taking stock of mcgahee

[dave mcbride]

this week's tempest in a teapot, while nothing in and of itself, looks as if it will usher in a long, drawn-out love-hate relationship with yet another bills quasi-star. sullivan's inane column indicate that the honeymoon's over, and observers here are being more vocal about their worries that the guy is a budding malcontent.

 

first off: remember that he did go to the U, which explains a lot. that easy arrogance -- a potent mix of drew rosenhaus/edgerrin james/bryant mckinnie/warren sapp/jonathan vilma/ray lewis/andre johnson/kellen winslow/philip buchanon/ed reed/jeremy shockey/jesse armstead/the blades brothers/clinton portis/michael irvin/etc. -- shines through pretty damn clearly, in my opinion. of course, the u puts out many, many great players, and arrogance is a good trait for a football player. none of these guys are remotely likeable, though, and i expect mcgahee's relationship with buffalo's exceptionally thin-skinned media and fan base to be very testy as time goes on. it's only a matter of time before he starts complaining about the weather and the local nightlife.

 

anyway, i'm starting to think that if mcgahee turns out to be a very good as opposed to great running back (and right now i'd only put him in the "good" category), his stay in buffalo will be relatively short -- four or five seasons (including his first inactive season) -- given his apparently lavish financial expectations. basically, if he doesn't elevate his game a great deal, i can't see donohoe budging an inch to break the bank for him. he won't be good enough to merit it. as of right now, it seems pretty evident that he's not particularly fast, which makes him an eddie george-type player (as long as he can attack the hole more quickly). for five years, george was a big and just fast enough slasher who could pound it, which looks to be where mcgahee's strength lies. as a counter-example, i watched another big guy the other night -- deuce mcallister -- and mcallister plays a *lot* faster than mcgahee.

 

of course, this is all OK -- george was a very fine player for five seasons (beginning in 2001, his game entered a precipitous decline). but it also means that the bills don't have a curtis martin on their hands, and will find their next mcgahee prior to the the 2007 season, which is about when I expect mcgahee to become just another guy (albeit one who wants a $19 million bonus). the bills will have gotten a good deal out of it -- 3 or 4 good to very good seasons from a late first rounder. that's more than j.d. williams, eric flowers, antowain smith, perry tuttle, john fina, booker moore, tony hunter, or ronnie harmon ever gave them.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Taking stock of a player who has not yet even started a 16 game full season worth of starts is so premature it isn't doesn't even get up the level of being rediculous.

 

Sure in this what have you done for me lately sport and world that we live in this broad analysis is to be expected. However, if one is going to do this and have even a remote connection to reality this taking stock needs to be placed into the proper perspective that yes we are taking stock of his play overall, but our conlusions are pretty worthless in terms of reality and truth.

 

If folks are willing to spend their time taling stock with this caveat which is true then more power to them.

 

The important things to remember when taking stock of WM's career particularly in the context of Sundays game.

 

1. Not only are we drawing broad conclusions about his career based on him starting less than 16 games, but we are doing this after he threw a clinker after rushing for well over 1000 yards in a mere 11 starts last year. The accepted wisdom in the NFL is that it takes at least 3 years if not 4 before you can accuirately judge a draft class. One might be able to draw and earlier conclusion about an individual if he gets hurt and is out of the game or if he has a better than Tom Brady start on achievements early in his career, but overall the taking stock which we do now may well be totally wrong and worthless in the end.

 

2. The taking stock which we do know will be heavily influenced by recent events and thus the horrible day WM had Sunday will almost certainly get inordinate weight in our taking stock compared to not just the tremenddous year he had last year but the great game he had in the distant pass of the week before last.

 

3. Trends do not dictate the future at all, but there should be some relevance to the fact that if current yardage trends hold up, JM will gain over 1200 yards this year. This number would be bad in terms of our expectations but would be an great total yardage for an RB in the NFL which still has 1000 yards as a standard for rushers even though the season extended from 14 to 16 games.

 

By all means take stock, just acknowledge and realize that this is pretty worthless when trying to think through WMs career prospects.

[dave mcbride]

Taking stock of a player who has not yet even started a 16 game full season worth of starts is so premature it isn't doesn't even get up the level of being rediculous.

 

Sure in this what have you done for me lately sport and world that we live in this broad analysis is to be expected. However, if one is going to do this and have even a remote connection to reality this taking stock needs to be placed into the proper perspective that yes we are taking stock of his play overall, but our conlusions are pretty worthless in terms of reality and truth.

 

If folks are willing to spend their time taling stock with this caveat which is true then more power to them.

 

The important things to remember when taking stock of WM's career particularly in the context of Sundays game.

 

1. Not only are we drawing broad conclusions about his career based on him starting less than 16 games, but we are doing this after he threw a clinker after rushing for well over 1000 yards in a mere 11 starts last year. The accepted wisdom in the NFL is that it takes at least 3 years if not 4 before you can accuirately judge a draft class. One might be able to draw and earlier conclusion about an individual if he gets hurt and is out of the game or if he has a better than Tom Brady start on achievements early in his career, but overall the taking stock which we do now may well be totally wrong and worthless in the end.

 

2. The taking stock which we do know will be heavily influenced by recent events and thus the horrible day WM had Sunday will almost certainly get inordinate weight in our taking stock compared to not just the tremenddous year he had last year but the great game he had in the distant pass of the week before last.

 

3. Trends do not dictate the future at all, but there should be some relevance to the fact that if current yardage trends hold up, JM will gain over 1200 yards this year. This number would be bad in terms of our expectations but would be an great total yardage for an RB in the NFL which still has 1000 yards as a standard for rushers even though the season extended from 14 to 16 games.

 

By all means take stock, just acknowledge and realize that this is pretty worthless when trying to think through WMs career prospects.

450632[/snapback]

 

answer me one question: is willis mcgahee, in your estimation, fast? he's almost 3 years removed from injury, so we're past the stage of lingering effects.

[dave mcbride]

The accepted wisdom in the NFL is that it takes at least 3 years if not 4 before you can accuirately judge a draft class. One might be able to draw and earlier conclusion about an individual if he gets hurt and is out of the game or if he has a better than Tom Brady start on achievements early in his career, but overall the taking stock which we do now may well be totally wrong and worthless in the end.

450632[/snapback]

 

the accepted wisdom in the nfl is that you can tell pretty quickly whether a running back has it. it's the easiest position to excel at immediately.

 

bear in mind that i never, ever said that i thought willis mcgahee was a mediocre player. i think my basic point is that he's nearly three years removed from injury, and hasn't shown that he's the total package. is he an above average starter? yeah. is he an elite back? no. could he be? possibly. will it be because of his much discussed top line speed before his injury. i'd bet you dollars to doughnuts no.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

the accepted wisdom in the nfl is that you can tell pretty quickly whether a running back has it. it's the easiest position to excel at immediately.

 

bear in mind that i never, ever said that i thought willis mcgahee was a mediocre player.  i think my basic point is that he's nearly three years removed from injury, and hasn't shown that he's the total package. is he an above average starter? yeah.  is he an elite back? no.  could he be? possibly. will it be because of his much discussed top line speed before his injury. i'd bet you dollars to doughnuts no.

450821[/snapback]

 

Answering this and your previous question about whether WM is fast.

 

The answer is that I'm not sure what you consider fast, but there are few doubts in my mind that he is much faster than Travis Henry.

 

In addition, I think McGahee is much faster than Jerome Bettis and likely is fasterthan LaDamian Tomlinson and is likely faster than all members of our LB crew rated as one of the best in the league Fletcher, Spikes and Posey.

 

By this summary, I do not mean at all that speed is not important or overrated. However, it clearly is not the only or the leadfactor in production for a player or RB. The best RBs have ENOUGH speed and has it in combination with an ability to shift directions, keep their balance and achieve their max speed quickly and also has it combination with a powerful body to get yards.

 

The thing which impresses me with McGahee is my judgment that he easily has ENOUGH speed to combine it with some great shiftiness, nice patience and increasingly powerful body to be an effective runner.

