San-O Posted July 4, 2005 Author Share Posted July 4, 2005 Wrong. 374439[/snapback] Uh, NO! Buffalo improved in spite of Bleadsloe being on the field, not because of him. Also, I don't recall WM slipping or tripping over him own feet on 3rd and 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 FFS, that is simply too much to respond to, but I will attempt to consolidate an answer: You mention things like corner speed and a stiff arm. Yes, they matter. These are simply two more factors which make Willis MaGahee a better running back/football player than Travis Gump. After the Cardinal game, the transition was complete. The Bills played better football because Gump was twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines, dumbass that he is. Were there other factors? Sure, but there is no arguing this fact. You may continue to give your slanted take of each game, but before 04, Travis was losing games for the Bills even when his rushing totals were admittedly good. He had nice stats vs. the jests a couple of years ago. I believe it was the day of a TBD Tailgate. Did he, or did he not fumble away the game to the Jests? This was not the only game he fumbled away, was it? If TH is as good as you imply, TD would NOT be trying to unload him. As it stands, there seem to be no takers, nor were they any on the first day of the NFL Draft 05, one that was notoriously weak. In any event, TH has little worth as a football player. If you dont believe me, contact 31 NFL GMs and ask them exactly why they shunned this back who had such "great" years in 02 and 03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 FFS, that is simply too much to respond to, but I will attempt to consolidate an answer: You mention things like corner speed and a stiff arm. Yes, they matter. These are simply two more factors which make Willis MaGahee a better running back/football player than Travis Gump. After the Cardinal game, the transition was complete. The Bills played better football because Gump was twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines, dumbass that he is. Were there other factors? Sure, but there is no arguing this fact. You may continue to give your slanted take of each game, but before 04, Travis was losing games for the Bills even when his rushing totals were admittedly good. He had nice stats vs. the jests a couple of years ago. I believe it was the day of a TBD Tailgate. Did he, or did he not fumble away the game to the Jests? This was not the only game he fumbled away, was it? If TH is as good as you imply, TD would NOT be trying to unload him. As it stands, there seem to be no takers, nor were they any on the first day of the NFL Draft 05, one that was notoriously weak. In any event, TH has little worth as a football player. If you dont believe me, contact 31 NFL GMs and ask them exactly why they shunned this back who had such "great" years in 02 and 03. 374456[/snapback] I do not expect you to reply to the details (and actually I doubt you really can because the facts are the facts and do coincide or line up with your premise that i responding to that events changed with WM walked on the field replacing TH. 1. Events did not change coinciding with WM taking the field as he had significant PT in both the Jax loss and the Jets loss in the 0-4 start and also significant PT in the Ravens loss though it was the 6th game and TH started before being essentially replaced by WM before halftime because WM in 2004 was a far superior back to TH. 2. Further, even if you want to scale back your premise to claim that the difference was that WM started, WM was great and I totally agree with starting him over TH, but what is rediculous is to claim that the winning streak was essentially caused by this switch also does correspond to reality. Just as folks should not disregard the difference in Bills results in games started by TH last year (a true fact and relevant to the extent WM is a far better RB than TH) but essentially it is no the reason to explain or understand our 8-2 record after the Ravebs game unless one choses to disregard a bunch of things which actually drove out winning record (little things like the D and ST play) or even the improved O performance (improved blocking under JMac and improved play by the skill players including Bledsoe). I know folks like to make the strongest argument they can in our little fake world of the internet, but do you actually think we should disregard a bunch of other key factors to the Bills wins and attribute it all to the switch from TH to WM. It does amaze ou can accuse people of ignoring the fact of the Bills record with TH starting and then turn right around and ignore a whole bunch of other things that really determined the events of last season. I for one definitely feel the Bills should trade TH and get as much as we can for trading him. You have taken a stance against this by arging we should simply cut him and argued he has no value. I think this move would serve Travis's interests because he would love to be cut but would not serve the Bills interests at all. You have also argued that Travus Gump (as you call him) has no value and argued this shown by 31 NFL teams not trading for him. i think the main reason there has been no trade is that TD insited on getting a 2nd for him as his