bartshan-83 Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 While Willis is certainly not the best back in the league, I believe he has top 3 or top 5 potential no doubt. One of my beefs though is his size. While it is impossible to accurately judge any offensive skill player as long as they are playing behind our excuse for an OL, I still feel that Willis is too big and his size may be hurting his production. Now this is in no way an attempt at a Travis v. Willis debate; that horse is dead and bloodied. But I feel like some of the big reasons we got McGahee were that he had things that Travis lacked. One of these skills was the supposed "home run threat." People said Henry was a basic grind-it-out back that was never a threat to break the big one. I fully agree....but how is that different from Willis. The man is like 230 lbs. now. He has not even come close to breaking a big one yet. Plus, to me, he looks much slower coming around the corners than he did last year. He never seems to get the corner ever and since his stiff-arm is apparently in hiding, this results in a bunch of 1 yd. gains. The second new addition he was going to add was his superior receiving skills. I always thought Henry was very unfairly villified with regards to his receiving prowess. Marshall Faulk he is not, but I never thought he was terrible or that Willis had shown anything at all that was better. Again, I think WMs size may be hurting him here too. The majority of successful pass-catching RBs are small, shifty types. Willis just doesn't seem to have this. I will heap plenty of blame on the OL and our coaching staff for somehow consistently running the absolute worst screen passes in the NFL, but he just doesn't wow me at all when he does have room. Before he tore his knee up, WM was known as an explosive back. While he may not be 100% yet, explosive is the last word I would use to descibe him. I have never had to rehab like did, but is it possible he just lifted weights like a demon while he couldnt do speed or agility and his game has suffered for it? There are too many things wrong with this team, but I just wonder if Willis would be a much different player if he was around 215. Thoughts?
VABills Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 Also Alexander is 225 Larry Johnson is 230 LT is 225 Rudi Johnson is 225 Mike Anderson is 230 Steven Jackson is 235 Yup, these guys all suck because they weigh too much.
Billsjunkie Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 I dont think he is saying that they suck. I think he is asking if that added weight killed his home-run speed that he once had. I agree with him. Willis is no different than Henry. There was supposed to be a difference.
bartshan-83 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 Also Alexander is 225 Larry Johnson is 230 LT is 225 Rudi Johnson is 225 Mike Anderson is 230 Steven Jackson is 235 Yup, these guys all suck because they weigh too much. 529841[/snapback] Yeah cause I said any of that... You have a helluva of a way of conversing....
VABills Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 Yeah cause I said any of that... You have a helluva of a way of conversing.... 529873[/snapback] Better then your making up sh-- as you go along.
bartshan-83 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 I dont think he is saying that they suck. I think he is asking if that added weight killed his home-run speed that he once had. I agree with him. Willis is no different than Henry. There was supposed to be a difference. 529848[/snapback] Thank you...that is what I was asking. It seems pretty obvious he has lost some speed, and I am wondering if he is better as a big back or more suited to be the one he was advertised as coming out of the U.
bartshan-83 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 Better then your making up sh-- as you go along. 529877[/snapback] what did I make up? the only fabrication I can see in this thread is you implying that I think all RBs 225+ suck.
VABills Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 what did I make up? the only fabrication I can see in this thread is you implying that I think all RBs 225+ suck. 529887[/snapback] He was 224 in college. 6 pounds is not going to make that much of a difference. http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/position/rb#d
bartshan-83 Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 He was 224 in college. 6 pounds is not going to make that much of a difference. http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/position/rb#d 529904[/snapback] Was that so hard? Could have made this your first reply.... All right, I thought he was like 215-220. Dropping to 215 may have been a stretch, but does he at all seem like an explosive runner? I had just thought that we were getting the guy that could take it all the way or that would beat LBs to the corner on sweeps and pitches. Very possible that it is almost entirely the fault of the OL and/or coaching, but he seems slow to me. I like Willis a lot and I'd take him over Travis every day, but it just seems like something is missing.
Mikie2times Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 While Willis is certainly not the best back in the league, I believe he has top 3 or top 5 potential no doubt. One of my beefs though is his size. While it is impossible to accurately judge any offensive skill player as long as they are playing behind our excuse for an OL, I still feel that Willis is too big and his size may be hurting his production. Now this is in no way an attempt at a Travis v. Willis debate; that horse is dead and bloodied. But I feel like some of the big reasons we got McGahee were that he had things that Travis lacked. One of these skills was the supposed "home run threat." People said Henry was a basic grind-it-out back that was never a threat to break the big one. I fully agree....but how is that different from Willis. The man is like 230 lbs. now. He has not even come close to breaking a big one yet. Plus, to me, he looks much slower coming around the corners than he did last year. He never seems to get the corner ever and since his stiff-arm is apparently in hiding, this results in a bunch of 1 yd. gains. The second new addition he was going to add was his superior receiving skills. I always thought Henry was very unfairly villified with regards to his receiving prowess. Marshall Faulk he is not, but I never thought he was terrible or that Willis had shown anything at all that was better. Again, I think WMs size may be hurting him here too. The majority of successful pass-catching RBs are small, shifty types. Willis just doesn't seem to have this. I will heap plenty of blame on the OL and our coaching staff for somehow consistently running the absolute worst screen passes in the NFL, but he just doesn't wow me at all when he does have room. Before he tore his knee up, WM was known as an explosive back. While he may not be 100% yet, explosive is the last word I would use to descibe him. I have never had to rehab like did, but is it possible he just lifted weights like a demon while he couldnt do speed or agility and his game has suffered for it? There are too many things wrong with this team, but I just wonder if Willis would be a much different player if he was around 215. Thoughts? 529797[/snapback] I've made a few posts regarding MaGahee's lack of explosiveness, but I don't believe weight is the major factor. He could stand to lose a few pounds but dropping 5 or 6 LBs won’t morph him into a player that can break a 50 yard runs. Willis suffered one of the most catastrophic knee injuries any RB has ever retuned from, and 3 years later he still isn't near the player he was at Miami. RB's like Edge and Jamal Lewis said it took two years to recover from only one torn ligament, for the injury Willis sustained it's clear it will take much longer, or may never happen at all. In his current form he is still a damn fine RB, but lately I have been left questioning the pick more and more. Up until this point the Bills have gotten the best case recovery scenario with Willis, leaving the many satisfied with the pick. But I just don't see how the risk was justifiable then or now. Fumbles aside what huge dimension does Willis have that Travis didn’t? In no way am I suggesting we should have kept Travis, I just don't find Willis bringing much more to the table at this point. He's yet to prove himself as a pass catcher, and looks downright slow at times. RB's are a dime a dozen in the NFL and right now Willis just looks like a guy playing around the same level as his draft position would indicate, no more, no less. That would be fine if that’s all that was involved when he came here, but he also was out his first season, and with the intense media coverage surrounding his injury it seems like his ego is outgrowing his talent. This could lead to more $, and I can't help but think if your looking for a RB that year why Larry Johnson wouldn't have been a much better selection. All this negative crap and I still sport #21 on Sundays.
colin Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 hmm when travis was in this terrible O, he sucked hot but hole. when willis came in he tore it up (albeit in little hard runs, not on big runs). now that JP is learning, moulds is out, our entire right side is hurt and our playcalling is sh--, he isn't getting it done. frankly i think if we have mike williams at 100% we can run wills for 100+ every game. now we just can't. when we ditch kevin costner's tinkle drinking twin and tom "i drive better after i've had a couple" donnahoe we may well see mcgahee and crew look like an NFL team
Mikie2times Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 hmm when travis was in this terrible O, he sucked hot but hole. when willis came in he tore it up (albeit in little hard runs, not on big runs). now that JP is learning, moulds is out, our entire right side is hurt and our playcalling is sh--, he isn't getting it done. frankly i think if we have mike williams at 100% we can run wills for 100+ every game. now we just can't. when we ditch kevin costner's tinkle drinking twin and tom "i drive better after i've had a couple" donnahoe we may well see mcgahee and crew look like an NFL team 530145[/snapback] Actually Travis put better numbers up in 2002 and 2003 in every statistical category then Willis has in 2004 and 2005. This holds true for both overall numbers and averages based on carries. Travis did have the fumbling problems and some of the field stuff and that’s why we let him go, but Willis in 2004 and 2005 is not exactly showing up Travis Henry. The projected category shows MaGahee’s stats based on the same number of carries as Travis. For TD's and receptions I did it by averaging the amount of receptions per rush, and the amount of TD's per rush. Willis McGahee (2004 and 2005)...Projected.............Travis Henry (2002 and 2003) 555 Rushes ............................. .656 Rushes.................656 Rushes 2160 Yards................................ 2552 Yards. ................2794 Yards 3.89 AVG................................... 3.89 AVG ...................4.25 AVG 17 TD. .......................................20TD......................... 23 TD 42 REC.......................................50 REC.......................71 REC 311 Yards....................................370 Yards.................. 467 Yards 0 TD........................................... 0 TD......................... 2 TD 5 FUM..........................................6 FUM.........................18 FUM
slothrop Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 While it is impossible to accurately judge any offensive skill player as long as they are playing behind our excuse for an OL . . . 529797[/snapback] I think your statement quoted above is the key point. Willis has not shown the explosion because he is hit at least once before getting to the LOS and almost never reaches the LB's untouched. This is an OL problem. The other key problem is that the "Education of JP Losman" will, necessarily, negatively affect the run game. What would Willis look like behind the KC or Den line? That would be fun to watch. In sum, I will not criticize Willis until the line is improved. This line is the worst I ahve ever seen, including the OL's that Henry ran behind. At least we had Jennings and Brown instead of Gandy and Anderson on the left side.
GG Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 Sheesh. From the thread title, I thought I'd wandered into a "boys only" forum.
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 Willis has not shown the explosion because he is hit at least once before getting to the LOS and almost never reaches the LB's untouched. This is an OL problem. 530170[/snapback] If they kept stats for the number of times a RB gets hit before reaching the LOS, Willis would probably lead the league. Let's change the OL first (along with the head coach who's afraid to use Willis on 3rd downs). Then, if Willis still looks too slow, it would be safe to call him just another Travis Henry (who doesn't fumble). But on the bright side, at least he'd be cheaper to re-sign!
Mikie2times Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 I think your statement quoted above is the key point. Willis has not shown the explosion because he is hit at least once before getting to the LOS and almost never reaches the LB's untouched. This is an OL problem. The other key problem is that the "Education of JP Losman" will, necessarily, negatively affect the run game. What would Willis look like behind the KC or Den line? That would be fun to watch. In sum, I will not criticize Willis until the line is improved. This line is the worst I ahve ever seen, including the OL's that Henry ran behind. At least we had Jennings and Brown instead of Gandy and Anderson on the left side. 530170[/snapback] I'm not going to down play the lines roll in the running game, as we know it's instrumental, but I disagree that the line playing poorly is what's really hiding the explosion. We've watched him run almost 600 times, and have seen him play in 29 games. You can see explosiveness from the acceleration in and out of cuts, and Willis has been in space enough times for us to get a good look at it. What I see is the vast majority of NFL backs having more explosion then MaGahee, and it really doesn't surprise me. At Miami he had one of the truly great seasons for a RB, and was looked at as the next great back. I watched him play several times, and I can say with absolute certainty that he was worth the hype. He had the tools he has now, namely power and vision, but he also had great acceleration, and agility. Willis post injury has retained the power and vision, which happens to be enough to make him a pretty solid player. If he does get his speed back that should give you an idea of just how good this guy can be. I just don't know if he can recover from that kind of injury 100% because we really haven't seen many NFL players do it before. It’s remarkable he’s come this far.
Recommended Posts