 

Was he an effective runner last week against TB?

 

No.

 

MM and the gang have their theories about why that was the case and they say these problems were shown as soled in practice this week. We'll see.

 

However, was McGahee an effective runner in the first week?

 

Yes.

 

One can argue he was not, but this argument flies in the face of reality as he picked up almost 120 yards on the ground, another good chunk on reception and has ypc which was great and still leaves him with a good ypc even after a dismal day against TB.

 

Was Mcgahee an effective runner last year?

 

Obviously yes as he broke the 1000 yard mark in 11 starts. His injury during the win streak was frightening, but the fact he came back from it to log 100+ creates a reality that must be recognized that though it is doubtful he is the same player after his injury, he should be considered a normal player by us fans who like anyone can be struck down in a moment by injury, but he is not someone we need to worry about everytime he touches the ball or steps into the shower.

 

Overall, I agree with you that WM has almost certainly lost some speed from his peak speed in college. However, this seems easily balanced by the increased bulk and weight he has also put on whicb is clearly demonstrated in the powerful stiff arm he has shown, demonstrated by him producing injuries from hits on some of the DBs who have tried to tackle him and by the yards he has piled up over his brief career as a Bill which still amounts to les thant 16 starts.

 

Loss of speed is always a concern, but I see nothing in this issue being raised that goes beyond it being an unsubustantiated concern to this being butressed by any arguments based on outcomes in the real world beside one bad game last week.

[krazykat]

Taking stock of a player who has not yet even started a 16 game full season worth of starts is so premature it isn't doesn't even get up the level of being rediculous.

450632[/snapback]

Interesting statement given that so many fans seem to have had him winning the rushing title by Cinco De Mayo.

 

Seems that, even for the coaches, to plan around him posting a dozen 100-yard games while breaking Bills records is fine. But anyone working within the realm of reality gets a warning.

[granitestatebillsbackers]

What I find amusing about all this is that if McGahee had rushed for a buck and a quarter last week with a trip to the end zone and the Bills had won, I wouldn't even be posting this right now.

 

There are hundreds of people on this BB (and a couple others) engaged in heated discussion borne of a combination of disappointment about an ugly loss and excessive pre-season hype.

 

If #21 has a solid game, and JP looks like he's starting to feel a little more comfortable, just watch the tone of the posts next week!

[dave mcbride]

Answering this and your previous question about whether WM is fast.

 

The answer is that I'm not sure what you consider fast, but there are few doubts in my mind that he is much faster than Travis Henry.

 

In addition, I think McGahee is much faster than Jerome Bettis and likely is fasterthan LaDamian Tomlinson and is likely faster than all members of our LB crew rated as one of the best in the league Fletcher, Spikes and Posey.

 

By this summary, I do not mean at all that speed is not important or overrated. However, it clearly is not the only or the leadfactor in production for a player or RB. The best RBs have ENOUGH speed and has it in combination with an ability to shift directions, keep their balance and achieve their max speed quickly and also has it combination with a powerful body to get yards.

 

The thing which impresses me with McGahee is my judgment that he easily has ENOUGH speed to combine it with some great shiftiness, nice patience and increasingly powerful body to be an effective runner.

 

Was he an effective runner last week against TB?

 

No.

 

MM and the gang have their theories about why that was the case and they say these problems were shown as soled in practice this week. We'll see.

 

However, was McGahee an effective runner in the first week?

 

Yes.

 

One can argue he was not, but this argument flies in the face of reality as he picked up almost 120 yards on the ground, another good chunk on reception and has ypc which was great and still leaves him with a good ypc even after a dismal day against TB.

 

Was Mcgahee an effective runner last year?

 

Obviously yes as he broke the 1000 yard mark in 11 starts. His injury during the win streak was frightening, but the fact he came back from it to log 100+ creates a reality that must be recognized that though it is doubtful he is the same player after his injury, he should be considered a normal player by us fans who like anyone can be struck down in a moment by injury, but he is not someone we need to worry about everytime he touches the ball or steps into the shower.

 

Overall, I agree with you that WM has almost certainly lost some speed from his peak speed in college.  However, this seems easily balanced by the increased bulk and weight he has also put on whicb is clearly demonstrated in the powerful stiff arm he has shown, demonstrated by him producing injuries from hits on some of the DBs who  have tried to tackle him and by the yards he has piled up over his brief career as a Bill which still amounts to les thant 16 starts.

 

Loss of speed is always a concern, but I see nothing in this issue being raised that goes beyond it being an unsubustantiated concern to this being butressed by any arguments based on outcomes in the real world beside one bad game last week.

451599[/snapback]

 

 

i agree with almost everything you say here, with the lone exception being that tomlinson is a heck of a lot faster than mcgahee. to reiterate, though, i never said he wasn't a good player. he is!! i guess what i'm trying to say is that from here on out, i'm predicting a more fraught relationship between mcgahee and the media as well as the fans. simply put, the guy, given his background and his opinion of himself, is going to want a LOT of money. and he'll probably begin letting people know this in relatively short order. at this point, though, i don't see him meriting it. i'm basing this upon what i see on the field -- he's good to my eye, but not a guy who is really special (like tomlinson). however, i'll be the first to admit i'm wrong if he puts a couple of 1700 yard seasons together starting this year. that could well happen -- he does have some real attributes.

[34-78-83]

Wow, were looking for 1700 yard seasons now?

[sweet baboo]

are lost yardage statistics available anywhere?

i've never seen a back lose so many yards on carries before besides barry sanders

and mcgahee is no barry sanders

[dave mcbride]

Wow, were looking for 1700 yard seasons now? 

451791[/snapback]

you know what i mean - a couple of edgerrin james-like seasons.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Contract levels are a very important thing regarding on field performance in the moden world of the salary cap.

 

However, as WM is under contract for this season, and next season and the 1007 season as well the contract issues are set until then.

 

None of us knows actual contract language, when bonuses are set to be paid, or what performance kickers where included in the language that the NFL did not judge as sure things so they are not included in his cap hit so anyone saying that WM is disatisfied, not compensated properly or whatever are speaking without any true knowledge of the facts unless they are TD or WM (and his agents) and thus know what the contract will do as reality happens.

 

Reality has not happened yet for this season or the future so basically opinions about what the future holds is only as good one's control over reality which means that these opinions are no good at all.

 

Please provide me with a link (if there is one, but even the great satan Rosenhays has not said anything at all about WM holding out or doing anything which would make his contract an issue prior to 2008.

 

Such comments would be stupid to make and do not serve McGahee's interests at all as he is not going to hold out in mid-season this year and if there are escalotors in the contract based on performance which he achieves but were not included in the original NFLPA released info because they were not sure things (and thus not included in the official cap number) there would be no reason for WM to hold out as the Bills would be showing him the money.

 

The tea-leave readings of WMa personalities regarding his contract this year are farcical at best, They are not worth much nore in terms of his contract impact in the future.

 

The whole current WM controversy strikes me as full of sound and fury but really signifying nothing.

[Buffan00]

What I find amusing about all this is that if McGahee had rushed for a buck and a quarter last week with a trip to the end zone and the Bills had won, I wouldn't even be posting this right now.

 

There are hundreds of people on this BB (and a couple others) engaged in heated discussion borne of a combination of disappointment about an ugly loss and excessive pre-season hype. 

 

If #21 has a solid game, and JP looks like he's starting to feel a little more comfortable, just watch the tone of the posts next week!

451686[/snapback]

wow, good one Nostradomis!

[nfreeman]

this week's tempest in a teapot, while nothing in and of itself, looks as if it will usher in a long, drawn-out love-hate relationship with yet another bills quasi-star. sullivan's inane column indicate that the honeymoon's over, and observers here are being more vocal about their worries that the guy is a budding malcontent.

