mcgahee receiving the ball next year

[dave mcbride]

perhaps i shouldn't be reading too much into this, but it looks as though the bills may run an offense in which running backs are more than an afterthought in the passing game. fairchild was the OC for st. louis last year, and presumably had more clout than he had in the past because of martz's illness and subsequent sidelining. anyway, stephen jackson is built very much like mcgahee and is known as a good power runner inside. however, he put up some fine receiving numbers, as did a lightly used faulk. in fact, st. louis running backs had 91 receptions last year. their tight ends only had 31 receptions, which might explain why the bills went after royal so hard -- a good blocker who makes the very occasional catch. i should add that st. louis pass offense over the past 6 years has been absolutely spectacular, and finished 2nd overall last years despite devastating injuries at the qb position (they used 3 guys overall).

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram2005.htm

 

anyway, since i think mcgahee is probably a better receiver than he's shown so far (he was a fine receiver for the U), i think you'll probably see him better integrated into the passing game next year. if he stays healthy, 50+ receptions sounds entirely reasonable given the fairchild offense.

[Kelly the Dog]

It was inconceivable that the Mularkey/Clements led Bills didn't throw swing passes and flat passes to McGahee to get him into the open field and to give Losman some easy completions and confidence and down/distance.

[Mickey]

perhaps i shouldn't be reading too much into this, but it looks as though the bills may run an offense in which running backs are more than an afterthought in the passing game. fairchild was the OC for st. louis last year, and presumably had more clout than he had in the past because of martz's illness and subsequent sidelining.  anyway, stephen jackson is built very much like mcgahee and is known as a good power runner inside. however, he put up some fine receiving numbers, as did a lightly used faulk. in fact, st. louis running backs had 91 receptions last year. their tight ends only had 31 receptions, which might explain why the bills went after royal so hard -- a good blocker who makes the very occasional catch. i should add that st. louis pass offense over the past 6 years has been absolutely spectacular, and finished 2nd overall last years despite devastating injuries at the qb position (they used 3 guys overall).

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram2005.htm

 

anyway, since i think mcgahee is probably a better receiver than he's shown so far (he was a fine receiver for the U), i think you'll probably see him better integrated into the passing game next year. if he stays healthy, 50+ receptions sounds entirely reasonable given the fairchild offense.

693672[/snapback]

 

Taking him out on 3rd downs kind of took him out of the passing game quite a bit. That drove me crazy all year. The problem with situational subs like that is it tips your hand to the defense which is the last thing you want to do on 3rd down. Seems to me you should have your best players on the field on 3rd down just as much as you would on 1st and 2nd.

[Mickey]

It was inconceivable that the Mularkey/Clements led Bills didn't throw swing passes and flat passes to McGahee to get him into the open field and to give Losman some easy completions and confidence and down/distance.

693680[/snapback]

That has an added bonus, it slows the defense down a bit on third down because they have to worry about that swing pass, especially a defense that blitzes like mad, sending guy in from all over the place, like New England.

[a player to be named later]

Its pretty safe to say that our offensive game plan did not play to our strenghths. Willis on 3rd down is the perfect example. I'm sure Willis would love the chance to get his hands on the ball more. No matter which way it comes.

[Ranger Ranchod]

Nothing but good will come from this. Willis is our #1 offensive weapon and needs to utilized as such, plus, like most gamers, guys like him thrive on getting his hands on the ball, so more touches is definitely what the doctor orderd for WM and the Bills offense.

[Coach Tuesday]

You obviously have not seen his 40 time or you wouldn't have started a thread like this.

[Nick in RaChaCha]

You obviously have not seen his 40 time or you wouldn't have started a thread like this.

693736[/snapback]

LOL

[ans4e64]

i liked shaud williams in the 3rd down role last year. i think 3rd and short is where willis needs to be used, but anything 6 yards and over i like shaud. Shaud gives us better versatility in what we want to do, he was great at running the draws and screens. When we know we have to pass on 3rd down shaud is the man, he is a better receiver and a better blocker.

[C.Biscuit97]

It was inconceivable that the Mularkey/Clements led Bills didn't throw swing passes and flat passes to McGahee to get him into the open field and to give Losman some easy completions and confidence and down/distance.

693680[/snapback]

 

Exactly. MM can't be that dumb can he? If you have a young QB, you find ways to get him confidence with easy completions to rbs and tes. We rarely used either. So either Willis has worse hands than we think or MM is one of the dumbest coaches of all-time. Hopefully, it's the latter.

[C.Biscuit97]

i liked shaud williams in the 3rd down role last year. i think 3rd and short is where willis needs to be used, but anything 6 yards and over i like shaud. Shaud gives us better versatility in what we want to do, he was great at running the draws and screens. When we know we have to pass on 3rd down shaud is the man, he is a better receiver and a better blocker.

