Willis's amazing year

[dave mcbride]

And I'm arguing if you put Thurman on this team and Willis on that one, Willis's would very likely be 5.15 or greater and Thurman's would be 4.13 or less.

762259[/snapback]

 

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever. thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row. and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

[Kelly the Dog]

p.s. TDs are a bogus category for judging a running back, in my humble opinion. no one gave a hoot about it before the advent of fantasy football ...

762263[/snapback]

They mean a lot to the team. I agree they are not always an indicator, as there are surely some players who get an inordinant amount of TDs that are not great players, and some guys are great players but don't get the ball down near the endzone to pad their stats. But they are just as good an indicator of running productions as yards, carries (very underrated, IMO), YPC, and YPG. All of which can be just as misleading. Great players usually have a nose for the goalline.

[Dan]

I have nothing against him, other than the fact that I don't give a crap about all the stats all the homers on this board spew out.  He's been a medicore RB since he's played for the Bills, and anyone that has watched him play vs. a real 'great' RB like Thurman knows that.  Give up on all the stats and hype, because it doesn't mean crap.  For every great stat you guys mention you can counter it with a pathetic one (how about his ypc).  Couple this with his crappy attitude and approach, and we have a RB that is WAY overvalued and hyped by everyone on this board.  He'd better have this speed back that everyone talks about this season, otherwise we will be stuck with the same middle-of-the-road RB.

762225[/snapback]

 

What I love about this mentality is how nothing is ever good enough. Now, not only does Willis have to have the most total yards rushing, the highest YPC, the most TDs, the most recieving yards, the best blocking skills; he must now now have the best attitude.

 

Nevermind that much of that is out of his control; its up to the coaches to put him in a situation to get those stats. A running back on the bench can't catch no balls. Granted his atitude is totally within his control, but I think pretty much the whole team gave up by the mid-point of last season. Hence, the new management and roughly 40 some odd% of player turnover. How can you call one player out, without calling out the entire team?

 

Impossible. If I had people like this supporting me I'd bolt as well.

[Kelly the Dog]

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever.  thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row.  and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

762267[/snapback]

No, in fact I said just the opposite in an above post. I said in no way am I comparing Willis to Thurman, a Hall of Famer.

 

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

[ganesh]

While I agree with the theme of your statements, there are other players out there who do sacrifice a little to stay back with their team....Take Ike Taylor, who was outstanding for the steelers as a shutdown corner last year, just recently signed a extension with a 6.5M signing bonus when players like Ken Lucas and Winfield got 13/14M in signing bonus....The same with even our own, Schoebel, who signed to a smaller contract then what he could have got in the open market.

What Drew does is he always gets the highest money at that position for his client. It helps him and hurts him....It helps him when he can sign the big contract and hurts him like a Javon Walker, where they have a holdout and then the player goes and blows out his knee....

 

If Ronnie Brown is successful in Miami, I cannot see Willis going back to the Miami area. Tampa is also vested in Cadillac Williams....So unless he can get a big contract with the Jaguars, which is a big IF, considering that the Jax are even worse strapped for money than the bills, he will not be going to the Florida area.

 

So now only players from The U and or Rosenhaus's clients care about being paid? This sort of argument against Willis always cracks me up because, I hate to break it to you, there isn't a player in the league that would play for free. There also isn't a player in the league that UNDERvalues his worth when it comes to contract time.

 

This is the NFL. This is not college or HS where loyalties are forged in team colors. The only color that exists is green. This is not exclusive to Willis. Every player wants the big payday. And every player is playing EVERY game to prove they deserve a bigger contract. It's about feeding their families (insert baby momma jokes here).

 

Any player on any team would leave said team for the right contract offer. JP, Lee, TKO, Fletcher-Baker. They are all mercenaries. It's the nature of the sport. And those who think the "old time" players would act differently aren't thinking things through. The players that were around prior to the Free Agency Bonanza would be exactly the same way as todays players -- they just didn't have the opportunity. Money changes everything, friends.

 

So there are only two things you can do about this as a fan.

1) Hope your team is the one that opens up the check book wide enough to keep your favorite players.

or

2) Root for the laundry.