initial negotaiting stance and is now holding out for a 3rd. Perhaps you are tight and the 5 MFL teams which expressed interest in trading for TH when TD cleverly got his agent to do the work for TD were just shing TD on. An actual trade wll prove you were wrong but it has not happened (yet). However, my guess is just wait. Perhaps TH is just shining TD on with the offer of a conditional 3rd, perhaps the Jags are also just fooling. I do not think so, and I am glad that TD is not taking your advice. I for one think it is a good idea trade Henry for value that helps the Bills. I think he is a former Pro Bowl back who can be used to be part of a potent offense. However, I think we cam easily afford to trade this former Pro Bowler because we have a better starter in WM, a good enough 3rd down back in Shaud Williams and have some promise in Rashard Lee as a back-up and even some future potential in Gates. Value for me would have been an LT rather than a draft pick but I'm glad they did not trade TH for Shelton as was offered for this player who you would cut because apparently Shelton is damaged goods. If in fact they do trade him for the 3rd we seem to be headed toward right now, I would have prefered getting a player who could help us this year, but it will be kudos to TD for standing his ground and getting a 1st day choice in a stronger draft for TH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 He should have traded down, got an extra pick adn reduced the salary draiin, and took Mike Pearson as LT in round 2 (instead of Josh Reed). 374307[/snapback] You need two teams to complete a trade. He probably should have picked the best player in the draft, a Roy Williams, rather than drafting for need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The reality is the return of Lawyer Milloy and the severe downgrade in competition was as much a factor in the BILLS winning streak as the benching of Travis Henry for Willis Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The reality is the return of Lawyer Milloy and the severe downgrade in competition was as much a factor in the BILLS winning streak as the benching of Travis Henry for Willis Mac. 375000[/snapback] Those factors certainly enter in, but without Travis, the Bills were able to win road games, and even beat a few playoff teams. The Bills have a pretty bad record on the road with Travis as a starter, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Those factors certainly enter in, but without Travis, the Bills were able to win road games, and even beat a few playoff teams. The Bills have a pretty bad record on the road with Travis as a starter, no? 375010[/snapback] The BILLS have a pretty bad record with Travis and Drew in the starting lineup no matter where they play. As far as beating playoff teams, in my view we really beat one (the JETS). If Seattle or the Rams were in the AFC they'd have finished no better than 6-10 and likely worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The BILLS have a pretty bad record with Travis and Drew in the starting lineup no matter where they play. As far as beating playoff teams, in my view we really beat one (the JETS). If Seattle or the Rams were in the AFC they'd have finished no better than 6-10 and likely worse. 375012[/snapback] AD, I do not disagree, but Drew played better when Travis was taken out, and the Bills won more football games. One of the many knocks on Drew was that he couldn't win on the road. He did so without TH. I think that this is virtually beyond dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 AD, I do not disagree, but Drew played better when Travis was taken out, and the Bills won more football games. One of the many knocks on Drew was that he couldn't win on the road. He did so without TH. I think that this is virtually beyond dispute. 375019[/snapback] I disagree. I think Drew played pretty much the same but the competition was worse so it was good enough. I'll grant you that he had an extra tick to pat the ball while locking onto Moulds and on occasion that was enough to move the chains. I'll believe Drew can lead a team to a road win when he does it in a meaningful game against top notch competition. He hasn't done that in YEARS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I'll believe Drew can lead a team to a road win when he does it in a meaningful game against top notch competition. He hasn't done that in YEARS. 375028[/snapback] Oh, would you please stop making sense! It confuses me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 AD, I do not disagree, but Drew played better when Travis was taken out, and the Bills won more football games. One of the many knocks on Drew was that he couldn't win on the road. He did so without TH. I think that this is virtually beyond dispute. 