Sullivan at it again...

[Bob in SC]

If we had traded Henry last year, we'd have had to go with a running back who was an unproven rookie (Shaud Williams) or another one who had not yet fully recovered from a serious injury (WM). TD would never have done either with a critical position like RB! Oh, wait! He's going with someone darned close to a combination of the two at QB this year (and got nothing for the player he replaced).

[todd]

If we had traded Henry last year, we'd have had to go with a running back who was an unproven rookie (Shaud Williams) or another one who had not yet fully recovered from a serious injury (WM). TD would never have done either with a critical position like RB! Oh, wait! He's going with someone darned close to a combination of the two at QB this year (and got nothing for the player he replaced).

304257[/snapback]

 

One of the first things Donahoe did is make sure we had a viable backup. By getting rid of Henry last year, as moron Sullivan suggests, we would have had no backup to start the year.

[ROCCEO]

Sullivan definately thinks he can walk on water. Just because TD gives the media only what he feels like when he feels like it, it doesn't mean that he's a horrible GM although Sullivan likes to paint it that way.

[Bill from NYC]

One of the first things Donahoe did is make sure we had a viable backup. By getting rid of Henry last year, as moron Sullivan suggests, we would have had no backup to start the year.

304271[/snapback]

 

The above is assuming that TD was unable, for whatever reason, to bring in a superior backup to Travis, who was a MAJOR contributor to 4 straight losses. In fact, as soon as his sorry, stupid ass was pulled from the football field, the Bills started winning.

Yes, Travis had a MUCH higher value before he stunk up the field (and was injured to boot) in the 04 season. What makes this so hard to accept?

[Bob in SC]

One of the first things Donahoe did is make sure we had a viable backup. By getting rid of Henry last year, as moron Sullivan suggests, we would have had no backup to start the year.

304271[/snapback]

 

There were (and always are) proven, serviceable running backs available prior to the start of the season that he could have picked up. Or, even Joe Burns?

 

I'm not defending Sullivan and his 20-20 hindsight and I trust TD's judgement. I just thought the coincidence was kind of ironic.

[todd]

The above is assuming that TD was unable, for whatever reason, to bring in a superior backup to Travis, who was a MAJOR contributor to 4 straight losses. In fact, as soon as his sorry, stupid ass was pulled from the football field, the Bills started winning.

Yes, Travis had a MUCH higher value before he stunk up the field (and was injured to boot) in the 04 season. What makes this so hard to accept?

304285[/snapback]

 

It's hard to accept because it's an opinion in a vacum. Sure he MIGHT have had more value, but then the Bills would have been in a very precarious situation at the RB position. We certainly wouldn't have wanted anyone with LESS value to replace Henry, now would we? A couple of 1300 yard seasons isn't something to fart at.

 

I just love opinions in a vacum.

[Bill from NYC]

It's hard to accept because it's an opinion in a vacum. Sure he MIGHT have had more value, but then the Bills would have been in a very precarious situation at the RB position. We certainly wouldn't have wanted anyone with LESS value to replace Henry, now would we? A couple of 1300 yard seasons isn't something to fart at.

 

I just love opinions in a vacum.

304290[/snapback]

 

Todd, you and I have agreed and disagreed on issues for many, many years, and I have always enjoyed bantering back and forth with you. You have been a mainstay on TBD for years, and I always check out what you have to say.

I dont know about this sportswriter, but please, will you allow me the dignity of admitting that my thoughts about Travis have been consistent from day one?

[LabattBlue]

Wait a minute!!!! Sullivan is a columnist who has written an opinionated article? How dare he try to get away with that.

[todd]

Todd, you and I have agreed and disagreed on issues for many, many years, and I have always enjoyed bantering back and forth with you. You have been a mainstay on TBD for years, and I always check out what you have to say.

I dont know about this sportswriter, but please, will you allow me the dignity of admitting that my thoughts about Travis have been consistent from day one?

304306[/snapback]

 

Absolutely. And off & on I've agreed with you. Especially about his dumbass fumbling that one year.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The above is assuming that TD was unable, for whatever reason, to bring in a superior backup to Travis, who was a MAJOR contributor to 4 straight losses. In fact, as soon as his sorry, stupid ass was pulled from the football field, the Bills started winning.

Yes, Travis had a MUCH higher value before he stunk up the field (and was injured to boot) in the 04 season. What makes this so hard to accept?

304285[/snapback]

 

You do your arguments against Henry a disservice by making unsupportable claims of his failings.

 

What about the actual events leads you to say that Henry was a MAJOR (your capitalization not mine) contributor to 4 straight losses.

 

Game 1- 13-10 loss to Jacksonville- Henry did not play a great game by any means as he got a mere 3.3 yards per carry. However, his 75 yards seem pretty far from a major contribution to the loss. The Jax D was a good one and tough against the run and while Bill's Daily is not the Bible in terms of the spoken word they gave a grade of B to a running game which Henry was the bulk performer. I think folks point to an overall failure of the O as a lead factor in the lost and Henry was a certainly a part of the O, but given the poor Bledsoe performance even allocating his share takes him pretty far away from major. In fact anyone casting blame probably points to the D and Clements going for the INT when knovking it down would have put up the W as the play that stands out along with a couple of other bad plays by the D on that drive.

 

In addition, lest you want to somehow try to build a case for a switch to WM being the key factor, Henry actually suffered an injury that saw WM get cnsistent action for the 4th quarter and he also was able to log a massive 3.4 ypc on his 9 carries.

 

Game 2- 13-10 loss to Oakland- A worse performance by Henry in this game, but still falls short of your diatribe as a major factor. Again he registered 3.2 yards a pop and his total of 67 yards was not good and one might even throw in hi couple of drops and his rumbling bumbling stumbling failing to get into the endzone to earn him the title of being bad that day. However, to site his play as the MAJOR factor and let Bledsoe, other players and even the refs who missed so many pivotal calls even the NFL was forced into a meaningless apology really les a bunch of miscreants off the hook merely to try to prove your point rather than describe reality.

 

Again, if you wan t to try to hold your all we needed was to switch RBs point, WM certainly did not get enough carries this game to establish a rhytym, but losing 10 yards on his firstcarry probably had something to do with that. Also of interest there was a missed blitz pick-up this game but it was by Shelton rather than the usual whipping boy Henry.

 

I think it is fair to ding Henry as a contributor to this loss, but MAJOR is not the case.

 

Game 3- 31-17 loss to NE- I think bills' Daily is being quite charitable to Henry summarizing this outing as solid and pointing to his 98 yards gained on 24 carries to support this claim. They do make mention of him falling down on a 3rd and 1 and do not attribute his likely role in the NE TD fumble where he and Bledsoe went different ways. However, even if you want to blame both of these plays totally on Henry (you really have to be in love with Bledsoe to do this) the Henry performance is at worst a mixed bag some good some bad performance rather than the major cause of this loss.

 

Game 4- 16-14 loss to NYJ- This is perhaps the most inexplicable of the claims that Henry was a majpr factor in this loss as he suffered and injury and only got 12 carries. Maybe he was the MAJOR contributor here because he should have got injured sooner. I would label him as being more of a non-factor when we want more from our RB, but if he was a major factor in this loss then was WM who got 42 yards on his 8 carries (21 of which came on one play actually) also a major factor as he and TH really split responsibility in this game due to the TH injury.

 

At any rate in total, i think it is fair to say that Henry was a key factor (though not the major one as Bledsoe lays first claim to this apellation for almost all losses) in the Oakland loss, a mixed factor in the NE game, a non-facor in the NYJ game and a tough contributor in the Jax game at worse.

[Bill from NYC]

You do your arguments against Henry a disservice by making unsupportable claims of his failings.

 

What about the actual events leads you to say that Henry was a MAJOR (your capitalization not mine) contributor to 4 straight losses.

 

Game 1- 13-10 loss to Jacksonville-  Henry did not play a great game by any means as he got a mere 3.3 yards per carry.  However, his 75 yards seem pretty far from a major contribution to the loss. The Jax D was a good one and tough against the run and while Bill's Daily is not the Bible in terms of the spoken word they gave a grade of B to a running game which Henry was the bulk performer. I think folks point to an overall failure of the O as a lead factor in the lost and Henry was a certainly a part of the O, but given the poor Bledsoe performance even allocating his share takes him pretty far away from major.  In fact anyone casting blame probably points to the D and Clements going for the INT when knovking it down would have put up the W as the play that stands out along with a couple of other bad plays by the D on that drive.

 

In addition, lest you want to somehow try to build a case for a switch to WM being the key factor, Henry actually suffered an injury that saw WM get cnsistent action for the 4th quarter and he also was able to log a massive 3.4 ypc on his 9 carries.

 

Game 2- 13-10 loss to Oakland- A worse performance by Henry in this game, but still falls short of your diatribe as a major factor. Again he registered 3.2 yards a pop and his total of 67 yards was not good and one might even throw in hi couple of drops and his rumbling bumbling stumbling failing to get into the endzone to earn him the title of being bad that day.  However, to site his play as the MAJOR factor and let Bledsoe, other players and even the refs who missed so many pivotal calls even the NFL was forced into a meaningless apology really les a bunch of miscreants off the hook merely to try to prove your point rather than describe reality.

 

Again, if you wan t to try to hold your all we needed was to switch RBs point, WM certainly did not get enough carries this game to establish a rhytym, but losing 10 yards on his firstcarry probably had something to do with that. Also of interest there was a missed blitz pick-up this game but it was by Shelton rather than the usual whipping boy Henry.

 

I think it is fair to ding Henry as a contributor to this loss, but MAJOR is not the case.

 

Game 3- 31-17 loss to NE- I think bills' Daily is being quite charitable to Henry summarizing this outing as solid and pointing to his 98 yards gained on 24 carries to support this claim.  They do make mention of him falling down on a 3rd and 1 and do not attribute his likely role in the NE TD fumble where he and Bledsoe went different ways.  However, even if you want to blame both of these plays totally on Henry (you really have to be in love with Bledsoe to do this) the Henry performance is at worst a mixed bag some good some bad performance rather than the major cause of this loss.

