rolly Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So I was bored, and with the recent travis henry talk around here I decided to look at a comparison between henry and mcgahee. I took 2 years as starters for the bills and compared them statistically. (Yes I know, the lines were different with different coaches etc.) Two things I did find interesting however were the yards/carry difference and the overall yardage. We all know about henry's fumble problems. Somewhat similar numbers but not as much hype for henry from what I can remember. No I am not insinuating anything, but my question is do we overhype McGahee around here for whatever reason (big college name, miami player etc.)? I really don't have a solid opinion on it but I was wondering what everyone else thought. Henry: 2002 BUF 16 games/ 325 att/ 1438 yds./ 4.4 yds-carry/34 long/ 13 td's/ 72 1st downs/ 11 fumb./ 8 fumb lost 2003 BUF 15 games/ 331 att/ 1356 yds./ 4.1 yds-carry/ 64 long/ 10 td's/ 76 1st downs/ 7 fumb./ 3 fumb lost McGahee: 2004 BUF 16 games/ 284 att/ 1128 yds./ 4.0 yds-carry/ 41 long/ 13 td's/ 64 1st downs/ 3 fumb/ 2 fumb lost 2005 BUF 16 games/ 325 att/ 1247 yds./ 3.8 yds-carry/ 27 long/ 5 td's/ 71 1st downs/ 1 fumb./ 1 fumb lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 but my question is do we overhype McGahee around here for whatever reason (big college name, miami player etc.)? YES!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Similar running numbers but Travis flat out could not nor would not try to block at all. In addition, 18 vs. 4 fumbles is huge. Plenty of "good" running backs have been benched for fumbling far less then that. Whether they are lost or not is of little importance, because they tend to be for lost yardage, and loss of down. Very difficult to sustain drives when you running back alone will basically force a turnover per game whether stalling a drive or just turning the ball over. With only 7 or series per game, a questionable QB in Bledsoe, who fumbles and throws INT, we were losing 3 series in turnovers alone per game. Just not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolly Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Similar running numbers but Travis flat out could not nor would not try to block at all. In addition, 18 vs. 4 fumbles is huge. Plenty of "good" running backs have been benched for fumbling far less then that. Whether they are lost or not is of little importance, because they tend to be for lost yardage, and loss of down. Very difficult to sustain drives when you running back alone will basically force a turnover per game whether stalling a drive or just turning the ball over. With only 7 or series per game, a questionable QB in Bledsoe, who fumbles and throws INT, we were losing 3 series in turnovers alone per game. Just not acceptable. 820549[/snapback] Good points- agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 VA's right. Five-six more fumbles a season probably makes up for the difference in yardage. Let's also not forget that on a losing team a RB will see less time on the field, especially late in the game when defenses are tired and backs tend to gain their most yardage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Also, let us not forget that 2002 almost everyone on the Bill's offense were pro-bowlers. The team was all O and very little D, so that year alone was an outlier for how offensive Bill's players perform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Let's compare apples to apples: McGahee: 2004 16 games/ 284 att/ 1128 yds./ 4.0 yds-carry/ 41 long/ 13 tds/ 64 1st downs/ 3 fumb/ 2 fumb lost Henry: 2004 10 games/ 94 att/ 326 yds/ 3.5 yds-carry/ 19 long/ 0 tds/ 17 1st downs/ 0 fumb/ 0 fumb lost I remember that some people on this board dissed WM by stating that he was no Edge. In looking at the rushing stats, I noticed that Edge has a whopping 2.8 yards per carry. Edge is still a great back, but that stat illustrates the importance of having a good line. I certainly hope that there is no one on this board that is satisfied with our o-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Let's compare apples to apples: McGahee: 2004 16 games/ 284 att/ 1128 yds./ 4.0 yds-carry/ 41 long/ 13 tds/ 64 1st downs/ 3 fumb/ 2 fumb lost Henry: 2004 10 games/ 94 att/ 326 yds/ 3.5 yds-carry/ 19 long/ 0 tds/ 17 1st downs/ 0 fumb/ 0 fumb lost I remember that some people on this board dissed WM by stating that he was no Edge. In looking at the rushing stats, I noticed that Edge has a whopping 2.8 yards per carry. Edge is still a great back, but that stat illustrates the importance of having a good line. I certainly hope that there is no one on this board that is satisfied with our o-line. 820596[/snapback] thank you. I was wondering why there was no 04-04 comparison. I'll also say that back in 02 a lot of henrys yards came via the fact teams feared our passing game, with bledsoe moulds price, centers, reimersma and didnt consistently stack the box. I honestly like both of them. I was dissapointed henry never took to the drafting well. It would've been great to have them as a 1-2 punch that you see around the league today in places like ne/no/sd/atl/den/nyg/dallas etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Also, let us not forget that 2002 almost everyone on the Bill's offense were pro-bowlers. 820562[/snapback] Wth are you talking about? Almost everyone on the Bills offense were pro-bowlers? The Bills had what, 3 pro bowlers that year. Bledsoe (who didn't deserve to go), Moulds and Henry himself (though if I recall he was a reserve originally). It's not like Moulds and Bledsoe weren't around for McGahee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbills17 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 YES!!!! 820547[/snapback] Of course the overrates WM, led by WM's boyfriend Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 No comparison to Henry is complete without adding arrests, drug suspensions & missed games due to injury. You can quote all the stats you want, but when given a chance to replace Henry the Bills had to take it because his off field troubles make him too tough to count on. How would the pro- Henry people have reacted if his 4 game suspension had come as a Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Of course the overrates WM, led by WM's boyfriend Peter. 820680[/snapback] Weak. You still have not been able to come up with a good come back from several weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 No I am not insinuating anything, but my question is do we overhype McGahee around here for whatever reason (big college name, miami player etc.)? I really don't have a solid opinion on it but I was wondering what everyone else thought. 820546[/snapback] TH's good and bad points notwithstanding, the drafting of WMG, to my mind, remains odd. TD rolled the dice, hoping that he would rebound from the knee and end up being a great steal. Not yet. WMG seems to me to be a decent back, anthough comments show up here with some regularity regarding deficiencies in his blocking abilities, too. He doesn't pile up touchdowns - but the whole offensive unit hasn't been very good in red zone situations. Many reasons for that. He'd certainly would start for some other clubs, and while A. Thomas is an ok back, losing WMG with an injury would be a big set-back to the team. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I'd rather have Henry. Henry was a team player, tough as nails, and played hard. Willis strikes me as selfish, complacent, and soft. In terms of running ability, the only edge WM has is break-away speed--and I've yet to see him break away and take one to the house in a regular season game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Right on. And Willis does not have break-away speed anymore after that devastating injury. Let's bust that myth right now. I'd rather have Henry. Henry was a team player, tough as nails, and played hard. Willis strikes me as selfish, complacent, and soft. In terms of running ability, the only edge WM has is break-away speed--and I've yet to see him break away and take one to the house in a regular season game. 821486[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I'd rather have Henry. Henry was a team player, tough as nails, and played hard. Willis strikes me as selfish, complacent, and soft. In terms of running ability, the only edge WM has is break-away speed--and I've yet to see him break away and take one to the house in a regular season game. 821486[/snapback] Factor in the salaries. I'd rather have Henry *and* a decent depth guy for the price of WM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 "McGahee vs. Henry" What time does the fight start? I just got home. Hope I can grab a beer before it begins. This should be a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Factor in the salaries. I'd rather have Henry *and* a decent depth guy for the price of WM. 822551[/snapback] McGahee isn't making much more than Henry if at all is he? I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Factor in the salaries. I'd rather have Henry *and* a decent depth guy for the price of WM. Depth guy? My ass. We'd have Eric Steinbach at LG, a Pro Bowler, if TD hadn't gotten too cute in that draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 ... or Larry Johnson, who wasn't injured. Depth guy? My ass. We'd have Eric Steinbach at LG, a Pro Bowler, if TD hadn't gotten too cute in that draft. 822950[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts