Can we put the McGahee Bad posts to rest?

[34-78-83]

Emmit Smith was a better back than Sanders, period.

747625[/snapback]

 

Better all around back yes.

 

My point was that Barry would not have a list of carries that looked like this behind the Dallas O-line: 1,2,-1,0,25,1,3,-2,-1,0,48

 

It would have likely looked more like: 4,3,8,5,2,0,25,5,7,3,2,48

 

get it?

 

The dallas O-line made holes such that the back did not receive first contact often til 4 - 5 yards down field.

[Kelly the Dog]

The take away the long run/pass/etc has it's merits.....but not in this instance.

WM only played for 1.5 quarters & only rushed 9 times.  That is not a large enough number to really judge anything(on top of it only being preseason)

Since nobody is saying "Oooh 9.8yards a carry! He's fantastic."  The 'taking off the longest' theory really does not apply in this instance.....but it is valid at other times IMO.

For instance....if a RB runs for 155 yards in a game on 31 carries he averages 5 which is really good but....if his longest run was 90yards, the other 30 carries average 2.17 which is pretty bad.  In that case, taking off the longest run shows that the RB might have gotten a lucky break but overall was not productive for the offense.

747691[/snapback]

Actually, that's wrong. If a player carries the ball 31 times in a game for 155 it's extremely productive and you will win 90% ofthose games. Any game you can afford to give any player 30 carries you are usually winning. If I knew that willis was going to have 155 yards and 31 carries and a 90 yard TD before the game I would take it 100% of the time. In fact, the number of carries a runner gets, when it gets above about 25, is as good or better indicator of his play than the yards.

[DeLuca1967]

Actually, that's wrong. If a player carries the ball 31 times in a game for 155 it's extremely productive and you will win 90% ofthose games. Any game you can afford to give any player 30 carries you are usually winning. If I knew that willis was going to have 155 yards and 31  carries and a 90 yard TD before the game I would take it 100% of the time. In fact, the number of carries a runner gets, when it gets above about 25, is as good or better indicator of his play than the yards.

747760[/snapback]

 

Wouldn't it be a better indicator of the score? If a back gets 30+ carriers the score is close or the RB's team has a big lead.

 

Also,

 

Barry Sanders is not in the same class as a Emmitt Smith.

[Kelly the Dog]

Wouldn't it be a better indicator of the score? If a back gets 30+ carriers the score is close or the RB's team has a big lead.

 

Also,

 

Barry Sanders is not in the same class as a Emmitt Smith.

747841[/snapback]

Yes and no. The score is an indication that they are moving the ball, picking up first downs, and driving down the field. Not to mention keeping the defense off the field. If you are giving your RB 30 carries, he is being highly productive and you're usually controlling the game. Even if 10-15 of those carries are in the fourth quarter protecting the lead, it's still moving the chains, working the clock down and keeping the other team off the scoreboard. Most coaches IMO will tell you 30 carries for 100 yards is probably better than 20 carries for 100 yards, even though it wouldn't appear to the average fan to be the case.

[Dibs]

Yes and no. The score is an indication that they are moving the ball, picking up first downs, and driving down the field. Not to mention keeping the defense off the field. If you are giving your RB 30 carries, he is being highly productive and you're usually controlling the game. Even if 10-15 of those carries are in the fourth quarter protecting the lead, it's still moving the chains, working the clock down and keeping the other team off the scoreboard. Most coaches IMO will tell you 30 carries for 100 yards is probably better than 20 carries for 100 yards, even though it wouldn't appear to the average fan to be the case.

747854[/snapback]

Usually is the right word....no arguments....not every time though.

...how about 30 carries for 65 yards?

Sometimes it is a useful tact to remove the 'long' run from a RBs stats.

I don't know what point you think I'm making here.....I'm not knocking anybody(RB) in particular, certainly not WM.

My point is:- There are some games where a RBs stats will appear awesome but upon closer inspection, they are inflated by an unusually long run & the RBs team actually has lost the game. It happens.

The reason I am harping on the point is that when those games occur(around the league), people actually argue the merits of the inflated stats & proclaim said RB good. To discount the concept now is to invite buffoonery later.

BTW, I do not think Sanders was an example of this. IMO Sanders was one of the most talented & dynamic RBs of all time.

[Kelly the Dog]

Usually is the right word....no arguments....not every time though.

...how about 30 carries for 65 yards?

Sometimes it is a useful tact to remove the 'long' run from a RBs stats. 

I don't know what point you think I'm making here.....I'm not knocking anybody(RB) in particular, certainly not WM.

