I'm not big on mcgahee I don't think he's that great not just cuz I like Henry. I'm not very big on henry either but I think he's plenty better and got shafted.

 

[Burning Sensation]

What do you base this from? Barlow was certainly not thoght of as an elite back coming out of college, it took him 3 years to get the starting job from a RB who no one will mistake for a hall of famer.

I agree with everything you said except the above. Most people on these board were shouting out how talented Barlow is, Mike Shanahan called him the best back in the draft, and he was considered a higher round talent that fell due to attitude/discipline problems.

When i say elite, i mean top 12 - 15 back, not borderline first rounder.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I'm not big on mcgahee I don't think he's that great not just cuz I like Henry. I'm not very big on henry either but I think he's plenty better and got shafted.

You think Henry is the better back? Have you watched any Bills games, or at least seen the results after Mcgahee beat out Henry for the job?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Well, if Joe and Co. can bump that massive 456 page McGahee thread, I'm going to bump the one I created several months earlier that lays out all of the REASONS why McGahee was over-rated.