 

Willis is going to have a monster year. Just be glad he's going to have it in Buffalo Bill Blue. And if he goes to another team in 2 years, how can you blame him? Wish him well and keep rooting for the laundry.

762087[/snapback]

[Tasker]

I agree with the monster season for Willis. I think JPs deep passing game will open things up even more (since Willis had KH start 8 times), and he looked so good in the last preseason game on the opening drive....not just the results, but the little things. It will be nice to have him in on 3rd downs, and it will be nice to give him the ball on 1st and goal from the 5...

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, Thurman would have tried last year....

762265[/snapback]

You're right. He would have. Which backs up my theory even more.

[dave mcbride]

No, in fact I said just the opposite in an above post. I said in no way am I comparing Willis to Thurman, a Hall of Famer.

 

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

762275[/snapback]

the one last thing i'll say about this is that you shouldn't leave out his playoff performances in his first two seasons.

 

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1988 hou W,17-10 | 7 75 1 | 0 0 0

1988 cin L,10-21 | 4 6 0 | 0 0 0

1989 cle L,30-34 | 10 27 0 | 13 150 2

 

 

i have no idea why he wasn't used against the bengals in 88, but his performance against the browns in 89 was one of the greatest performances by a bill ever in their playoff history. i still tear up thinking about that performance.

[bbills17]

so you're saying that mcgahee is a better player than thurman thomas. i think you're nuts for thinking this, but whatever.  thomas was certainly his equal as a runner, a better blocker, and a far better receiver. thomas also led the league in yards from scrimmage four seasons in a row.  and, as most coaches who addressed the issue said at the time, he was the best and most important player on that offense from 89-93.

762267[/snapback]

 

Anyone that would even _attempt_ to compare TT to WM either doesn't watch the games, or has no idea what he is talking about. Even after the same number of season, WM has done nothing even close to what Thurman did. Thurman was an all-around amazing back that could do anything you asked, WM simply put, is not even close.

[JDG]

You're right. He would have. Which backs up my theory even more. 

762292[/snapback]

 

Until Mr. Headcase finds some other excuse for mailing it in this year...

 

It is just bizarre that you are trying to convince us to get excited about a player *because* he quit on his team last year....

 

JDG

[JDG]

What I am comparing is their first two seasons. And most people have said that Willis is the best and most important player on the Bills offense in his two years, too. What does that prove? I don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman. I very much doubt it. He has been every bit as good in his first two years though, IMO.

762275[/snapback]

 

Let's see, Thurman Thomas in his second year average 4.2 yards per carry on 298 attempts and caught 60 balls for 669 yards (11.2 average) and scored 12 TD's.

 

Willis McGahee average 3.8 yards per carry on 325 attempts and caught 28 balls for 178 yards (6.4 average) and scored 5 TD's.

 

I honestly can't gather how you could seriously conclude that "Willis McGahee has been every bit as good as Thurman Thomas in his first two years." The argument you make is based on a very selective reading of statistics - produced by combining Thurman's 2nd year with his rookie year when he had a 2 to 1 split with Rob Riddick and comparing it to McGahee's 3 to 1 split with Travis Henry in his second year and McGahee's third year. It also is the classic Losman-two-card-monte, in trying to compare one player's second year with another player's rookie year. Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

Let's see, Thurman Thomas in his second year average 4.2 yards per carry on 298 attempts and caught 60 balls for 669 yards (11.2 average) and scored 12 TD's.

 

Willis McGahee average 3.8 yards per carry on 325 attempts and caught 28 balls for 178 yards (6.4 average) and scored 5 TD's.

 

I honestly can't gather how you could seriously conclude that "Willis McGahee has been every bit as good as Thurman Thomas in his first two years."    The argument you make is based on a very selective reading of statistics - produced by combining Thurman's 2nd year with his rookie year when he had a 2 to 1 split with Rob Riddick and comparing it to McGahee's 3 to 1 split with Travis Henry in his second year and McGahee's third year.  It also is the classic Losman-two-card-monte, in trying to compare one player's second year with another player's rookie year.  Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

762439[/snapback]

God, what a moronic statement and argument. Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player, and Thurman was way better than Willis as a second year player. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you just ignore the fact that I said McGahee cannot be compared to Thurman, nor do I believe he will ever be as good?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that in two years Willis has equal stats while playing on a far inferior team, with far worse linemen, far worse quarterbacking, worse receivers, far worse coaching and far worse play-calling. He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

[stuckincincy]

He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

 

He sure has. He's put up good numbers, and is a proven NFL rb - any opposing team meeting includes talk about how to stop him.