My point is:-  There are some games where a RBs stats will appear awesome but upon closer inspection, they are inflated by an unusually long run & the RBs team actually has lost the game.  It happens.

The reason I am harping on the point is that when those games occur(around the league), people actually argue the merits of the inflated stats & proclaim said RB good.  To discount the concept now is to invite buffoonery later.

BTW, I do not think Sanders was an example of this.  IMO Sanders was one of the most talented & dynamic RBs of all time.

747994[/snapback]

There are games when one run will skew stats, sure. But you used a bad example, IMO. 31-155 is a fabulous game even if one of the carries was for 90 and the other 30 are for 65. It's great. Because when you get to 30 carries it's not the YPC that matter, it's the number of carries. Even if you get 2.9 a carry.

[Tasker]

There are games when one run will skew stats, sure. But you used a bad example, IMO.  31-155 is a fabulous game even if one of the carries was for 90 and the other 30 are for 65. It's great. Because when you get to 30 carries it's not the YPC that matter, it's the number of carries. Even if you get 2.9 a carry.

748010[/snapback]

 

Also regardless of how you get there, if after 29 carries your team is in a position to run the ball, and your coaching staff has enough confidence that you are the right choice to give you the ball a 30th time, chances are you are doing something right.

 

Guys, get on the Willis bandwagon now while there is lots of room. The guy can play and is going to have a monster year. I just hope we give him lots of 30 carry games.

[MDH]

Guys, get on the Willis bandwagon now while there is lots of room.  The guy can play and is going to have a monster year.  I just hope we give him lots of 30 carry games.

748030[/snapback]

 

I wasn't particularly pleased with WM's play last year (though I was the year before) but after seeing some of the highlights from the game Friday night I have to say that he looks closer to the player I saw in college than he ever has since being a Bills. Particularly on the 14 yard run which he fumbled. The quick cut and the burst he had moving through the line were particularly impressive.

[Bill from NYC]

Too many posters (imo) are making the mistake of comparing Willis to Thurman.

 

Thurman was as close as it gets (with the possible exception of Marshall Faulk) to being a complete running back. As 34-78-83 stated, Thurman picked up yards running backwards, etc. His instincts seemed to be unmatched. He was also a literally great receiver, and a superb pass blocker. No RB I ever watched could SEE a hole as well as Thurman.

 

Willis is no Thurman, but he is better (again, imo) than many here seem to believe. Instead of Thurman, I think that he runs more in the style of Franco Harris, or as a reach, a pre-drug Chuck Muncie. Willis is very big and strong, and has close to corner speed. There have been tougher guys to tackle, but it is hard to bring down a back this big when he has a head of steam.

 

For a part of the 04 season, the Bills OL was blocking fairly well. I attended a game where Mike Williams was actually given a game ball. The team was losing early on, until Willis came in and tore it up. This is fact.

 

Many of the teams Thurman played on had other great weapons, such as Kelly, Reed, and a pretty strong OL. Willis has never had such luxury.

Again, I would take Thurman over Willis, but Willis is a big strong kid who can run. Give him some room and defenses will have to contend with a 230 lb. guy with good speed coming their way, which is not fun.

 

In summary, Willis MaGahee is a long way from being what is wrong with the Buffalo Bills, and is a damn good running back.

[Orton's Arm]

Emmitt Smith never gets enough credit for being the player he was.  Emmitt was the dallas offense. The whole thing revolved around him.  If emmitt didnt go the cowboys didnt go it was as simple as that, and I think people forget that emmitt wasn't too shabby a receiver out of the backfield  particularly  in the early part of his career. 7 straight seasons with over 40 receptions From the 91-97 seasons.  He was also a td machine scoring 108 regular season tds rush/rec and in the playoffs he was just nasty having the most rushing tds in the post season 19 and being 2nd all time tied with our very own TT with 21 total. Jerry Rice is 1st with 22 post season scores.  Barry Sanders may have been far more exciting then Emmitt but Emmitt was a better pure rb then Barry.

The Dallas offense was loaded with talent. You had the best offensive line in football, a real quarterback in Troy Aikman, a receiver who needed double coverage in Michael Irvin, a deep threat in Alvin Harper, a good blocking fullback in Moose Johnston, and a good tight end. No real weaknesses anywhere. If Emmitt couldn't get the running game going, the Dallas offensive line would give Aikman all day to throw, and he'd complete passes to the likes of Michael Irvin.

 

In contrast, Sanders played on a team without much of an offensive line, without a real passing threat, without much of anything. If you stopped Barry Sanders, you stopped Detroit.

 

Emmitt Smith finished his career with a 4.2 YPC average. Barry Sanders' average was 5.0. And before you blame that difference on the fact Smith played longer, bear in mind that there was only one year where Smith equalled or exceeded 5.0 YPC. Smith averaged 34 receptions a year; Sanders averaged 35. Both were great backs, but Sanders achieved more, with less help from his teammates.

[stuckincincy]

Both were great backs, but Sanders achieved more, with less help from his teammates.

748894[/snapback]

 

I don't recall BS being much of a "team first" guy...

[BUFFALOTONE]

Emmit Smith was a better back than Sanders, period.

747625[/snapback]

 

NO FU---- WAy.

[Kelly the Dog]

The Dallas offense was loaded with talent.  You had the best offensive line in football, a real quarterback in Troy Aikman, a receiver who needed double coverage in Michael Irvin, a deep threat in Alvin Harper, a good blocking fullback in Moose Johnston, and a good tight end.  No real weaknesses anywhere.  If Emmitt couldn't get the running game going, the Dallas offensive line would give Aikman all day to throw, and he'd complete passes to the likes of Michael Irvin.

 

In contrast, Sanders played on a team without much of an offensive line, without a real passing threat, without much of anything.  If you stopped Barry Sanders, you stopped Detroit.

 

Emmitt Smith finished his career with a 4.2 YPC average.  Barry Sanders' average was 5.0.  And before you blame that difference on the fact Smith played longer, bear in mind that there was only one year where Smith equalled or exceeded 5.0 YPC.  Smith averaged 34 receptions a year; Sanders averaged 35.  Both were great backs, but Sanders achieved more, with less help from his teammates.

748894[/snapback]

Good post, HA. I have to think that if you put Barry Sanders on the Cowboys they still would have won three Super Bowls. He was every bit as good as Emmitt. The reason he ran the way he did was because he got NO help and had to do it all on his own.

[inkman]

Good post, HA. I have to think that if you put Barry Sanders on the Cowboys they still would have won three Super Bowls. He was every bit as good as Emmitt. The reason he ran the way he did was because he got NO help and had to do it all on his own.

749148[/snapback]

 

Anyone got game footage of OSU? Maybe that would help this debate.

[BUFFALOTONE]

The Dallas offense was loaded with talent.  You had the best offensive line in football, a real quarterback in Troy Aikman, a receiver who needed double coverage in Michael Irvin, a deep threat in Alvin Harper, a good blocking fullback in Moose Johnston, and a good tight end.  No real weaknesses anywhere.  If Emmitt couldn't get the running game going, the Dallas offensive line would give Aikman all day to throw, and he'd complete passes to the likes of Michael Irvin.

 

In contrast, Sanders played on a team without much of an offensive line, without a real passing threat, without much of anything.  If you stopped Barry Sanders, you stopped Detroit.

 

Emmitt Smith finished his career with a 4.2 YPC average.  Barry Sanders' average was 5.0.  And before you blame that difference on the fact Smith played longer, bear in mind that there was only one year where Smith equalled or exceeded 5.0 YPC.  Smith averaged 34 receptions a year; Sanders averaged 35.  Both were great backs, but Sanders achieved more, with less help from his teammates.

748894[/snapback]

 

Thank you. Emmitt was a good back who played on an unbelievable team. He ran behind a wall for most of his career. Barry did it the hard way. Someone said Barry is not in Emmitts league, they have confusd its the other way around. There is absolutely no doubt that Barry would be the alltime leader in yards had he not retired.

[stuckincincy]

Thank you. Emmitt was a good back who played on an unbelievable team. He ran behind a wall for most of his career. Barry did it the hard way. Someone said Barry is not in Emmitts league, they have confusd its the other way around. There is absolutely no doubt that Barry would be the alltime leader in yards had he not retired.

749158[/snapback]

 

Barry Sanders = Leon.

[BUFFALOTONE]

Barry Sanders = Leon.

749171[/snapback]

 

What?

[stuckincincy]

What?

749180[/snapback]

 

The beer commercial running back character. One ad said "Leon, there is no "I" in the word "team". Leon replied, "There ain't no Leon either!".

[BUFFALOTONE]

The beer commercial running back character. One ad said "Leon, there is no "I" in the word "team". Leon replied, "There ain't no Leon either!".

749187[/snapback]

 

OHH. Haahhaa I get it. Good times.

[stuckincincy]

OHH. Haahhaa I get it. Good times.

749190[/snapback]

 

IIRC, there were 3 or 4, perhaps more. It was a funny run of commercials. I wouldn't be surprised if Leon gets resurrected.