 

Game 4- 16-14 loss to NYJ- This is perhaps the most inexplicable of the claims that Henry was a majpr factor in this loss as he suffered and injury and only got 12 carries.  Maybe he was the MAJOR contributor here because he should have got injured sooner. I would label him as being more of a non-factor when we want more from our RB, but if he was a major factor in this loss then was WM who got 42 yards on his 8 carries (21 of which came on one play actually) also a major factor as he and TH really split responsibility in this game due to the TH injury.

 

At any rate in total, i think it is fair to say that Henry was a key factor (though not the major one as Bledsoe lays first claim to this apellation for almost all losses) in the Oakland loss, a mixed factor in the NE game, a non-facor in the NYJ game and a tough contributor in the Jax game at worse.

304409[/snapback]

 

You are giving him a free pass on missed blocks, sacks galore and wrong passing routes but hey, dont let me stand in your way!

[rastabillz]

you have forgotten about the old weatherman, sports reporters have to at least be accurate some of the time, weathermen don't

303717[/snapback]

 

 

I take offense to that!

[Big Cat]

You are giving him a free pass on missed blocks, sacks galore and wrong passing routes but hey, dont let me stand in your way! 

304416[/snapback]

 

That is exactly right.

 

I ahve never been a HEnry fan. He has always been a stupid one-demensional RB. He missed more blocks and f-ed up more plays than I care to remember. It must haev been infuriating to coach this guy.

[crazyDingo]

I WISH PEOPLE WOULD SHUT UP ABOUT SULLIVAN HE'S NOT EVEN ON OUR TEAM ANYMORE!!!

 

er, wait...Nevermind.

 

[EndZoneCrew]

why did you hug him after the NU game?

303728[/snapback]

 

Because I had skoal running down my chin and I needed to wipe it on someone

[Pac_Man]

Sullivan was right in saying that Henry should have been traded before the start of the season. It looked like Miami would have given us their first round pick for Henry. Any time you get a chance to make a one-sided trade--especially to a divisional rival--you take advantage of it. TD didn't. Belichick probably would have; just as Belichick unloaded Bledsoe on us in order to go with a younger, less proven, but ultimately superior player. TD played it safe; but playing things too safe doesn't get you a whole lot of Super Bowl rings.

[Buftex]

The thing about Sullivan is, he is usually right. I know that is an unpopular thing to say, but many of the things he says, are repeated by many of you/us here, later on. Sullivans big flaw is, with Bills fans anyways, is that he has an annoying tendancy to rain on every parade...whenever we, as fans, see a light at the end of the tunnel, Sully is there to bring us back down to earth. He irritates the crap out of me, but in the end, I think I agree with him more often than not. I think he is dead on that TD blew it with this Travis Henry situtation. And Sullivan is correct (as I have said in numerous posts regarding TD) in contending that Henry should have been dealt last year, after the draft. It was obvious the minute McGahee was drafted, TH's future in Buffalo was very limited. To all those who say that it was too big a risk to head into a season with McGahee, untested and coming off an injury, that is bollocks! If you are willing to spend a first draft pick on an injured player, you better damn well have conviction that he is going to be worth it...it would be no different than heading into this coming season with Losman at QB. Like McGahee and Henry, Losman may prove to be an upgrade to Bledsoe, but there is no telling that he won't fall flat on his face either. Surely, had the Bills traded Henry last summer, when they could have gotten something more for him, they could have found an insurance policy RB, the equivalant of Kelly Holcomb.....

 

All said, I am not condemning TD, just pointing out that Jerry Sullivan is not the complete moron we all wish he was!

[todd]

Nice thought, but Miami had traded their second round pick to Philly. They never would have traded their first round pick, leaving them with no picks in the first two rounds.

 

Sullivan was right in saying that Henry should have been traded before the start of the season. It looked like Miami would have given us their first round pick for Henry. Any time you get a chance to make a one-sided trade--especially to a divisional rival--you take advantage of it. TD didn't. Belichick probably would have; just as Belichick unloaded Bledsoe on us in order to go with a younger, less proven, but ultimately superior player. TD played it safe; but playing things too safe doesn't get you a whole lot of Super Bowl rings.

304728[/snapback]

[d_wag]

The thing about Sullivan is, he is usually right. 

304736[/snapback]

 

i have to disagree with this.......he certainly wasn't right when he condemned the willis pick........and he was even more wrong when he called lee evans a "bust" early in the season......

[Pac_Man]

Nice thought, but Miami had traded their second round pick to Philly. They never would have traded their first round pick, leaving them with no picks in the first two rounds.

304846[/snapback]

At the time, I remember hearing rumors that Miami was offering its first round pick for TH because the Ricky Williams retirement took them off guard. Were the rumors accurate? Who knows? But if they were, TD should defininately have done the deal.