[stuckincincy]

  Anyhow, the true picture is quite clear, however, that performance-wise, McGahee has not yet produced to the level of Thurman Thomas in his second year.

 

JDG

762439[/snapback]

 

Well, give us a list of those 2nd-year backs that did...

[IDBillzFan]

He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

He sure has. And if we're lucky, he'll have an even better performance this year, which will help us get a first for him.

[JDG]

God, what a moronic statement and argument. Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player, and Thurman was way better than Willis as a second year player. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you just ignore the fact that I said McGahee cannot be compared to Thurman, nor do I believe he will ever be as good?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that in two years Willis has equal stats while playing on a far inferior team, with far worse linemen, far worse quarterbacking, worse receivers, far worse coaching and far worse play-calling. He has done pretty well in two years on what proved to be a sh------- team.

762462[/snapback]

 

The problem, Kelly, is that you seem to want to have it both ways. You think that Willis' season was "amazing" and "remarkable", but "not great."

 

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year.

 

You think that Willis has been "every bit as good [as Thurman] in his first two years", but you "don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman"? If I wanted to be annoying, I could point out that you just said that Willis is as good as Thurman right now, at the two-year stage of his career. Of course, I interpreted your comment as arguing that you think Willis' first two years were as good as Thurman's, but you are reserving judgement as to whether or not Willis will have the type of extended, long-term, NFL-dominating productivity that made Thurman a Hall of Famer.

 

Is that a reasonable characterization of your position?

 

If so, I responded to your post by pointing out that I think that Thurman's statistics for his first two years show him to have been an unquesitonably better player than Willis McGahee in his first two years. Moreover, I think that it was only by comparing Thomas' and McGahee's first two years' statistics in the manner least-favorable to Thurman Thomas that you were even able to suggest the argument. If forced to chose a RB for two years of my football team - all other considerations aside - I would not think for a second about picking the 1988 and 1989 Thurman Thomas over the 2004 and 2005 Willis McGahee.

 

JDG

 

P.S. You said above that "Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player" - come again? Thurman's first year was 207 carries for a 4.3 average, with 2 TD's and 18 receptions for 208 yards as a rookie. Willis' first year was 284 carries for a 4.0 average 13 TD's and 22 catches for only 169 yards as a second-year player. Willis was an inferior receiver as a first-year player, and about the only thing that was "way better" was the fact that he was the designated goal line back that year. I'd argue, thought, that Thurman's performance line as a rookie was arguably stronger - although I wouldn't ridicule someone who argued the other way. But "way better" - hardly. Certainly nothing compared to the difference between Thurman's second year and Willis' second year.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Until Mr. Headcase finds some other excuse for mailing it in this year...

 

It is just bizarre that you are trying to convince us to get excited about a player *because* he quit on his team last year....

Who DIDN'T quit on the Bills last year?

[Kelly the Dog]

The problem, Kelly, is that you seem to want to have it both ways.  You think that Willis' season was "amazing" and "remarkable", but "not great."

 

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year. 

 

You think that Willis has been "every bit as good [as Thurman] in his first two years", but you "don't know if Willis will ever be as good as Thurman"?    If I wanted to be annoying, I could point out that you just said that Willis is as good as Thurman right now, at the two-year stage of his career.    Of course, I interpreted your comment as arguing that you think Willis' first two years were as good as Thurman's, but you are reserving judgement as to whether or not Willis will have the type of extended, long-term, NFL-dominating productivity that made Thurman a Hall of Famer.   

 

Is that a reasonable characterization of your position?

 

If so, I responded to your post by pointing out that I think that Thurman's statistics for his first two years show him to have been an unquesitonably better player than Willis McGahee in his first two years.  Moreover, I think that it was only by comparing Thomas' and McGahee's first two years' statistics in the manner least-favorable to Thurman Thomas that you were even able to suggest the argument.  If forced to chose a RB for two years of my football team - all other considerations aside - I would not think for a second about picking the 1988 and 1989 Thurman Thomas over the 2004 and 2005 Willis McGahee. 

