Willis's amazing year

[dave mcbride]

And I'm arguing if you put Thurman on this team and Willis on that one, Willis's would very likely be 5.15 or greater and Thurman's would be 4.13 or less.

762259[/snapback]

 

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever. thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row. and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

[Kelly the Dog]

p.s. TDs are a bogus category for judging a running back, in my humble opinion. no one gave a hoot about it before the advent of fantasy football ...

762263[/snapback]

They mean a lot to the team. I agree they are not always an indicator, as there are surely some players who get an inordinant amount of TDs that are not great players, and some guys are great players but don't get the ball down near the endzone to pad their stats. But they are just as good an indicator of running productions as yards, carries (very underrated, IMO), YPC, and YPG. All of which can be just as misleading. Great players usually have a nose for the goalline.

[Dan]

I have nothing against him, other than the fact that I don't give a crap about all the stats all the homers on this board spew out.  He's been a medicore RB since he's played for the Bills, and anyone that has watched him play vs. a real 'great' RB like Thurman knows that.  Give up on all the stats and hype, because it doesn't mean crap.  For every great stat you guys mention you can counter it with a pathetic one (how about his ypc).  Couple this with his crappy attitude and approach, and we have a RB that is WAY overvalued and hyped by everyone on this board.  He'd better have this speed back that everyone talks about this season, otherwise we will be stuck with the same middle-of-the-road RB.

762225[/snapback]

 

What I love about this mentality is how nothing is ever good enough. Now, not only does Willis have to have the most total yards rushing, the highest YPC, the most TDs, the most recieving yards, the best blocking skills; he must now now have the best attitude.

 

Nevermind that much of that is out of his control; its up to the coaches to put him in a situation to get those stats. A running back on the bench can't catch no balls. Granted his atitude is totally within his control, but I think pretty much the whole team gave up by the mid-point of last season. Hence, the new management and roughly 40 some odd% of player turnover. How can you call one player out, without calling out the entire team?

 

Impossible. If I had people like this supporting me I'd bolt as well.

[Kelly the Dog]

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever.  thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row.  and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

762267[/snapback]

No, in fact I said just the opposite in an above post. I said in no way am I comparing Willis to Thurman, a Hall of Famer.

 

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

[ganesh]

While I agree with the theme of your statements, there are other players out there who do sacrifice a little to stay back with their team....Take Ike Taylor, who was outstanding for the steelers as a shutdown corner last year, just recently signed a extension with a 6.5M signing bonus when players like Ken Lucas and Winfield got 13/14M in signing bonus....The same with even our own, Schoebel, who signed to a smaller contract then what he could have got in the open market.

What Drew does is he always gets the highest money at that position for his client. It helps him and hurts him....It helps him when he can sign the big contract and hurts him like a Javon Walker, where they have a holdout and then the player goes and blows out his knee....

 

If Ronnie Brown is successful in Miami, I cannot see Willis going back to the Miami area. Tampa is also vested in Cadillac Williams....So unless he can get a big contract with the Jaguars, which is a big IF, considering that the Jax are even worse strapped for money than the bills, he will not be going to the Florida area.

 

So now only players from The U and or Rosenhaus's clients care about being paid? This sort of argument against Willis always cracks me up because, I hate to break it to you, there isn't a player in the league that would play for free. There also isn't a player in the league that UNDERvalues his worth when it comes to contract time.

 

This is the NFL. This is not college or HS where loyalties are forged in team colors. The only color that exists is green. This is not exclusive to Willis. Every player wants the big payday. And every player is playing EVERY game to prove they deserve a bigger contract. It's about feeding their families (insert baby momma jokes here).

 

Any player on any team would leave said team for the right contract offer. JP, Lee, TKO, Fletcher-Baker. They are all mercenaries. It's the nature of the sport. And those who think the "old time" players would act differently aren't thinking things through. The players that were around prior to the Free Agency Bonanza would be exactly the same way as todays players -- they just didn't have the opportunity. Money changes everything, friends.

 

So there are only two things you can do about this as a fan.

1) Hope your team is the one that opens up the check book wide enough to keep your favorite players.

or

2) Root for the laundry.

 

Willis is going to have a monster year. Just be glad he's going to have it in Buffalo Bill Blue. And if he goes to another team in 2 years, how can you blame him? Wish him well and keep rooting for the laundry.

762087[/snapback]

[Tasker]

I agree with the monster season for Willis. I think JPs deep passing game will open things up even more (since Willis had KH start 8 times), and he looked so good in the last preseason game on the opening drive....not just the results, but the little things. It will be nice to have him in on 3rd downs, and it will be nice to give him the ball on 1st and goal from the 5...

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, Thurman would have tried last year....

762265[/snapback]

You're right. He would have. Which backs up my theory even more.

[dave mcbride]

No, in fact I said just the opposite in an above post. I said in no way am I comparing Willis to Thurman, a Hall of Famer.

 

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

762275[/snapback]

the one last thing i'll say about this is that you shouldn't leave out his playoff performances in his first two seasons.

 

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1988 hou W,17-10 | 7 75 1 | 0 0 0

1988 cin L,10-21 | 4 6 0 | 0 0 0

1989 cle L,30-34 | 10 27 0 | 13 150 2

 

 

i have no idea why he wasn't used against the bengals in 88, but his performance against the browns in 89 was one of the greatest performances by a bill ever in their playoff history. i still tear up thinking about that performance.

[bbills17]

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever.  thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row.  and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

762267[/snapback]

 

Anyone that would even _attempt_ to compare TT to WM either doesn't watch the games, or has no idea what he is talking about. Even after the same number of season, WM has done nothing even close to what Thurman did. Thurman was an all-around amazing back that could do anything you asked, WM simply put, is not even close.

[JDG]

You're right. He would have. Which backs up my theory even more. 

762292[/snapback]

 

Until Mr. Headcase finds some other excuse for mailing it in this year...

 

It is just bizarre that you are trying to convince us to get excited about a player *because* he quit on his team last year....

 

JDG

[JDG]

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

762275[/snapback]

 

Let's see, Thurman Thomas in his second year average 4.2 yards per carry on 298 attempts and caught 60 balls for 669 yards (11.2 average) and scored 12 TD's.

 

Willis McGahee average 3.8 yards per carry on 325 attempts and caught 28 balls for 178 yards (6.4 average) and scored 5 TD's.

 

I honestly can't gather how you could seriously conclude that "Willis McGahee has been every bit as good as Thurman Thomas in his first two years." The argument you make is based on a very selective reading of statistics - produced by combining Thurman's 2nd year with his rookie year when he had a 2 to 1 split with Rob Riddick and comparing it to McGahee's 3 to 1 split with Travis Henry in his second year and McGahee's third year. It also is the classic Losman-two-card-monte, in trying to compare one player's second year with another player's rookie year. Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

Let's see, Thurman Thomas in his second year average 4.2 yards per carry on 298 attempts and caught 60 balls for 669 yards (11.2 average) and scored 12 TD's.

 

Willis McGahee average 3.8 yards per carry on 325 attempts and caught 28 balls for 178 yards (6.4 average) and scored 5 TD's.

 

I honestly can't gather how you could seriously conclude that "Willis McGahee has been every bit as good as Thurman Thomas in his first two years."    The argument you make is based on a very selective reading of statistics - produced by combining Thurman's 2nd year with his rookie year when he had a 2 to 1 split with Rob Riddick and comparing it to McGahee's 3 to 1 split with Travis Henry in his second year and McGahee's third year.  It also is the classic Losman-two-card-monte, in trying to compare one player's second year with another player's rookie year.  Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

762439[/snapback]

God, what a moronic statement and argument. Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player, and Thurman was way better than Willis as a second year player. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you just ignore the fact that I said McGahee cannot be compared to Thurman, nor do I believe he will ever be as good?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that in two years Willis has equal stats while playing on a far inferior team, with far worse linemen, far worse quarterbacking, worse receivers, far worse coaching and far worse play-calling. He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

[stuckincincy]

He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

 

He sure has. He's put up good numbers, and is a proven NFL rb - any opposing team meeting includes talk about how to stop him.

[stuckincincy]

  Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

762439[/snapback]

 

Well, give us a list of those 2nd-year backs that did...

[IDBillzFan]

He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

He sure has. And if we're lucky, he'll have an even better performance this year, which will help us get a first for him.

[JDG]

God, what a moronic statement and argument. Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player, and Thurman was way better than Willis as a second year player. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you just ignore the fact that I said McGahee cannot be compared to Thurman, nor do I believe he will ever be as good?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that in two years Willis has equal stats while playing on a far inferior team, with far worse linemen, far worse quarterbacking, worse receivers, far worse coaching and far worse play-calling. He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

 

The problem, Kelly, is that you seem to want to have it both ways. You think that Willis' season was "amazing" and "remarkable", but "not great."

 

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year.

 

You think that Willis has been "every bit as good [as Thurman] in his first two years", but you "don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman"? If I wanted to be annoying, I could point out that you just said that Willis is as good as Thurman right now, at the two-year stage of his career. Of course, I interpreted your comment as arguing that you think Willis' first two years were as good as Thurman's, but you are reserving judgement as to whether or not Willis will have the type of extended, long-term, NFL-dominating productivity that made Thurman a Hall of Famer.

 

Is that a reasonable characterization of your position?

 

If so, I responded to your post by pointing out that I think that Thurman's statistics for his first two years show him to have been an unquesitonably better player than Willis McGahee in his first two years. Moreover, I think that it was only by comparing Thomas' and McGahee's first two years' statistics in the manner least-favorable to Thurman Thomas that you were even able to suggest the argument. If forced to chose a RB for two years of my football team - all other considerations aside - I would not think for a second about picking the 1988 and 1989 Thurman Thomas over the 2004 and 2005 Willis McGahee.

 

JDG

 

P.S. You said above that "Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player" - come again? Thurman's first year was 207 carries for a 4.3 average, with 2 TD's and 18 receptions for 208 yards as a rookie. Willis' first year was 284 carries for a 4.0 average 13 TD's and 22 catches for only 169 yards as a second-year player. Willis was an inferior receiver as a first-year player, and about the only thing that was "way better" was the fact that he was the designated goal line back that year. I'd argue, thought, that Thurman's performance line as a rookie was arguably stronger - although I wouldn't ridicule someone who argued the other way. But "way better" - hardly. Certainly nothing compared to the difference between Thurman's second year and Willis' second year.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Until Mr. Headcase finds some other excuse for mailing it in this year...

 

It is just bizarre that you are trying to convince us to get excited about a player *because* he quit on his team last year....

Who DIDN'T quit on the Bills last year?

[Kelly the Dog]

The problem, Kelly, is that you seem to want to have it both ways.  You think that Willis' season was "amazing" and "remarkable", but "not great."

 

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year. 

 

You think that Willis has been "every bit as good [as Thurman] in his first two years", but you "don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman"?    If I wanted to be annoying, I could point out that you just said that Willis is as good as Thurman right now, at the two-year stage of his career.    Of course, I interpreted your comment as arguing that you think Willis' first two years were as good as Thurman's, but you are reserving judgement as to whether or not Willis will have the type of extended, long-term, NFL-dominating productivity that made Thurman a Hall of Famer.   

 

Is that a reasonable characterization of your position?

 

If so, I responded to your post by pointing out that I think that Thurman's statistics for his first two years show him to have been an unquesitonably better player than Willis McGahee in his first two years.  Moreover, I think that it was only by comparing Thomas' and McGahee's first two years' statistics in the manner least-favorable to Thurman Thomas that you were even able to suggest the argument.  If forced to chose a RB for two years of my football team - all other considerations aside - I would not think for a second about picking the 1988 and 1989 Thurman Thomas over the 2004 and 2005 Willis McGahee. 

 

JDG

 

P.S. You said above that "Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player" - come again?  Thurman's first year was 207 carries for a 4.3 average, with 2 TD's and 18 receptions for 208 yards as a rookie.  Willis' first year was 284 carries for a 4.0 average 13 TD's and 22 catches for only 169 yards as a second-year player.  Willis was an inferior receiver as a first-year player, and about the only thing that was "way better" was the fact that he was the designated goal line back that year.  I'd argue, thought, that Thurman's performance line as a rookie was arguably stronger - although I wouldn't ridicule someone who argued the other way.  But "way better" - hardly.  Certainly nothing compared to the difference between Thurman's second year and Willis' second year.

762524[/snapback]

I did notice that you completely ignore the difference in the teams that Thurman played on, the difference in the offensive lines, the difference in the passing game, and the difference in the head coaching and OC. If you think these were on an equal level, or don't adversely affect your stats or production or even how you look, again, you're nuts.

 

If you want to call Willis's rookie season his first season when he was injured the entire year, that is one of the most unfair and disingenuous positions I have seen on this board in years.

 

Running backs are usually measured by how many yards they rush for and how many TDs they score. In that order. Then commonly by receptions and yards per carry and fumbles and receiving yards and blocking on the second level of importance. It's arguable that this is not fair but that is how it is. I know JDG has his own criterion because he likes to ignore anything that doesn't support his crazed stance, but you live in your own little world so I suppose this is to be expected.

 

The fifth best season in Bills history is based on yards gained and only yards gained. It wasn't even my quote it was in one of the Bills articles I read this morning. It is the only way to qualify something statistically. It's how the NFL registers it. Surely there are other factors that are almost as important but that's hiow RBs are measured. Sorry.

 

I thoroughly think a season can be remarkable and amazing but not great. It happens every season all the time. They are not synonyms. For example, Jason Peters season was amazing and remarkable and it was very far from great. Angelo Crowell's season was pretty amazing and rather remarkable but not close to great. I said Willis's season was remarkable because he accomplished what he did under the very, very worst circumstances. But his overall production and season was not great. It was pretty solid and pretty good. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

I surely think that Willis's first two seasons in aggregate were as good as Thurman Thomas's. Mostly because he did it on a far inferior team. Thurman kept on getting better. I am not sure that Willis will. I hope so. Thurman was a Hall of Fame player, one of the greatest players at his position in the history of the game. Willis has a long way to go to approach that. Thurman Thomas was not one of the greatest players ever as a rookie. Or in his second year. He was getting better, and growing with the team. People stupidly, in retrospect, equate a great player with his greatest seasons and the peak of his abilities and just assume for zero reason that he was always like that over his entire, say, 10 year career. That doesn't usually happen. Thurman was pretty darn good right off the bat. So was Willis. Probably better. So yes, I think Willis has quite a ways to go to be discussed on the same level as Thurman in a career, or as an all around player. Thurman was a better blocker early on than Willis. Willis is a better power runner and stronger, IMO. Thurman was an excellent reciever. Willis is known to have excellent hands and I predict he will show it this year. It's not his fault the team refused to throw to the backs in his first two years or that he wasn't in on third downs where backs get a lot of passes. I have never seen any legitimate source question Willis's hands.

[IDBillzFan]

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year.

762524[/snapback]

Ummmm. Yeah. I think that's his point. What's not to understand?

[justnzane]

ahh this is great another thread hijacked by JDG

 

Simply put willis ran behind one of the worst lines last year only houston was clearly worse (as is as every other year). For him to gain as many yards, with Holcomb commanding no respect from defenses (for his dink and dunk throws and his noodle arm) was amazing. To go up against the 8 man fronts when Losman was in last year and gain solid yardage speaks of how tough he is.

 

I think Willis with have a better statistical season w/ being a 3-down back.

[dave mcbride]

I did notice that you completely ignore the difference in the teams that Thurman played on, the difference in the offensive lines, the difference in the passing game, and the difference in the head coaching and OC. If you think these were on an equal level, or don't adversely affect your stats or production or even how you look, again, you're nuts.

 

If you want to call Willis's rookie season his first season when he was injured the entire year, that is one of the most unfair and disingenuous positions I have seen on this board in years.

 

Running backs are usually measured by how many yards they rush for and how many TDs they score. In that order. Then commonly by receptions and yards per carry and fumbles and receiving yards and blocking on the second level of importance. It's arguable that this is not fair but that is how it is. I know JDG has his own criterion because he likes to ignore anything that doesn't support his crazed stance, but you live in your own little world so I suppose this is to be expected.

 

The fifth best season in Bills history is based on yards gained and only yards gained. It wasn't even my quote it was in one of the Bills articles I read this morning. It is the only way to qualify something statistically. It's how the NFL registers it. Surely there are other factors that are almost as important but that's hiow RBs are measured. Sorry.

 

I thoroughly think a season can be remarkable and amazing but not great. It happens every season all the time. They are not synonyms. For example, Jason Peters season was amazing and remarkable and it was very far from great. Angelo Crowell's season was pretty amazing and rather remarkable but not close to great. I said Willis's season was remarkable because he accomplished what he did under the very, very worst circumstances. But his overall production and season was not great.  It was pretty solid and pretty good. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

I surely think that Willis's first two seasons in aggregate were as good as Thurman Thomas's. Mostly because he did it on a far inferior team. Thurman kept on getting better. I am not sure that Willis will. I hope so. Thurman was a Hall of Fame player, one of the greatest players at his position in the history of the game. Willis has a long way to go to approach that. Thurman Thomas was not one of the greatest players ever as a rookie. Or in his second year. He was getting better, and growing with the team. People stupidly, in retrospect, equate a great player with his greatest seasons and the peak of his abilities and just assume for zero reason that he was always like that over his entire, say, 10 year career. That doesn't usually happen. Thurman was pretty darn good right off the bat. So was Willis. Probably better. So yes, I think Willis has quite a ways to go to be discussed on the same level as Thurman in a career, or as an all around player. Thurman was a better blocker early on than Willis. Willis is a better power runner and stronger, IMO. Thurman was an excellent reciever. Willis is known to have excellent hands and I predict he will show it this year. It's not his fault the team refused to throw to the backs in his first two years or that he wasn't in on third downs where backs get a lot of passes. I have never seen any legitimate source question Willis's hands.

762543[/snapback]

mcgahee also didn't have a ronnie harmon or riddick or kinnebrew (in his second season) to split time with. he had an injured travis henry who pretty much went into the tank after week four (and from which he has never exited) and the immortal shaud williams. harmon, painful as it may be for me to say this, ended up being one of the better third down backs of the last 20 years. riddick was a very solid player.

 

bottom line: thomas was better. he was a better runner at that point of his career, a better receiver, and a better blocker. i see you've neglected to factor into your stats the 13 catches for 150 yards and 2 tds on the road against a team that made it to the afc championship game in 89.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Thurman was the better player. But there is NO denying that he had a MUCH better OL, QB, OC, TE's, even WR's, i.e. offense in general, than Willis has had.

 

And last year in terms of yards, Willis had the 5th best output of any RB since the 16-game schedule went into effect, and the 9th best output in Bills' history, since OJ outrushed him (in 14 games) 3 times.

[Kelly the Dog]

mcgahee also didn't have a ronnie harmon or riddick or kinnebrew (in his second season) to split time with. he had an injured travis henry who pretty much went into the tank after week four (and from which he has never exited) and the immortal shaud williams.  harmon, painful as it may be for me to say this, ended up being one of the better third down backs of the last 20 years. riddick was a very solid player.

 

bottom line: thomas was better. he was a better runner at that point of his career, a better receiver, and a better blocker. i see you've neglected to factor into your stats the 13 catches for 150 yards and 2 tds on the road against a team that made it to the afc championship game in 89.

762581[/snapback]

Larry Kinnebrew? WTF? Thurman got 358 touches that year. Willis got 353. Yeah, that splitting time really hurt TT. I neglected to include the stats of games that don't count in the stats. My bad. Or because Willis didn't have a playoff game or team for that matter to make a reasonable comparison.

[dave mcbride]

Larry Kinnebrew? WTF? Thurman got 358 touches that year. Willis got 353. Yeah, that splitting time really hurt TT. I neglected to include the stats of games that don't count in the stats. My bad. Or because Willis didn't have a playoff game or team for that matter to make a reasonable comparison.

762590[/snapback]

so you're saying that including stats from games that really, really matter (i.e., the playoffs) don't count in an evaluation of the player? sophistry.

 

re kinnebrew, he had over 500 yards in 89 and averaged over 4 yards a carry. and he rushed for a half dozen touchdowns, which doesn't matter to me but does matter to others.

[Kelly the Dog]

so you're saying that including stats from games that really, really matter (i.e., the playoffs) don't count in an evaluation of the player? sophistry.

 

re kinnebrew, he had over 500 yards in 89 and averaged over 4 yards a carry. and he rushed for a half dozen touchdowns, which doesn't matter to me but does matter to others.

762596[/snapback]

Great. Add the stats to the game TT played in that Willis didnt play in. Willis still has more yards rushing and still has more touchdowns and still has less catches and still has less yards catching. Did you make your point about stats?

 

Your point was that a fullback, Friggin' Larry, took playing time and touches away from TT. But TT had more touches than WM. Do you still want to belabor that one?

[JDG]

ahh this is great another thread hijacked by JDG 

762556[/snapback]

 

Because that happens so often around here, right?

 

And because my posts have completely drifted off the original topic, right?

 

It seems that there is no surer way to catch grief around here than to dare criticize a Buffalo Bill not named Coy Wire.....

 

JDG

[dave mcbride]

Great. Add the stats to the game TT played in that Willis didnt play in. Willis still has more yards rushing and still has more touchdowns and still has less catches and still has less yards catching. Did you make your point about stats?

 

Your point was that a fullback, Friggin' Larry, took playing time and touches away from TT. But TT had more touches than WM. Do you still want to belabor that one?

762600[/snapback]

re touches, 5.15 > 4.13.

[faderphreak]

So now only players from The U and or Rosenhaus's clients care about being paid? This sort of argument against Willis always cracks me up because, I hate to break it to you, there isn't a player in the league that would play for free. There also isn't a player in the league that UNDERvalues his worth when it comes to contract time.

 

This is the NFL. This is not college or HS where loyalties are forged in team colors. The only color that exists is green. This is not exclusive to Willis. Every player wants the big payday. And every player is playing EVERY game to prove they deserve a bigger contract. It's about feeding their families (insert baby momma jokes here).

 

Any player on any team would leave said team for the right contract offer. JP, Lee, TKO, Fletcher-Baker. They are all mercenaries. It's the nature of the sport. And those who think the "old time" players would act differently aren't thinking things through. The players that were around prior to the Free Agency Bonanza would be exactly the same way as todays players -- they just didn't have the opportunity. Money changes everything, friends.

 

So there are only two things you can do about this as a fan.

1) Hope your team is the one that opens up the check book wide enough to keep your favorite players.

or

2) Root for the laundry.

 

Willis is going to have a monster year. Just be glad he's going to have it in Buffalo Bill Blue. And if he goes to another team in 2 years, how can you blame him? Wish him well and keep rooting for the laundry.

762087[/snapback]

 

I am not saying that ONLY guys from the U who are Rosenhaus' clients want to get paid. What I am saying is that the payday appears to be Willis' only motivation. He has not shown himself to be a team player.

 

The only color that exists is green. This is not exclusive to Willis. Every player wants the big payday. And every player is playing EVERY game to prove they deserve a bigger contract. It's about feeding their families (insert baby momma jokes here).

 

While I know this statement to becoming pretty close to true it is not there yet. The reason I like the sport of football is because it is a team made up of individuals working toward a common goal. In the best of scenarios the sum of all the parts is greater than the whole, Everyone everyone meshes together like the gears in a finely tuned machine. When they are all in sync it is a beautiful thing to watch, from the line play, to the way the recievers run the routes so the quarterbacks seem to hit in stride almost every time. The way the linebackers work together with the line, stunting, blitzing to take away the short part of the field while the d-backs work in unison to take away the pass. When it all becomes seemless it is one of the best things to watch in th world (Except of course, when it is a Bills opponent).

 

That can't be bought too often, if at all, in the modern NFL. Look how many times teams like the Jets, Eagles, Redskins, Raiders, etc. have bought up every big name free agent they could only to fall on thier faces. On the other hand the Colts, Patriots, Bucs, Steelers, Jags, hell even the Bills, have had players take less to stay with a team that they thought there would be the right chemistry to win. The day the "only color that exists is green" in pro football I will stop watching and rooting. I will walk away from it. For some it is still about winning and being the best team on the field. It is those players and teams that make the game of football so fun to watch!

[JDG]

If you want to call Willis's rookie season his first season when he was injured the entire year, that is one of the most unfair and disingenuous positions I have seen on this board in years.

 

I do think that a player who has been in an NFL setting for year, and has had a full year to engage in the mental work of learning an NFL offense, is better placed to succeed as a player than a player of equal talent who is coming in as a rookie out of a college setting.

 

 

I did notice that you completely ignore the difference in the teams that Thurman played on, the difference in the offensive lines, the difference in the passing game, and the difference in the head coaching and OC. If you think these were on an equal level, or don't adversely affect your stats or production or even how you look, again, you're nuts. 

 

Interesting.....

 

Running backs are usually measured by how many yards they rush for and how many TDs they score. In that order. Then commonly by receptions and yards per carry and fumbles and receiving yards and blocking on the second level of importance. It's arguable that this is not fair but that is how it is. I know JDG has his own criterion because he likes to ignore anything that doesn't support his crazed stance, but you live in your own little world so I suppose this is to be expected. 

 

So, at no point are running backs measured by yards per attempt? It just never factors in the equation for you? That's just something from "my own crazy little world"?

 

It seems that you can either say that RB's are to be measured by total yards per season and TD's, period - or you can say that other factors should be taken into account, such as the quality of the talent around them, and yards per carry, and yards per reception, etc. You can't have it both ways, though. You can't tell me that we can only look at total yards per season *and* those other circumstances that make Willis McGahee look better, but *not* those other circumstances that make Thurman Thomas' first two years look better. You certainly can't tell me that I am living in a crazy little world for pointing out the additional evidence that makes Thurman Thomas' first two years look better.

 

Did Thurman Thomas have a better environment in which to succeed in 1988 and 1989 than McGahee in 2004 and 2005? Heck yes. The question is, are the extenuating circumstances sufficient to account for the gap between the two respective performances? You, on the other hand, have been arguing that the two performances were *equal*, even without considering McGahee's extenuating circumstances. My whole point is that the straight-measure of the two performances is clear that Thomas' performance in 1988 and 1989 was superior to McGahee's performance in 2004 and 2005. If we are agreed on that point, you can then argue that the extenuating circumstances surrounding McGahee in 20004 and 2005 more than account for the gap between the two performances. Heck, you might even be able to convince me of that point.

 

JDG

[Dibs]

Last year, on the worst offensive team in Bills history. With a terrible and injured offensive line. With atrocious quarterbacking and no deep threat. With the worst play-calling in recent memory. With a defense that didnt turn the ball over. With a divided locker room which basically became Lord of the Flies. With a fullback and tight end who blocked no one. Not playing on third downs. Willis had the fifth best season in Bills running back history with 1247 yards.

 

And he did it without even trying the last eight games or so. 

 

It was rather a remarkable feat. He should put up huge numbers this year, with virtually everything better for him. The coaching, the line, better QBing, a deep threat, better play calling (guaranteed), a tighter locker room, a better blocking TE, and playing on third downs.

761978[/snapback]

Great post.

Very solid concepts....very hard to argue against them.

It does not mean he will have an awesome year but to most gives us some realistic hope.

 

BIG mistake comparing WM to TT.

This thread quickly changed from your easily defended theory to an argument over the two RBs.

 

To those who say "....so he will leave after this season to another team."

Would you rather he has a shiit year so we can keep him?

 

Reiterating....Great Post!

[Kelly the Dog]

So, at no point are running backs measured by yards per attempt?  It just never factors in the equation for you?  That's just something from "my own crazy little world"?

 

I said "yards per carry" as one of the most important things besides the two most important, rushing yards and touchdowns. The next level down. I'm sorry but yards per catch (if that is what you mean) is not one of the top five statistical categories of a running back. It's rraely even mentioned or discussed. "Yards per touch" is not even a statistical category. Yes, yards per catch says something about them, but usually more about what kind of passes they were thrown. It's not nearly as indicative of a back's performance as yards, TDs, catches, total yards from scrimmage, yards per carry, number of carries, yards per game and fumbles, IMO. Not to mention blocking.

 

It seems that you can either say that RB's are to be measured by total yards per season and TD's, period - or you can say that other factors should be taken into account, such as the quality of the talent around them, and yards per carry, and yards per reception, etc.    You can't have it both ways, though.    You can't tell me that we can only look at total yards per season *and* those other circumstances that make Willis McGahee look better, but *not* those other circumstances that make Thurman Thomas' first two years look better.  You certainly can't tell me that I am living in a crazy little world for pointing out the additional evidence that makes Thurman Thomas' first two years look better.

 

I did look at all those things. I said that yards rushing and TDs are the top two usual indicators. And then there is a second level of stats. And there is the quality of the team. You chose to ignore that I said all kinds of other things are important, too.

 

Did Thurman Thomas have a better environment in which  to succeed in 1988 and 1989 than McGahee in 2004 and 2005?    Heck yes.    The question is, are the extenuating circumstances sufficient to account for the gap between the two respective performances?  You, on the other hand, have been arguing that the two performances were *equal*, even without considering McGahee's extenuating circumstances.  My whole point is that the straight-measure of the two performances is clear that Thomas' performance in 1988 and 1989 was superior to McGahee's performance in 2004 and 2005.    If we are agreed on that point, you can then argue that the extenuating circumstances surrounding McGahee in 20004 and 2005 more than account for the gap between the two performances.  Heck, you might even be able to convince me of that point.

 

Where is this big gap? It looks pretty equal to me. Willis had more carries, more rushing yards, more touchdowns. Thurman had a better per carry average, more catches, more receiving yards, and slightly more total yards from scrimmage. Thurman was a better blocker. Willis played on a far inferior team. Taking all of those things into consideration, I think that's pretty even. I would argue Willis's is slightly more impressive considering the gross difference in the players and coaches around him.

 

Even without talking the level of teams it is even. If you asked a coach what are the two most important categories for a running back I would bet you any amount the vast majority of them would say yards rushing and touchdowns. Willis wins on both of those. I would argue that total carries is as important to a coach as yards per carry (unless your YPC is ridiculously low, which Willis's aren't). I think receiving stats are very important but not as important, and not in the top two. It is arguable that total yards from scrimmage is in the top two, and I would understand anyone putting that ahead of TDs. I personally think TDs are slightly more important.

[bbills17]

I said "yards per carry" as one of the most important things besides the two most important, rushing yards and touchdowns. The next level down. I'm sorry but yards per catch (if that is what you mean) is not one of the top five statistical categories of a running back. It's rraely even mentioned or discussed. "Yards per touch" is not even a statistical category. Yes, yards per catch says something about them, but usually more about what kind of passes they were thrown. It's not nearly as indicative of a back's performance as yards, TDs, catches, total yards from scrimmage, yards per carry, number of carries, yards per game and fumbles, IMO. Not to mention blocking.

I did look at all those things. I said that yards rushing and TDs are the top two usual indicators. And then there is a second level of stats. And there is the quality of the team. You chose to ignore that I said all kinds of other things are important, too.

Where is this big gap? It looks pretty equal to me. Willis had more carries, more rushing yards, more touchdowns. Thurman had a better per carry average, more catches, more receiving yards, and slightly more total yards from scrimmage. Thurman was a better blocker. Willis played on a far inferior team. Taking all of those things into consideration, I think that's pretty even. I would argue Willis's is slightly more impressive considering the gross difference in the players and coaches around him.

 

Even without talking the level of teams it is even. If you asked a coach what are the two most important categories for a running back I would bet you any amount the vast majority of them would say yards rushing and touchdowns. Willis wins on both of those. I would argue that total carries is as important to a coach as yards per carry (unless your YPC is ridiculously low, which Willis's aren't). I think receiving stats are very important but not as important, and not in the top two. It is arguable that total yards from scrimmage is in the top two, and I would understand anyone putting that ahead of TDs. I personally think TDs are slightly more important.

762655[/snapback]

 

It's everyone's favourite excuse around here, blame it on the team, blame it on the environment. Maybe the Bills would have been a much better team if Willis played better? The fact is, Willis played many games last year afraid to hit the hole, his blocking out of the backfield was atrocious, he showed BELOW average speed, consistently not being able to get around the corner, and he made an ass of himself suggesting he was the best in the game. I'm convinced you never even saw TT play in his first two years because if you had, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment. Beyond the stats, WM is hugely overrated by you and many others here. If he doesn't regain the speed that everyone heard about from College, he will never be a 'great' back.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's everyone's favourite excuse around here, blame it on the team, blame it on the environment.  Maybe the Bills would have been a much better team if Willis played better?  The fact is, Willis played many games last year afraid to hit the hole, his blocking out of the backfield was atrocious, he showed BELOW average speed, consistently not being able to get around the corner, and he made an ass of himself suggesting he was the best in the game.  I'm convinced you never even saw TT play in his first two years because if you had, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment.  Beyond the stats, WM is hugely overrated by you and many others here.  If he doesn't regain the speed that everyone heard about from College, he will never be a 'great' back.

762664[/snapback]

I've rarely missed watching a Bills game in 36 years. Been watching them close for 41 years of their 46 years in existence. How many times do I have to say, more than five, that I don't think Willis is close to the player that Thurman was. If you think that Thurman was a Hall of Famer before he even started playing you're nuts. He was good right off the bat. He was not a Hall of Famer right off the bat.

 

I have yet to call Willis a great back.

[muggins]

Well, I just called a counter-left and Josh Reed and Kevin Everett laid down to blocks and willis outran rodney harrison for a 70 yard td, first play from scrimmage in my madden season at the ralph. crowd went wild ! god i wish i could save replays

[Lori]

To those who say "....so he will leave after this season to another team."

Would you rather he has a shiit year so we can keep him?

Good point...

[keepthefaith]

Good point...

762681[/snapback]

 

For now, Willis's goals and that of the team are aligned. He needs a big year to position himself for a new contract and to regain the positive public sentiment that existed after he recovered from his injury and had some big games in '04. A good performance this year is critical for the Bills' success and his personal cause as well. Both need him to play well.

 

Publically he needs some positive publicity beyond him blowing his own horn. This year, with a good start, Willis will be known as Bill McGahee. Buffalo Bill McGahee. The media and fans will jump all over this and the catchy nickname will give Willis (Buffalo Bill) a stronger bond with the city and the team. Chris Berman will be all over it. Momentum will follow. So give the damn ball to Buffalo Bill!

[nemhoff]

i think his speed is BACK AFTER WATCHING HIM IN TRAINING CAMP!!! ALL THOSE WILLIS HATERS AND PEOPLE THAT LOVE TO SUCK HENRY'S YOU KNOW WHAT CAN STICK IT!!!!!!GO BILLS GO BILLS!!!

 

761987[/snapback]

 

 

RJ, is that you my old friend?

[CosmicBills]

I am not saying that ONLY guys from the U who are Rosenhaus' clients want to get paid. What I am saying is that the payday appears to be Willis' only motivation. He has not shown himself to be a team player.

 

 

That can't be bought too often, if at all, in the modern NFL. Look how many times teams like the Jets, Eagles, Redskins, Raiders, etc. have bought up every big name free agent they could only to fall on thier faces.

 

The day the "only color that exists is green" in pro football I will stop watching and rooting. I will walk away from it. For some it is still about winning and being the best team on the field. It is those players and teams that make the game of football so fun to watch!

762629[/snapback]

 

But see, you are talking about two different things.

 

Chemistry DOES exist and it's like catching lightning in a bottle. But that does not negate the mercenary mentality of the players. Why do players want to be the best on the field? So they can get paid the most at their position. Why do players want to win super bowl rings or be a part of the best teams? Because that means more dollars in their pocket.

 

You cannot be in any professional sport without being a competitor. It's in their blood. So when the bullets start flying, these guys ARE playing to prove that they are the best -- and the biggest way to show that is winning games for the team. On one hand it is due to their competitive nature, on the other hand, it's to get the biggest payday they can -- which also feeds their competitive streak (there's a reason a guy like Nate holds out to be the highest paid corner in the league -- it's because how much a player earns is how the players judge who the best players are in some respects).

 

Look at the Pats, great team with great chemistry during their run, yet year by year, key free agents left for more money. Were they not team players when they won superbowls with the Pats? Do you think their only motivation was to win for Bob Kraft or the fans? Baloney. They had chemistry, yes. But they were still playing with one eye on the Lombardi trophey and the other on their bottom line.

 

A good example of this is the Preseason. One of the major reasons why veterans HATE playing preseason games is they get paid LESS (over half from what I understand) to partake in those games. That is a huge reason why the vets hate those games -- they don't want to get hurt in a game that pays them half salary and doesn't matter.

 

I think LA said it best in an earlier post when he asked if it wasn't too much to hope that Willis at least ACTED like he cared. But see, that's the nature of the beast, Willis DOES care and DOES try. Every athlete does -- because they can't get that big payday unless they put up the numbers. That is their motivation. Not their only motivation, but certainly the biggest.

 

Some players are great at playing to the media, others aren't. Willis did his job, put up numbers but didn't dance (to use a Jerry McGuire term). It's just not Willis. But that doesn't necessarily make his motivation any more greedy than any other player in the league. That's my point. And it drives me nuts when people say he's "worse" than other NFL players like Favre. Or people who thought Favre was a huge champion of the fans when he called Javon Walker out in the press. It's easy for Favre to do that because he HAS the money. He has had the career, the endorsements. Now for Favre it IS about winning and securing his place in history. For a guy like Walker or Willis, young guys who don't have that stability, it's about making MONEY. At one point, it was for Favre too.

 

For the fans it's easy to forget that this is a job for these guys. This is what they do for a living. And the average shelf life of an NFL player is less than 4 years. Imagine that -- imagine if someone told you that you only had 4 years to make the bulk of your income in your job now. How would that change your mentality? Four years to make as much as you possibley can -- at the expense of your healthy, your body and maybe your life. Wouldn't that affect how you thought about your job? Hell, you'd be CRAZY to take less money to stay at an office with good "chemistry".

 

Chemistry is a fortunate side effect in all sports, football especially. It makes for wins on Sunday for sure, but not every team with great chemistry has altruistic players who think of the team first. Nor is it impossible for "mercenary" players to add positive chemistry to a locker room. It just isn't the case.

[Kelly the Dog]

But see, you are talking about two different things.

 

Chemistry DOES exist and it's like catching lightning in a bottle. But that does not negate the mercenary mentality of the players. Why do players want to be the best on the field? So they can get paid the most at their position. Why do players want to win super bowl rings or be a part of the best teams? Because that means more dollars in their pocket.

 

 

762738[/snapback]

I agree and disagree. I think they do play for the money, but, and this is an important distinction, I truly believe that it is at least as much about ego than dollars. These guys are amazingly competitive. It's the biggest driving force.

 

The players get paid in money. They all think they are great, and most think they are or could be amongst the very best if not the very best in the game. Willis was just saying what 30 and maybe 60 other RBs think. But that's where the ego comes in. The only way to stack up against other players is not by winning championships, or racking up stats, it's by being paid more. The higher the contract, the more you are worth, and therefore the better you are compared to all of the other players. That may not be true but it is how they are compared and how they compare themselves. They want to be thought of as the best and that means the highest paid.

 

This is impossible, but I truly believe that if there was another way to measure how great you are, instead of money (and stats is not it) more players would want being thought of as the best than you would believe.

[CosmicBills]

I agree and disagree. I think they do play for the money, but, and this is an important distinction, I truly believe that it is at least as much about ego than dollars. These guys are amazingly competitive. It's the biggest driving force.

 

The players get paid in money. They all think they are great, and most think they are or could be amongst the very best if not the very best in the game. Willis was just saying what 30 and maybe 60 other RBs think. But that's where the ego comes in. The only way to stack up against other players is not by winning championships, or racking up stats, it's by being paid more. The higher the contract, the more you are worth, and therefore the better you are compared to all of the other players. That may not be true but it is how they are compared and how they compare themselves. They want to be thought of as the best and that means the highest paid.

 

This is impossible, but I truly believe that if there was another way to measure how great you are, instead of money (and stats is not it) more players would want being thought of as the best than you would believe.

762743[/snapback]

 

Exactly. That's what I meant with the Nate comparisions. The reason he wants to be paid like a top CB is because it proves to the rest of the players in the league that he IS a top CB. Stats can lie. Dollars, in this sense, don't.

 

But, while I think ego plays a HUGE factor, I think a lot of these guys realize that the window to make a living at this sport is very limited. And the advent of free agency changed a lot of their mentalities. Now, they have to strike the FA market when they are hot, not only to feed their ego, but for the long term security of themselves and their families.

 

We laugh when a player complains about getting paid a couple million dollars, sure. It's ridiculous on some levels. But then again, that is a small amount when you consider the brevity of their earning power in this career. Most people get 20 or 30 years to earn their money from their jobs. These guys get 5 if they're lucky.