Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 He has a 1000x better chance of starting in NE than Buffalo... Maroney is on his way out. Maroney..............................now there is a player that can't hold Taylor's jock. The only comparison between Maroney & Taylor is Maroney is just as INJURY PRONE as Taylor. Between the two of them combined N.E.* should get 12 -14 games played. Is there ANYONE on this board that would rather have Maroney on the Bills than Rhodes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotwing Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 If this were a prize fight and facts were punches, someone would have to throw in the towel on afcfan. Kid is getting pummeled here. Â Â lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Maroney..............................now there is a player that can't hold Taylor's jock. The only comparison between Maroney & Taylor is Maroney is just as INJURY PRONE as Taylor. Between the two of them combined N.E.* should get 12 -14 games played. Is there ANYONE on this board that would rather have Maroney on the Bills than Rhodes? Â Just to show that I'm not a complete homer, Maroney looked fantastic at times his first season in the League. In particular, I remember watching him in pre-season that year just absolutely running wild and, mainly, over people. I think that's his problem, by and large. He runs too upright and doesn't shy away from contact as much as he should and his body takes the pounding for it. People worried about the same thing with AD Peterson, but he's managed to stay much more healthy. Maroney, on the other hand, can't seem to stay on the field due to those injuries. Marshawn has a little bit of that, too, but so far has managed to stay relatively healthy, but time will tell. Maroney's injury history seems to have also worn out his Belicheat welcome--I remember in 2007 some kind of verbal sparring between the two. Maybe Maroney learned from Ted Johnson's experience that BB doesn't always have his player's health in the forefront of his mind when he tells you to get in there even though you're hurt..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Comparing Rhodes to Fred Taylor is absurd. Taylor has been an elite back in the NFL for years. He would undoubtedly be our starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 Comparing Rhodes to Fred Taylor is absurd. Taylor has been an elite back in the NFL for years. He would undoubtedly be our starter. Â There is no way Taylor would start over Lynch. That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Comparing Rhodes to Fred Taylor is absurd. Taylor has been an elite back in the NFL for years. He would undoubtedly be our starter. Â Â Drunk this early in the morning? Impressive. It is a holiday, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUK ny Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Slow down with the injury bit. Fast freddie, turned into fragile freddie the first couple years of his career. He has been an amazing compliment back and stayed healthy while occasionally carrying the load on his own a few years as well as when Jones-drew was banged up. He did get banged up a bit last year but he has been healthy for at least a five year stretch. Â comparing the two, him and rhodes, there is really no difference. They are both compliment backs with limited burst at this point and capable hands. Neither capable of carrying the load. Dont get all inflated on rhodes just because he is on our team and start thinking he is better than some who have been much better for much longer. The only thing rhodes does that is better than Taylor, is his birth certificate is newer! Â Typical of people to downplay a players career just because he wanted to get "a competitive advantage" and join NE! Â Maroney..............................now there is a player that can't hold Taylor's jock. The only comparison between Maroney & Taylor is Maroney is just as INJURY PRONE as Taylor. Between the two of them combined N.E.* should get 12 -14 games played. Is there ANYONE on this board that would rather have Maroney on the Bills than Rhodes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Given our team's different states I would take Fred Taylor for the pats over Rhodes anyday since we're running a RB by committee and a flier on a guy like Fred Taylor is definitely worth taking over Rhodes since we won't need to rely on him as much as you will Rhodes. Fred Taylor is essentially replacing Lamont Jordan a guy who only played in 8 games. You also didn't previously have a skat back so Rhodes makes sense for you in that regard, we already have Kevin Faulk. But yeah for the pats I'd take Taylor over Rhodes 100%, but he makes sense for you guys. Â Â Edit: Maroney is pretty damn good when he's actually on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Slow down with the injury bit. Fast freddie, turned into fragile freddie the first couple years of his career. He has been an amazing compliment back and stayed healthy while occasionally carrying the load on his own a few years as well as when Jones-drew was banged up. He did get banged up a bit last year but he has been healthy for at least a five year stretch. Â comparing the two, him and rhodes, there is really no difference. They are both compliment backs with limited burst at this point and capable hands. Neither capable of carrying the load. Dont get all inflated on rhodes just because he is on our team and start thinking he is better than some who have been much better for much longer. The only thing rhodes does that is better than Taylor, is his birth certificate is newer! Â Typical of people to downplay a players career just because he wanted to get "a competitive advantage" and join NE! Â Â Now we're referring to Fred Taylor as "Fast Freddie"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Given our team's different states I would take Fred Taylor for the pats over Rhodes anyday since we're running a RB by committee and a flier on a guy like Fred Taylor is definitely worth taking over Rhodes since we won't need to rely on him as much as you will Rhodes. Fred Taylor is essentially replacing Lamont Jordan a guy who only played in 8 games. You also didn't previously have a skat back so Rhodes makes sense for you in that regard, we already have Kevin Faulk. But yeah for the pats I'd take Taylor over Rhodes 100%, but he makes sense for you guys.  