693769[/snapback]

 

I thought Shaud was decent as well. However, you don't draft a player in the first round to be a part time player (a reason a lot of posters didn't want to draft Ngata). If Willis is this franchise back like everyone thinks he is, let's use him like one. You find ways to get him the rock as much as possible. Plus on 3rd downs, a defense will respect Willis in there a lot more than Shaud.

[Ramius]

Dont pull our starting and good running back on 3rd down? BRILLIANT!

[Dr. Trooth]

The bottom line, er, uh, excuse me... the "trooth" is... what Mr. McGahee must answer is can he be trusted in passing and/or 3rd down passing situations. We all know he can catch the rock. But, do we know, and are the coaches confident, that he can carry out the other nuances of the RB position in passing situations, ie blocking, selling the play, being in the right spot, etc.?

 

There is a reason why Mr. McGahee was not used a lot in passing situations over the past couple of seasons. We can certainly use Mularkey as an excuse. But, I think the answer to whether he can be trusted in passing situations is a resounding "no" until he proves otherwise. This ain't Judge Judy... so, yes, in this case he is guilty until proven innocent.... or if you look at things differently, McGahee thinks he's the top back in the league. Well, if he were accused of that, there isn't enough evidence to indict him, let alone convict him.

[ans4e64]

I thought Shaud was decent as well.  However, you don't draft a player in the first round to be a part time player (a reason a lot of posters didn't want to draft Ngata).  If Willis is this franchise back like everyone thinks he is, let's use him like one.  You find ways to get him the rock as much as possible.  Plus on 3rd downs, a defense will respect Willis in there a lot more than Shaud.

693860[/snapback]

 

You dont make players play in situations that dont suit their strengths, especially just because he was a 1st round pick. Willis was a 1st round pick because he is a great runner. Can he catch the ball? sure...... can he block? maybe a little... but he is not a great at them and they are not his strengths. He is not that all around back like Tomlinson or Edgerrin James and that is not taking anything away from him. On 3rd and 3, hes in there.... on 3rd and 4, hes in there.... but on 3rd and 12 it makes no sense to have him in the game when he does nothing for your passing game, shaud williams does. This does not mean shaud williams is a better back than willis, or willis sucks, it means that in one scenario out of many that may occur in a game, shaud has an advantage. Running back is a different position, and they do get drafted sometimes to be a part time player as you call it.

 

- Being touted as the "best college football player" some have ever seen, and should have been the number one overall selection, Reggie Bush has been a part time player his whole career and will continue to be. Now Deuce McCallister will be as well, both 1st round picks. If its 4th and inches do you give Reggie the ball? of course not, it's not his strength. Throw lendale white in here too, if it werent for his hamstring and character problems, this "part time player" could have been a top 5 pick.

- The NFL's leading rusher in Sean Alexander is also a "part time player" and fits in the same scenario as Willis. On 3rd and more than 6 was he in the game? no.... Maurice Morris was, because he was a better option in that situation.

- In 2004 the best rushing team in the NFL was the Atlanta Falcons, who used TJ Duckett and Warrick Dunn, both 1st round picks. Obviously we know what they were used for and their strengths and weakness contrast each others.

- Last example, one of the NFL's all time leading rushers in Jerome Bettis is going to take his "part time" career to the Hall of Fame.

 

Point being, it doesnt matter that he was a 1st round pick, he wasnt in the game on 3rd and long because we had other players that played out in that situation better. This does not mean we wasted a pick, or willis is a horrible player, its just the way it is. He is a great runner, not a 3rd down back.

[Pyrite Gal]

perhaps i shouldn't be reading too much into this, but it looks as though the bills may run an offense in which running backs are more than an afterthought in the passing game. fairchild was the OC for st. louis last year, and presumably had more clout than he had in the past because of martz's illness and subsequent sidelining.  anyway, stephen jackson is built very much like mcgahee and is known as a good power runner inside. however, he put up some fine receiving numbers, as did a lightly used faulk. in fact, st. louis running backs had 91 receptions last year. their tight ends only had 31 receptions, which might explain why the bills went after royal so hard -- a good blocker who makes the very occasional catch. i should add that st. louis pass offense over the past 6 years has been absolutely spectacular, and finished 2nd overall last years despite devastating injuries at the qb position (they used 3 guys overall).

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram2005.htm

 

anyway, since i think mcgahee is probably a better receiver than he's shown so far (he was a fine receiver for the U), i think you'll probably see him better integrated into the passing game next year. if he stays healthy, 50+ receptions sounds entirely reasonable given the fairchild offense.

693672[/snapback]

 

Given the success which the Rams had throwing the ball to Faulk a whole lot under Martz, it does not make sense to me that the Rams O was liberated by his illness to suddenly throw more to the RB

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

Point being, it doesnt matter that he was a 1st round pick, he wasnt in the game on 3rd and long because we had other players that played out in that situation better. This does not mean we wasted a pick, or willis is a horrible player, its just the way it is. He is a great runner, not a 3rd down back.

693919[/snapback]

 

I agree it doesnt matter that he was a 1st rd pick but I dont really agree that shaud williams is a better 3rd down back. He's not a better receiving back.

 

 

Shaud Williams

RECEIVING

 

Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD

2004 Buffalo Bills 4 0 3 19 6.3 10 0 0 0 0

2005 Buffalo Bills 16 0 17 118 6.9 23 0 1 0 4

 

Willis McGahee

 

2004 Buffalo Bills 16 11 22 169 7.7 16 0 0 0 8

2005 Buffalo Bills 16 15 28 178 6.4 19 0 0 0

 

Now maybe it's because Shaud Williams was viwed as being better in blitz pickup. However this would also not seem to make that much sense as I dont remember us being all that succesful picking up a blitz last season where as in 2004 when McGahee was used a lot more on 3rd downs and Williams used as stricly a change a pace type back down the stretch only giving up 12 sacks in the last 9 games.

 

 

Maybe as a 3rd down receiver?

 

THIRD DOWN 0 7 60 8.6 - Willis McGahee

THIRD DOWN 0 8 54 6.8 - Shaud Williams

 

Seems they used them pretty evenely there. The only place at least statistically where Shaud has an edge is 3rd down rushing

 

THIRD DOWN 0 11 43 3.9 14 0 3 - Shaud Williams

THIRD DOWN 0 28 66 2.4 12 1 15 - Willis McGahee

 

the margin of difference between these 2 on 3rd down doesnt seem to be enough to warrant taking out McGahee on the majority on 3rd downs as seemed to be the case in 05. It also doesnt make much sense strategically as it really does make your offense one dimensional. It's bad enough we dont have any sort of passing offense, but when teams know McGahees in 1st and 2nd they'll stack the line, making it more difficult to run, and knowing he's rarely used a receiving option will take more chances and blitz more frequently on 1st and 2nd down, putting us in longer 3rd downs the majority of the time. In this situation I'd rather have the ball in McGahees hands then worrying about whether or not Shaud Williams can pick up a defender who happens to slip through on 3rd and 6 or longer.

[Acantha]

So either Willis has worse hands than we think or MM is one of the dumbest coaches of all-time.  Hopefully, it's the latter. 

693857[/snapback]

In order to shed some light...what was it that MM/Clements did when the game was on the line and we needed game winnning drive? Oh yeah, throw it to our stone handed FB.....again. There is no underestimating the stupidity of our offense last season.

 

Can he catch the ball? sure...... can he block? maybe a little... but he is not a great at them and they are not his strengths.

 

I can't comment too much on his recieving ability....as much as I'm trying I just can't recall too many passes his way and what he did with them when he got them. But I do remember McGahee making some absolutely great blocks two years ago. I remember him running across the backfield and making a diving block on a LB to give Bledsoe a couple extra seconds. I remember him tripping up DE's. There were a few times where I literally jumped out of my seat cheering at blocks McGahee made in the backfield. He CAN block. I don't know what happened last year...but like most things involving this team, I will not discount how much negative influence our coaches had. Whether it was poor scheme or the fact that the players just seemed to lose the will to fight, it all went to hell.

[BUFFALOTONE]

thats how I feel right now.

[dave mcbride]

Given the success which the Rams had throwing the ball to Faulk a whole lot under Martz, it does not make sense to me that the Rams O was liberated by his illness to suddenly throw more to the RB

693930[/snapback]

you've misread what i've said. i obviously know that they passed a ton to faulk from 99-04. what i'm saying is that fairchild (who was often regarded as a nonentity at st. louis because martz most definitely ran the offense before exiting early last season) ran the offense for most of last year on his own and oversaw an offense that threw a lot to the running backs.

[Pyrite Gal]

you've misread what i've said. i obviously know that they passed a ton to faulk from 99-04. what i'm saying is that fairchild (who was often regarded as a nonentity at st. louis because martz most definitely ran the offense before exiting early last season) ran the offense for most of last year on his own and oversaw an offense that threw a lot to the running backs.

693958[/snapback]

 

Sorry, between the subject of thread, you saying that the illness increased Faircgild's clout over the past and that the result was more passes, I made a false assumption as to the intent of your point.