 

first off: remember that he did go to the U, which explains a lot.  that easy arrogance -- a potent mix of drew rosenhaus/edgerrin james/bryant mckinnie/warren sapp/jonathan vilma/ray lewis/andre johnson/kellen winslow/philip buchanon/ed reed/jeremy shockey/jesse armstead/the blades brothers/clinton portis/michael irvin/etc. -- shines through pretty damn clearly, in my opinion.  of course, the u puts out many, many great players, and arrogance is a good trait for a football player. none of these guys are remotely likeable, though, and i expect mcgahee's relationship with buffalo's exceptionally thin-skinned media and fan base to be very testy as time goes on. it's only a matter of time before he starts complaining about the weather and the local nightlife.

 

anyway, i'm starting to think that if mcgahee turns out to be a very good as opposed to great running back (and right now i'd only put him in the "good" category), his stay in buffalo will be relatively short -- four or five seasons (including his first inactive season) -- given his apparently lavish financial expectations.  basically, if he doesn't elevate his game a great deal, i can't see donohoe budging an inch to break the bank for him. he won't be good enough to merit it.  as of right now, it seems pretty evident that he's not particularly fast, which makes him an eddie george-type player (as long as he can attack the hole more quickly). for five years, george was a big and just fast enough slasher who could pound it, which looks to be where mcgahee's strength lies.  as a counter-example, i watched another big guy the other night -- deuce mcallister -- and mcallister plays a *lot* faster than mcgahee.

 

of course, this is all OK -- george was a very fine player for five seasons (beginning in 2001, his game entered a precipitous decline). but it also means that the bills don't have a curtis martin on their hands, and will find their next mcgahee prior to the the 2007 season, which is about when I expect mcgahee to become just another guy (albeit one who wants a $19 million bonus). the bills will have gotten a good deal out of it -- 3 or 4 good to very good seasons from a late first rounder. that's more than j.d. williams, eric flowers, antowain smith, perry tuttle, john fina, booker moore, tony hunter, or ronnie harmon ever gave them.

450609[/snapback]

 

DM:

 

Holy cow -- didn't take long to throw Willis over.

 

Here are my 2 cents:

 

1. WM looked pretty damn good last year and pretty strong against Houston. I'm not ready to consign him to merely "good" status yet after 1 bad game. Even the great ones have crappy games sometimes -- especially when the QB can't complete a pass longer than 6 yards to Josh Reed.

 

2. WM may not be fast like Bo Jackson but I agree with FFS that raw speed is not that high on the list of necessities for a great RB.

 

3. Although your observations about players from "the U" are generally accurate, and no one could say that your prediction of him complaining about weather, nightlife, etc., & having a bad relationship with Jerry Sullivan et al is crazy or impossible, it is not fair to assume WM is going to be a bad actor. [it's also a pretty un-PC prediction, esp. in your neighborhood.] Also, I've read some pretty favorable articles about Ed Reed, Edgerrin James, and even Jeremy Shockey.

 

Let the man live his life and act as he will before judging him. Don't put words in his mouth that he hasn't come close to saying. I'm not aware of anything he's said or done to indicate that he will be a problem. He wanted to start, but so did travis henry.

 

4. WM also hasn't said a word that I've heard about wanting a new deal. It's become quite trendy to assume this based on Drew Rosenhaus, the U, etc. -- but again, it's unfair to judge until this happens. The real question here is production. Rosenhaus knows what the market for RBs is and one has to assume that WM does also. If WM has regular reprises of the TB game, he's going to be a 1000 - 1200 yard back at best and no one is going to be talking about a new contract.

 

If he becomes the back everyone expected based on last year and week 1 of this year, he'll be a 1500-1700 yard back and after a couple of years will probably get a fat bonus/extension. From our perspective this will be a great development because he will be a great asset to the team and will be locked up at a young age.

 

I suppose there is the possibility that he has a 1500 yard season this year and demands a new deal immediately, and TD won't budge, and WM holds out, it gets ugly, etc. -- but this is nothing more than pure speculation. It is just wrong to assume this is what is going to happen and hold it against WM. Frankly, we've got more pressing issues to deal with -- like a HUGE game on Sunday.

 

which brings me to:

 

5. Prediction: WM plays with a chip on his shoulder, has a big game and the bills squeak out a close, low-scoring win that answers zero questions about whether JP is an NFL quarterback. Bills, 16-13.