Edit: Maroney is pretty damn good when he's actually on the field.   Maroney was great as a rookie. Now he is "pretty good" when healthy...which seems to be "not very often".  Are you actually suggesting Rhodes will see the field with the Bills more than Taylor will with the Pats*? That's crazy talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Maroney was great as a rookie. Now he is "pretty good" when healthy...which seems to be "not very often". Are you actually suggesting Rhodes will see the field with the Bills more than Taylor will with the Pats*? That's crazy talk. No I'm saying that its not like either was a marquee signing, I'm weighing them in terms of the roles they were signed to play, in which case Taylor made way more sense for us and Rhodes made more sense for you. Taylor probably didn't want to sign with you guys because you have a #1 and #2 who are at this point in their careers better than he is, he wanted somewhere he would get a lot of touches, welcome to new england Freddy. Rhodes on the other hand would sign anywhere that offered him a warm meal and a hot shower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 No I'm saying that its not like either was a marquee signing, I'm weighing them in terms of the roles they were signed to play, in which case Taylor made way more sense for us and Rhodes made more sense for you. Taylor probably didn't want to sign with you guys because you have a #1 and #2 who are at this point in their careers better than he is, he wanted somewhere he would get a lot of touches, welcome to new england Freddy. Rhodes on the other hand would sign anywhere that offered him a warm meal and a hot shower   The Pats* made way more sense for Taylor.  Rhodes still has a contribution to make, and could help most teams as a #2 RB, IMO. I don't think he ends up with the Bills if Marshawn wasn't suspended for some games to start the season, though. Circumstances made him more valuable to the Bills than he would be to some other teams. If the Bills decide to use some no-huddle, and continue to throw to their backs more (as they began to do last season) Rhodes will be a better fit for the Bills than Taylor would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 The Pats* made way more sense for Taylor. Â Rhodes still has a contribution to make, and could help most teams as a #2 RB, IMO. I don't think he ends up with the Bills if Marshawn wasn't suspended for some games to start the season, though. Circumstances made him more valuable to the Bills than he would be to some other teams. If the Bills decide to use some no-huddle, and continue to throw to their backs more (as they began to do last season) Rhodes will be a better fit for the Bills than Taylor would have been. Â No more need be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Except I think this is pertinent too. Â Per Rotoworld: Dominic Rhodes' two-year contract with the Bills is worth $2.55 million, including a $200000 signing bonus. Â Per ESPN: Taylor agreed to a two-year, $5 million contract that pays him $3 million in 2009 and $2 million next season. Â The Patriots gave Taylor twice as much as we gave Rhodes. Taylor is one of the great and most underrated RBs of his time. That said, I think Rhodes is the better value and it's also possible that Rhodes has more tread left and is also a better fit for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Except I think this is pertinent too. Per Rotoworld: Dominic Rhodes' two-year contract with the Bills is worth $2.55 million, including a $200000 signing bonus.  Per ESPN: Taylor agreed to a two-year, $5 million contract that pays him $3 million in 2009 and $2 million next season.  The Patriots gave Taylor twice as much as we gave Rhodes. Taylor is one of the great and most underrated RBs of his time. That said, I think Rhodes is the better value and it's also possible that Rhodes has more tread left and is also a better fit for the Bills.   Completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao  There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor?  Say it aint so, Deano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor?  Say it aint so, Deano.  At this point in their careers, considering their ages, salaries and potential role on our team of a 2nd back for 3 games and a 3rd back who can come in on 3rd downs hopefully for the rest of the year(which is the relevant question here), yes, I'd say that Rhodes is the better pick for Buffalo. I hate to admit it, but I may agree with Mr. Bruschi above, that Taylor probably fits better for the Pats* as more of a primary runner (i.e., 1st and 2nd down back), as (a) he doesn't have great hands and (b) they have a similarly ancient Kevin Faulk for their 3rd down back and Sammy Morris, only slightly younger at 32 during the year backing all of them and Maroney up. How is it that New England has 3 guys over 32 at a position where most teams have no one of consequence over 30 since skills decline so badly after that age at RB? Does the RB coach share an office (and physician) with their LB and safeties coach? Just wondering...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor?  Say it aint so, Deano. I believe he's referring to their value on a 'yard-per-dollar' basis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor?  Say it aint so, Deano.  lmao  There are actually people who think paying $2.5M per year for an injury-prone 33 year old running back who had ONE TD last year is a good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I believe he's referring to their value on a 'yard-per-dollar' basis... Fred sported the gold teeth for several of his early years. For that alone, he deserves to make more money now than Rhodes. Â I like Rhodes though and I think it is a very solid acquisition for the team. Takes the heat off Oman as a possible need contributor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor?  Say it aint so, Deano.   Depends on how they are used. If you plan to use the guy regularly in your RB rotation, I think Taylor might be slightly better, right now, than Rhodes. There if far more wear on Taylor's tires, but as a down-in, down-out RB, he is probably the better of the two.  But, if you already have two backs that you plan to handle the bulk of your running game, and are looking for a contributor on third down, and plan to use in the passing attack, Rhodes wins, IMO.  I think both teams (Bills and Pats*) got the back that is best suited to them. But, the Pats* have to regularly use a back who would see limited time on the Bills...and they pay him quite a bit more. If Marshawn and Fred go down during the season, they might wish they signed Taylor, but that's about the only time I see getting Rhodes instead of Taylor as a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Slow down with the injury bit. Fast freddie, turned into fragile freddie the first couple years of his career. He has been an amazing compliment back and stayed healthy while occasionally carrying the load on his own a few years as well as when Jones-drew was banged up. He did get banged up a bit last year but he has been healthy for at least a five year stretch. Â comparing the two, him and rhodes, there is really no difference. They are both compliment backs with limited burst at this point and capable hands. Neither capable of carrying the load. Dont get all inflated on rhodes just because he is on our team and start thinking he is better than some who have been much better for much longer. The only thing rhodes does that is better than Taylor, is his birth certificate is newer! Â Typical of people to downplay a players career just because he wanted to get "a competitive advantage" and join NE! I was not downplaying Taylor. I was downplaying Maroney. Taylor when healthy is a Great back.................the trouble is he has been injury prone his entire career. Maroney on the other hand had a great rookie year & that is it. He has been nothing special since then & is every bit as injury prone as Taylor. I was responding to afcfan1's post saying Taylor will not be the starter for the Pats* If not Taylor......................who starts for the Pats*? Taylor is by far the BEST RB on that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Depends on how they are used. If you plan to use the guy regularly in your RB rotation, I think Taylor might be slightly better, right now, than Rhodes. There if far more wear on Taylor's tires, but as a down-in, down-out RB, he is probably the better of the two. But, if you already have two backs that you plan to handle the bulk of your running game, and are looking for a contributor on third down, and plan to use in the passing attack, Rhodes wins, IMO.  I think both teams (Bills and Pats*) got the back that is best suited to them. But, the Pats* have to regularly use a back who would see limited time on the Bills...and they pay him quite a bit more. If Marshawn and Fred go down during the season, they might wish they signed Taylor, but that's about the only time I see getting Rhodes instead of Taylor as a negative. The thing is, Jackson already fills quite well the role you would think a guy like Rhodes can fill. Jackson is a good reciever out of the backfield, and is likely shiftier and quicker than Rhodes, at this point. Therefore, Taylor would have been a better back for the Bills, because he could be our Marshawn at the beginning of the year, when Lynch is in street clothes.  Another way to look at it, is none of us seriously thought we would sign Taylor...the thought of him signing here to be a third running back immediately struck us (or most of us) as unrealistic. But with Rhodes, that doesn't seem unrealistic in the least, as thats what he's been the last couple of years.  I agree there are SOME things Rhodes can do better than Taylor, mainly catching the ball. But if we're talking overall backs, there's no conversation, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think paying $2.5M per year for an injury-prone 33 year old running back who had ONE TD last year is a good deal. lol the tried and true straw man defense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 lol the tried and true straw man defense! Â No straw, man, just facts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I agree there are SOME things Rhodes can do better than Taylor, mainly catching the ball. But if we're talking overall backs, there's no conversation, IMO. Â At this point in time, the difference in the overall game is not as dramatic as you might think. Taylor looked visibly old at times, last year. I am subjected to a log of Jag football, living down here, and I got to watch him quite a bit. Neither of these guys is a respectable starting RB at this stage of the game, IMO. Â The difference in their abilities in the receiving game is enormous, however. Either would make an acceptable 3rd string RB for the Bills, Rhodes can actually be a weapon as a 3rd down back, if needed. Â Yes, if you were forced to start one, you would probably take Taylor. But that advantage might last for another year...and it might not, if Taylor has to carry the bulk of the load. The Bills aren't in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true  Good read on the risks of taking aging running backs to fantasy owners.  "Running backs take more physical punishment than any other offensive skill position, so it's no shock that some tend to break down once they close in on the age of 30.  Throughout the history of the NFL, even the best backs have seen their numbers fall closer to their 30th birthdays. Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, Eddie George, Franco Harris and O.J. Simpson are just a few of the names that found pro football more difficult at an extended age, and their numbers showed that to be true."  FYI, at 33 Fred Taylor is the oldest of the 10 running backs they review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Are you saying Rhodes is more than a 1 yr fix. Like I said before, your own front office would have preferred to get Taylor. Rhodes was what was left over. Over the last 4 yrs Fred Taylor has averaged almost 4.7 yds/carry while Mr Rhodes is about 3.5. As for third down, he was sent packing by the Colts because he isn't willing to stand in and block, which is something third down backs should be able to do. This is another Fred Taylor strength. The only people who would take a guy like Rhodes over Fred Taylor, right now in their careers, are in this forum. It's no wonder why this team is tied for the longest playoff drought in the NFL. Rhodes over Taylor, you've got to be kidding. Â Â You may be this boards equivalent to Courtney Love as far as brain power goes but in this case you're right Nancy. Rhodes name doesn't belong in the same sentence as Taylor's no matter what spin you try to put on it. I will however say that I am biased, I've known Fred and followed his career since he was a soph. in HS but with that I can tell you that he is a freak of nature and don't be surprised if he has a couple of more brilliant seasons before he retires. Â Furthermore you're right when you say that it's this mentality that has caused our playoff drought to last this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Fred Taylor was a great RB. But he's outlived the normal lifespan for a RB and came off a pretty poor season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 RBs do take the most punishment on their bodies. More than any other player in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUK ny Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Freddie on one leg is faster than Rhodes. Dont get me wrong i love rhodes and all, it is just that i am not going to say that he is better than Freddie just because we got rhodes...We brought in freddie first and offered him a contract. We also brought in the likes of Deshaun foster and kevin jones prior to agreeing with rhodes...so apparently the bills were much higher on taylor than rhodes as well! Â Now we're referring to Fred Taylor as "Fast Freddie"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Either way, all this stuff is a mute point. Jackson is our starter for the first 4 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djcalvin79 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 having flogged the Pisa-contract thread to death, we've now made the jump to arguing which one of two past-their-prime RBs is better.. which is redundant since Rhodes is here & Taylor is at the Pats* and never shall the twain meet except in battle  can we talk about something more relevant like what the new wedge regulations will do to our return units, or if Bobby April will make a good head coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Either way, all this stuff is a mute point. Jackson is our starter for the first 4 games. The first 4 games? Dang, that appeal must have gone horribly wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 The first 4 games? Dang, that appeal must have gone horribly wrong! If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape:  Linky  "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape: Linky  "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28."  Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape: Linky  "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28." I'm pretty sure he can be with the team during preseason, so it won't be like a JP deal to get ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Unless Fred is tearing-it-up, Lynch starts his first game back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I find it interesting the passion discussing two players that would be 3rd string on our roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) I find it interesting the passion discussing two players that would be 3rd string on our roster. Well that's what happens when Patriots* fans claim that he could start for the Bills, or even see as much time playing as he would with their team. Edited May 26, 2009 by VOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts