Sketch Soland Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Too bad his stats the last 5 years don't support your argument. Who's the "new" RB you're looking for the Bills to get? It's too important of a position to roll the dice on a young/rookie RB when your team is looking for a playoff run the next few seasons. when Taylor blows his knee up in week 2 next year or gets a hamstring injury and is out for 6-8 weeks or a high ankle sprain that reoccurs over the year for 2 week at a time, then its not so good a deal. Sad thing about Taylor is that he is known for his often-injuredness more than his great talent. He obviously is not durable and that is the first thing you need a franchise RB to be. Not a good deal imo.
Pete Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Sad thing about Taylor is that he is known for his often-injuredness more than his great talent. He obviously is not durable and that is the first thing you need a franchise RB to be. Not a good deal imo. bull sh--. 2001 Fred was injured- he has been very durable besides that one year. Get your facts sketchy facts straight
Sketch Soland Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 bull sh--. 2001 Fred was injured- he has been very durable besides that one year. Get your facts sketchy facts straight Well !@#$ U U !@#$ing arsehole it looks like you're !@#$head arse is right!!! I stand corrected, you prick.... Rushing Year Team G GS Att Yds Avg Lg TD 20+ 1st 1998 Jacksonville Jaguars 15 12 264 1223 4.6 77 14 9 58 1999 Jacksonville Jaguars 10 9 159 732 4.6 52 6 5 38 2000 Jacksonville Jaguars 13 13 292 1399 4.8 71 12 12 73 2001 Jacksonville Jaguars 2 2 30 116 3.9 24 0 2 6 2002 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 16 287 1314 4.6 63 8 8 47 2003 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 16 345 1572 4.6 62 6 10 77 2004 Jacksonville Jaguars 14 14 260 1224 4.7 46 2 9 48 2005 Jacksonville Jaguars 11 11 194 787 4.1 71 3 1 26 2006 Jacksonville Jaguars 15 15 231 1146 5.0 76 5 6 46 TOTAL 112 108 2062 9513 4.6 77 56 62 419 I still don't want Fred Taylor, however. I'd rather have a younger back that the team can grow with. If its not McGahee, then draft or sign a younger back.
CosmicBills Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 It's too important of a position to roll the dice on a young/rookie RB when your team is looking for a playoff run the next few seasons. In this day and age, good runners grow on trees. You don't over pay for a RB unless he is an elite back like LT/Alexander. That's it. Where did Drew come from? Oh, right...he was a second round rookie who was so good he outplayed the guy you want to bring in. But, you're right, it is too important a position to gamble on... I'm not bashing Taylor by elevating Drew, just saying that you don't over pay for a RB since it's the one position in the game right now with an abundance of talent. The Bills don't need to make RB a priority. And they certainly don't need to trade away draft picks to get an older RB when they can find one in the draft or FA if Willis does indeed leave. It's not "too important of a position".
1billsfan Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 In this day and age, good runners grow on trees. You don't over pay for a RB unless he is an elite back like LT/Alexander. That's it. Where did Drew come from? Oh, right...he was a second round rookie who was so good he outplayed the guy you want to bring in. But, you're right, it is too important a position to gamble on... I'm not bashing Taylor by elevating Drew, just saying that you don't over pay for a RB since it's the one position in the game right now with an abundance of talent. The Bills don't need to make RB a priority. And they certainly don't need to trade away draft picks to get an older RB when they can find one in the draft or FA if Willis does indeed leave. It's not "too important of a position". Overpay? Who said they were going to overpay for him? I certainly didn't. Did you mean his contract or using a second or third rounder to get him? If so, check out Taylor's stats before you start mocking. So to support your argument about how RBs grow on trees you point out the 1 in 20 shot that the Jaguars hit on. Yeah ok, that sounds reasonable! At least I can point to the Patriots who traded for Dillon and acquired A. Smith for their road to the Superbowl. Good "old" Jerome Bettis sure didn't hurt the Steelers last year. Taylor's got at least three good years left. What's your plan? Who in the draft would you want the Bills to pin their hopes on? What FA would you be on board for having as our top back? Please be specific, enough of the broad strokes and generalities.
The Jokeman Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Remember Fred Taylor could have been our draft pick but we traded that pick to JAX for Rob Johnson I doubt we would have drafted Taylor as we drafted Antowain Smith the year before and he was coming off a rookie season in which he gained 840 yards as the primary back up to Thurman Thomas. If we were to take anyone with pick 9 it likely would have been OT Tra Thomas or maybe LB Takeo Spikes.
Lori Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 In Taylor's case, instead of debating how many games he started each season, you should be asking how many he finished. Use the 2-game 2001 season as a dividing point: in the three season before then, Taylor missed 10 of 48 games due to various injuries. 1998: shoulder (inactive 1 game, missed parts of 2 others), concussion (missed half of 1 game) 1999: hamstring (inactive 6 games, limited in others) 2000: strained MCL (inactive 3 games), hip pointer (missed half of 1 game) 2001: groin (inactive 14 games) 2002: started all 16, but missed more than half of 2 games(back contusion, sprained ankle) 2003: most durable season - started all 16, no mention of injury 2004: knee (inactive 2 games) 2005: ankle, thigh bruise (inactive 5 games) (source: 2006 Jaguars media guide) The "Fragile Fred" side of the debate remembers his pre-2002 history; those who argue against them point to the 46 consecutive starts from 2002-04. Both points are valid. Taylor is no wimp, and has played hurt before... but he's also no Curtis Martin, who once went six seasons without missing a start. So let's look at the current facts instead. In recent years, the Bills have asked their lead back to shoulder most of the load - Travis Henry carried more than 300 times in each of his full seasons as the starter here, and McGahee had 284 and 325 carries before dropping off to 'only' 259 attempts in 14 games this season. Can Taylor -- soon to turn 31, and already with over 2000 carries in his NFL career -- stand up to that kind of punishment? Not so sure. The Jags are supposedly more than $30 million under the cap, so they'd have no problems eating that $2.55mill salary due next season. They're better off keeping their #3-ranked rushing attack intact and fixing their QB/WR problems than creating a hole on their roster where none currently exists. And for the Bills, offering up a first-day pick for any thirtysomething back when the yards-per-carry data shows most RBs start to decline within a year or two of turning the big 3-0? (Thurman is one exception to that... but he also split time with Antowain Smith in those seasons, much like Taylor and Jones-Drew did this year.) That would be a decision I'd strongly disagree with. JMO. One more thing to note: like McGahee, Taylor is a Drew Rosenhaus client.
makbeer Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 everyone looking at skill position changes is ahead of themselves and wrapped up int he glory positions. The only thing that should be focused on right now is the trenches. Once our OL and DL are up to snuff, THEN we'll be able to see what our skill position players are -really- capable of. Until then, pointless. Look at Edgerrin in Arizona, or even Tomlinson when Sd had a bad line (like 3.7 ypc).
Questfor31 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Are you actually suggesting we replace a young back about to enter the prime years of his career with "Fragile" Freddie who can 't make it through a season without sitting out a game or two. Isn't he nearing 40? That's ludacris...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Remember Fred Taylor could have been our draft pick but we traded that pick to JAX for Rob Johnson That was dumb. I forgot that.
Sketch Soland Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 In Taylor's case, instead of debating how many games he started each season, you should be asking how many he finished. Use the 2-game 2001 season as a dividing point: in the three season before then, Taylor missed 10 of 48 games due to various injuries. 1998: shoulder (inactive 1 game, missed parts of 2 others), concussion (missed half of 1 game) 1999: hamstring (inactive 6 games, limited in others) 2000: strained MCL (inactive 3 games), hip pointer (missed half of 1 game) 2001: groin (inactive 14 games) 2002: started all 16, but missed more than half of 2 games(back contusion, sprained ankle) 2003: most durable season - started all 16, no mention of injury 2004: knee (inactive 2 games) 2005: ankle, thigh bruise (inactive 5 games) (source: 2006 Jaguars media guide) The "Fragile Fred" side of the debate remembers his pre-2002 history; those who argue against them point to the 46 consecutive starts from 2002-04. Both points are valid. Taylor is no wimp, and has played hurt before... but he's also no Curtis Martin, who once went six seasons without missing a start. So let's look at the current facts instead. In recent years, the Bills have asked their lead back to shoulder most of the load - Travis Henry carried more than 300 times in each of his full seasons as the starter here, and McGahee had 284 and 325 carries before dropping off to 'only' 259 attempts in 14 games this season. Can Taylor -- soon to turn 31, and already with over 2000 carries in his NFL career -- stand up to that kind of punishment? Not so sure. The Jags are supposedly more than $30 million under the cap, so they'd have no problems eating that $2.55mill salary due next season. They're better off keeping their #3-ranked rushing attack intact and fixing their QB/WR problems than creating a hole on their roster where none currently exists. And for the Bills, offering up a first-day pick for any thirtysomething back when the yards-per-carry data shows most RBs start to decline within a year or two of turning the big 3-0? (Thurman is one exception to that... but he also split time with Antowain Smith in those seasons, much like Taylor and Jones-Drew did this year.) That would be a decision I'd strongly disagree with. JMO. One more thing to note: like McGahee, Taylor is a Drew Rosenhaus client. Very well said and analyzed. All in all, Taylor has neither been as I first blindly stated "not durable" but neither has he been the Curtis Martin model of consistency. And now, being over 30, he can only get less consistent and has more wear on the tires. Thanks, but no thanks to Fred Taylor, who certainly is still a talented back but not as the single workhorse.
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Overpay? Who said they were going to overpay for him? I certainly didn't. Did you mean his contract or using a second or third rounder to get him? If so, check out Taylor's stats before you start mocking. So to support your argument about how RBs grow on trees you point out the 1 in 20 shot that the Jaguars hit on. Yeah ok, that sounds reasonable! At least I can point to the Patriots who traded for Dillon and acquired A. Smith for their road to the Superbowl. Good "old" Jerome Bettis sure didn't hurt the Steelers last year. Taylor's got at least three good years left. What's your plan? Who in the draft would you want the Bills to pin their hopes on? What FA would you be on board for having as our top back? Please be specific, enough of the broad strokes and generalities. I like taylor too but there's no way in hell this deal would go down. I agree taylor's injury prone reputation is undeserved. But look at it from Jax point of view. Yes they do have a good rookie back in jones-drew. I think they keep taylor around however out of concern for jones-drew getting hurt, not taylor. jones-drew is listed at 5'7"-5'8", which means he's is probably around 5'6". Being so tiny, i don't think jax is ready for their little guy to run 35 times a game --> someone that small is bound to get banged up soon or later. taylor gives them the option to limit jones-drew's carries and cut the chance of injury. They hang on to taylor, probably one of most beloved jaguars in that city.
HudsonValleyBillsFan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 You want to bring in a running back who spends more time on the injury list than the field?
Pete Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 You want to bring in a running back who spends more time on the injury list than the field? bull sh--. reread the thread
1billsfan Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 bull sh--. reread the thread I'm pretty sure he didn't read it a first time. Either that or he thinks Taylor's stats on nfl.com are all a bunch of damn lies.
HudsonValleyBillsFan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Look .. you can throw out as many stats as you want. There is a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread. The Fact is that he has missed enough games that they have always had to have a second back on the roster because they were worried about his durability. And running backs tend to get more fragile the older they get older. I mean this is a guy who has had problems with his groin, his knee, his ankle, his hip, and you want to invest in him in the twilight of his career? I'm sorry I just don't see it. I'm pretty sure he didn't read it a first time. Either that or he thinks Taylor's stats on nfl.com are all a bunch of damn lies.
HudsonValleyBillsFan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I hate to be the guy who responds to his own thread but i had a couple more points. He is a terrific back. Dont take this as me coming down on him. I have always liked taylor. And its not so much how many injuries and how many games from a pure numbers standpoints. Its that it just always pops up during the season and he misses important games here and there. We need a 16-game a year back. And he has only done that what? twice in his career? Look .. you can throw out as many stats as you want.There is a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread. The Fact is that he has missed enough games that they have always had to have a second back on the roster because they were worried about his durability. And running backs tend to get more fragile the older they get older. I mean this is a guy who has had problems with his groin, his knee, his ankle, his hip, and you want to invest in him in the twilight of his career? I'm sorry I just don't see it.
CosmicBills Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Overpay? Who said they were going to overpay for him? I certainly didn't. Did you mean his contract or using a second or third rounder to get him? If so, check out Taylor's stats before you start mocking. Taylor is under contract. To get him in a Bills uniform would require a trade, most likely a high draft pick (round 2 at least). That would be highly overpaying for a guy on the wrong side of 30 and who's contract is coming up soon. Secondly, I'm not re-inventing the wheel by saying RB is the easiest position on the field to fill. Look around the league: This years top rushers: 1. LT (First Round) 2. Larry Johnson (First Round) 3. Frank Gore (Third Round) 4. Tiki (Second Round) 5. Steve Jackson (First Round) 6. Willie Parker (Remember where the Steelers found him?) 7. Rudi Johnson (Fourth Round) 8. Brian Westbrook (Third Round) 9. Chester Taylor (Sixth Round) 10. Trav Henry (Second Round) Point being, RBs grow on trees. No need to spend draft picks TRADING for one, especially when he's on the wrong side of 30. And this has nothing to do with Taylor's statistical career. I'm a Taylor fan. However, he is not an elite back -- not anymore. So why would the Bills trade away picks/players and then pay him as if he were still one when they can find just as good, if not better, elsewhere? It makes no sense from a team perspective.
Recommended Posts