 

JDG

 

P.S. You said above that "Okay, Willis was way better than Thurman as a first year player" - come again?  Thurman's first year was 207 carries for a 4.3 average, with 2 TD's and 18 receptions for 208 yards as a rookie.  Willis' first year was 284 carries for a 4.0 average 13 TD's and 22 catches for only 169 yards as a second-year player.  Willis was an inferior receiver as a first-year player, and about the only thing that was "way better" was the fact that he was the designated goal line back that year.  I'd argue, thought, that Thurman's performance line as a rookie was arguably stronger - although I wouldn't ridicule someone who argued the other way.  But "way better" - hardly.  Certainly nothing compared to the difference between Thurman's second year and Willis' second year.

762524[/snapback]

I did notice that you completely ignore the difference in the teams that Thurman played on, the difference in the offensive lines, the difference in the passing game, and the difference in the head coaching and OC. If you think these were on an equal level, or don't adversely affect your stats or production or even how you look, again, you're nuts.

 

If you want to call Willis's rookie season his first season when he was injured the entire year, that is one of the most unfair and disingenuous positions I have seen on this board in years.

 

Running backs are usually measured by how many yards they rush for and how many TDs they score. In that order. Then commonly by receptions and yards per carry and fumbles and receiving yards and blocking on the second level of importance. It's arguable that this is not fair but that is how it is. I know JDG has his own criterion because he likes to ignore anything that doesn't support his crazed stance, but you live in your own little world so I suppose this is to be expected.

 

The fifth best season in Bills history is based on yards gained and only yards gained. It wasn't even my quote it was in one of the Bills articles I read this morning. It is the only way to qualify something statistically. It's how the NFL registers it. Surely there are other factors that are almost as important but that's hiow RBs are measured. Sorry.

 

I thoroughly think a season can be remarkable and amazing but not great. It happens every season all the time. They are not synonyms. For example, Jason Peters season was amazing and remarkable and it was very far from great. Angelo Crowell's season was pretty amazing and rather remarkable but not close to great. I said Willis's season was remarkable because he accomplished what he did under the very, very worst circumstances. But his overall production and season was not great. It was pretty solid and pretty good. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.

 

I surely think that Willis's first two seasons in aggregate were as good as Thurman Thomas's. Mostly because he did it on a far inferior team. Thurman kept on getting better. I am not sure that Willis will. I hope so. Thurman was a Hall of Fame player, one of the greatest players at his position in the history of the game. Willis has a long way to go to approach that. Thurman Thomas was not one of the greatest players ever as a rookie. Or in his second year. He was getting better, and growing with the team. People stupidly, in retrospect, equate a great player with his greatest seasons and the peak of his abilities and just assume for zero reason that he was always like that over his entire, say, 10 year career. That doesn't usually happen. Thurman was pretty darn good right off the bat. So was Willis. Probably better. So yes, I think Willis has quite a ways to go to be discussed on the same level as Thurman in a career, or as an all around player. Thurman was a better blocker early on than Willis. Willis is a better power runner and stronger, IMO. Thurman was an excellent reciever. Willis is known to have excellent hands and I predict he will show it this year. It's not his fault the team refused to throw to the backs in his first two years or that he wasn't in on third downs where backs get a lot of passes. I have never seen any legitimate source question Willis's hands.

[IDBillzFan]

You think that Willis had the "fifth best season by a Bills RB in history", but that he had a "solid, but not great" year.

762524[/snapback]

Ummmm. Yeah. I think that's his point. What's not to understand?

[justnzane]

ahh this is great another thread hijacked by JDG

 

Simply put willis ran behind one of the worst lines last year only houston was clearly worse (as is as every other year). For him to gain as many yards, with Holcomb commanding no respect from defenses (for his dink and dunk throws and his noodle arm) was amazing. To go up against the 8 man fronts when Losman was in last year and gain solid yardage speaks of how tough he is.

 

I think Willis with have a better statistical season w/ being a 3-down back.