375019[/snapback] I agree that the facts are not disputed that the Bills record was what the Bills record was. However, what is in dispute is to what extebt there is a cause and effect relationship between WM replacing TH and the events and outcomes for the Bills. Just as one would be illogical to totally disregard the facts of the record which coincided with this switch, it would be illogical to disregard other changes which occured at the same time. Many other things happened which coincided with the change in events besides the switch at RB starter which seem clearly to have impacted out performance (the team getting the hang of and implementing the better teaching and planning by JMac compared to Vinky and Ruel, the Bills presenting a credible threat of running flea-flickers and even using Bledsoe on the draw play, the redzone blocking improving with the switch away from Smith, the ST getting big returns and improving field position, the team running up leads so they forced the opponent to react, etc.). I don't see how you can argue against disregarding this one factor (which should not be disregarded) and then seem to disregard so many factors yourself by saying that all things changed when WM walked on the fieldand TH walked off. Definitely some of these factors are attributable to WM being a far better RB than TH (I don't know of anyone who credibly argues TH should not be traded for value because we are set at RB with WM and the crew). However, in your argumens you seem to latch onto WM being a better run-blitz blocker (he is getting better but I think he struggled with this like most rookies including TH) and actually the primary benefit I think WM brings to stopping the blitz is that he is a far more effective outside running threat than TH and blitzers cannot commit all out to the blitz as they used to do before TC made them sit a second to make sure WM wasn't headed outside, that the runner might pitch the ball back to Bledsoe or that Bledsoe himself might run the delayed draw for positive yardage to the spot they just abandoned to do an outside blitz. By disregarding changes in the Bills play (like the much improved D and ST play last year) that have nothing to do with who the RB is, but lots to do with how effectively we run the ball (the better D and ST play resulted in us stacking up leads and having better field position than last year or the first four-six games which made it easier to run) you simply ignore or disregard part of the game. If you cannot see this approaching it from the what went well for us side, consider it the other way. WM was a great player for us but he did have some Travis Gump like performances last year which seemed to make little difference in the ultimate game results. If you are unable to agree with an approach that sees importance in the work JMac did with the blockers, TC did with the scheme, or even issues which were not O inspired like the positive impacts for the running game which improved ST and D play provided, then consider it from the other side. WM put up Travis Gump or worse numbers a number of times last year as good as he was. Hwe totaled 91 gainst Miami and gave up some points by fumbling but we won on the road anyway. He had a fumble and a botched hand-off as he went slightly pver 100 yard but had less than 4 yards a carry in our laugher against Cleveland. He rushed for 25 yards in the game against Cincinnati he was hurt but we won going away on the road. If WM walking on the field and playing extraordinarily well or simply far better than TH was so clear and apparent how do you explain us winning impressively when he is less than impressive. The occurence of the facts of the Bills record with TH starting and WM starting is true, but the conclusions you seem to draw from this that this is the lead or only factor is simply not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The reality is the return of Lawyer Milloy and the severe downgrade in competition was as much a factor in the BILLS winning streak as the benching of Travis Henry for Willis Mac. 375000[/snapback] Don't forget the ST kicking butt during the winning phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The BILLS have a pretty bad record with Travis and Drew in the starting lineup no matter where they play. As far as beating playoff teams, in my view we really beat one (the JETS). If Seattle or the Rams were in the AFC they'd have finished no better than 6-10 and likely worse. 375012[/snapback] It doesn't matter....the NFL records will show that the Rams and Seahawks were playoff teams in the 2004 season and that the 9-7 bills beat both these 8-8 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 It doesn't matter....the NFL records will show that the Rams and Seahawks were playoff teams in the 2004 season and that the 9-7 bills beat both these 8-8 teams. 375111[/snapback] What part of "in my view" did you not understand? Drew Bledsoe's record against teams with 10 or more wins as QB of the Buffalo BILLS: 2-14. Is it all his fault? Certainly not. Has he elevated his play in those games, as a HOF QB should? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I still am not convinced that the bills dont eventually plan to move Mike to Left tackle...... I mean.....lets take a look at his first two years...... 1st year.....pretty darn good right tackle.....but all rookies get beat 2nd year....came in fat, out of shape, and unfocused....by the end of the year I thought he was playing as well as any right tackle in the league......... I think the problems at the beginning of the year set Big Mike back.....and I STILL think he is our future left tackle...... I can see a guy like Gusinger groomed to start at right tackle since we have enough guards....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts