Orton's Arm Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Where did you get that....I remember Williams explicitly calling Henry and letting him know why they made the pick. Plus McGahee was not even going to play for another year. Travis just did not handle the problem in the right way. The problem was the way the RBs were handled once McGahee got healthy. When Travis was the starter for those first five weeks or so, he got practically all the carries. Once McGahee surpassed Travis on the depth chart, Travis barely saw the field ever again. The Mularkey coaching staff made no effort whatsoever to help the two RBs form any kind of tandem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 The problem was the way the RBs were handled once McGahee got healthy. When Travis was the starter for those first five weeks or so, he got practically all the carries. Once McGahee surpassed Travis on the depth chart, Travis barely saw the field ever again. The Mularkey coaching staff made no effort whatsoever to help the two RBs form any kind of tandem. Except for the fact that Willis was playing very well then and the Bills went on a torrid winning streak, I can see why he should have changed the whole offense in mid stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I'd have been happy with a Travis Henry one-o and a better use of a first round draft choice. All accounts stated that if not McGahee, we were prepared to take Kelsay in the first round...So I have a hard time faulting the mcgahee pick knowing that bit of info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Except for the fact that Willis was playing very well then and the Bills went on a torrid winning streak, I can see why he should have changed the whole offense in mid stream. My point was Mularkey had an "it's got to be one or the other" attitude before Willis started playing well or the winning streak started. That's the way the offense was conceived and built from the get-go. Should he have re-thought that offense in mid-season? No. The time to have done it was before the season started, when he knew he'd probably have two starting-quality running backs to utilize. Not only did he fail to even attempt to build that two-headed monster, but it seemed like after Willis won the starting job, Travis got a much smaller share of the carries than a backup/change of pace back usually gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 All accounts stated that if not McGahee, we were prepared to take Kelsay in the first round...So I have a hard time faulting the mcgahee pick knowing that bit of info this is true and the reason why i never cared that the McGahee pick was risky cause of injury. if we were going to take Kelsay there anyways, then its all just bonus. Larry johnson at that pick wouldve been a better bonus, but hindsight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Lynch & McGahee would be a nice combo if we had a luxury pick we could spend it on. Unfortunately we dont have any of those this year. We have way too many needs right now. RB would have to be near last on the list of needs, at least I think so. Others probably feel different after what McGahee has said recently within the media. But with the possible holes at LB, CB and a OL thats still suspect, RB is down on the list of needs, id have to put WR ahead of RB spot right now. But I do agree Lynch & McGahee would be a great combo. But does Willis think that? I dont think so, I also dont think he would go for it. In order to have a RB duo, you have to have 2 guys that are willing to put TEAM first, McGahee is not that guy! You need 2 RB's that KNOW their jobs, ones the HR threat and the other is the wrecking ball to setup the HR threat. Offenses that have 2 RB's that split time are Dangerous. Dont get me wrong, teams with one RB do well also......But look at the playoff teams from 2006.... All but 3 have a RB duo....KC, SD & Seattle had mainly one RB, I guess you can argue Seattle cause they had Morris to spell Alexander on a few plays, but hes not capable of the things, Bush, Maroney, Rhodes can do.... So it does take selfish players to have a RB duo....Thats the reason I dont see it happening until McGahee leaves. Bottom Line......Buffalo has way too many needs to draft a RB now. Maybe they can later rounds, but...atleast in the first 4 rounds I doubt they will, but I could be wrong and its not the first time ive been wrong..... 100% agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 considering the pounding that RBs take and the fact that their average life expectancy is 3 years. id be happy if my team brought in someone else to take some hits every couple plays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 All accounts stated that if not McGahee, we were prepared to take Kelsay in the first round...So I have a hard time faulting the mcgahee pick knowing that bit of info Considering the personnel doing the picking, I'm not at all surprised. I was assuming the pickers had some idea of how to evaluate talent. Even if they had picked Kelsay instead of McGahee, there would have been a high pick to get someone we needed more than we needed another running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts