quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I'd like to open this up to debate: With all of the talk after the McCoy trade that 'RBs are a dime a dozen,' I started to think about RBs' roles in relation to their team's offensive scheme. Some believe that all you need is a serviceable running back and you can build around a QB. But how do you measure the productivity of a serviceable RB AND how much of your offensive scheme dictates how you define serviceable? The Super Bowl Champion Patriots had no RBs among the top 40 rushers in the league.They cycled four RBs and their top rusher had less than 500 yards. The Patriots likely have 2-3 serviceable RBs. They fit within the scheme, they get the yards when needed, they score from short range, they do what Belicheat needs them to do. This is all good and well when you plug and play within the Pats scheme. But what about the Bills scheme? What the Pats define as serviceable wouldn't cut it for our team. We're relying on EJ, or maybe Cassel, to run the offense and we need a stronger run game. We wouldn't be able to get away with a top rusher under 500 yards (FJ had 525). Our definition of serviceable is going to have to be much, much stronger. We couldn't get away with Boobie, Brown and an aged FJ. My argument is that the Bills couldn't be a playoff team with their current roster WITHOUT a Top 5 RB. Sure there are many serviceable RBs, but they don't outweigh our weaknesses (oline/TE/young WRs/QB(?)). Edited March 5, 2015 by quinnearlysghost88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) There are no franchise QBs available so we got a franchise RB instead. Edited March 5, 2015 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) This is pretty much Bill Barnwell's point in a "trade review" he did at the grantland site. 1. The Bills have the defense to compete right now. 2. They have the worst QB situation in all of football (wait ... what about Houston?) 3. They have no real prospect of obtaining even a league-average QB (subsequently proven correct with the trade for Matt Cassel) 4. In this situation, the best option is to try to get not just a decent running game, but a really impressive running game. 5. That plan starts with getting a really impressive RB, hence it was perfectly sensible for the Bills to pull the trigger on the McCoy trade. EDIT: I should say that the plan starts -- but doesn't finish -- with getting a really impressive RB. The rest of the plan is to get at least a solid offensive line. So if they don't do that, the McCoy plan doesn't make sense. Which is why I think we should withhold judgement until free agency season is over .... Edited March 5, 2015 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 didn't the Putz pick up a good RB and then go on to win the SB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills of Boston Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 These arguments are so flawed in my opinion (strictly on the running back).. If Seattle did what they should have and ran the ball.. the BACK TO BACK Superbowl champs would have an all-world RB on their roster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 There are no franchise QBs available so we got a franchise RB instead. Correct. Not what any team would want to do, but what they thought they had to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Correct. Not what any team would want to do, but what they thought they had to do.The world doesn't stop turning if you don't have a QB. You have to go to Plan B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I dont buy into the RBs are a dime a dozen, some might be but not the top RBs who separate themselves from rest of league like McCoy, Peterson, etc for a team that will rely on the run more then most you need more then a run of the mill no name RB anyone who has reservations about McCoy probably hasnt seen him play a lot and will change their tune as soon as they see him run with the Buffalo on his helmet. Ive had the pleasure of watching just about every game McCoy has played and couldnt be more pumped about this trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The world doesn't stop turning if you don't have a QB. You have to go to Plan B. And as Barnwell pointed out, there's no hope of getting a franchise QB in free agency or (for the Bills) in this year's draft, which means the best you could hope for is to draft someone (who?) in 2016 and then give that kid a year or two to develop .... by that point, your dominant defense is probably well in decline. So while Barnwell overall thought the Eagles "won" the trade, I thought he outlined pretty clearly why this was a rational strategy for a team at this point in the competition cycle like the Bills. Ideally, we'd have been trading not for McCoy but for Foles, but that wasn't going to happen. (Even if the Eagles move Foles, it'll be in some mega deal with picks, etc., for Mariota) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 These arguments are so flawed in my opinion (strictly on the running back).. If Seattle did what they should have and ran the ball.. the BACK TO BACK Superbowl champs would have an all-world RB on their roster... They would actually have an all-world RB and Wilson was 16th in rushing. So two rushers better than our top rusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonbrigade Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 There is more than one way to win in the NFL, Seattle, the Giants, Chicago and Baltimore won Super bowls with a running game and defense, New England won by cheating, and other teams win with quarterbacks. There are many ways to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This is pretty much Bill Barnwell's point in a "trade review" he did at the grantland site. 1. The Bills have the defense to compete right now. 2. They have the worst QB situation in all of football (wait ... what about Houston?) 3. They have no real prospect of obtaining even a league-average QB (subsequently proven correct with the trade for Matt Cassel) 4. In this situation, the best option is to try to get not just a decent running game, but a really impressive running game. 5. That plan starts with getting a really impressive RB, hence it was perfectly sensible for the Bills to pull the trigger on the McCoy trade. EDIT: I should say that the plan starts -- but doesn't finish -- with getting a really impressive RB. The rest of the plan is to get at least a solid offensive line. So if they don't do that, the McCoy plan doesn't make sense. Which is why I think we should withhold judgement until free agency season is over .... Bingo. Rex Ryan had the Jets leading at halftime of an AFCC game with Mark Sanchez at QB. Until such time as the Bills have a QB who is any better than the Sanchez-EJ-Casell-Orton level, their best chance to win is via the same gound-and-pound formula. I get the sense that some people just want to hold out hope that a miracle QB savior is going to magically appear in the 4th round of the draft, but that's not gonna happen. The Bills -- finally -- are attempting to win with the cards they've been dealt. And they just traded one of those cards for one of the best all around RBs in football. Sign me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 There is more than one way to win in the NFL, Seattle, the Giants, Chicago and Baltimore won Super bowls with a running game and defense, New England won by cheating, and other teams win with quarterbacks. There are many ways to win. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 There is more than one way to win in the NFL, Seattle, the Giants, Chicago and Baltimore won Super bowls with a running game and defense, New England won by cheating, and other teams win with quarterbacks. There are many ways to win. Yep. And the other best options were pretty bad, things like "give EJ another chance, sign Iupati, re-sign Spiller and hope he has a resurgence or Bryce Brown can carry the load." Look, getting a stud RB with a high salary who may be on the downswing isn't ideal, but "ideal" was kind of off the table here. At least they have a plan, and it's a rational one -- how to try to make the playoffs without relying on a pipe dream like having a marginal QB suddenly turn into a guy who can carry an offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) A franchise RB forces the defense to respect the run and thus taking some pressure off of the QB Also, now that we have McCoy, I wont cringe as much when I see our QB checking down and dumping a pass off to him in the flat CBF Edited March 5, 2015 by Canadian Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yep. And the other best options were pretty bad, things like "give EJ another chance, sign Iupati, re-sign Spiller and hope he has a resurgence or Bryce Brown can carry the load." Look, getting a stud RB with a high salary who may be on the downswing isn't ideal, but "ideal" was kind of off the table here. At least they have a plan, and it's a rational one -- how to try to make the playoffs without relying on a pipe dream like having a marginal QB suddenly turn into a guy who can carry an offense. This nails it. We're always looking to somehow keep the status quo all while wishing for something magical to happen and for underachievers to have a renaissance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The Bills mistake in the past isn't in their investment in the RB position. It is their lack of effective investment in the O-line. Have they learned their O-line lessons yet? That will determine much of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Running backs are a "dime a dozen". So, out of 12 running backs 10 are the same, 1 sucks, and 1 is elite. We just got an elite one. Shady qualifies as a "penny a dozen" running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Shady is not your standard running back CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 These arguments are so flawed in my opinion (strictly on the running back).. If Seattle did what they should have and ran the ball.. the BACK TO BACK Superbowl champs would have an all-world RB on their roster... They still do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts