OJ Simpson, Jim Kelly, Willis McGahee?

[Kelly the Dog]

OJ?

 

You do realize, of course, that you're talking about OJ to a crowd that will for the most part respond "But that was before I was born..."

lol l8r

[eball]

I think you make some interesting points, but I don't put Kelly into the "took 3-4 years to warm up to Buffalo" category. Jimbo didn't want to come here because he thought the TEAM sucked and would never be good. He wasn't opposed to the city, the people, or the climate. Hell, he grew up in Western PA. I think that's a key difference one should not ignore.

 

Buffalo is simply not a Willis-kind-of-town. I have all the respect in the world for how he fought back from a devastating injury, but the guy owed the Bills more than he gave. His attitude is typical of the me-first generation of athlete.

 

Willis may very well rush for 1400 yards and 12 TDs next season for Baltimore; if he does, good for him and good for them. In the long run, I think it's clear he would never have been happy in Buffalo long term, and I think the Bills can certainly improve upon his productivity with a combination of FAs and draft picks this year.

 

At this point I view the trade as a potential win-win. I'm disappointed Willis didn't reach the potential in Buffalo most of us believe he possesses, but that's life.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

This is a very interesting thread, and I would like to introduce an element in the Willis saga that was not present for either Jimbo or OJ, and that is free agency/the salary cap. Jimbo is an interesting case, since he used the USFL to stay away for three years, but once that league folded and Ralph opened up the checkbook he came and played hard. Neither free agency nor the salary cap were an issue with OJ, who had signed a huge contract upon being drafted and had only the option of holding out (which he would do in 1976 when his original deal ran out) or playing. Thus the Bills did have a problem with figuring out how to motivate him (and did indeed have a controversy when OJ went home to Cali in 1970 when he hurt his knee midseason), but could do so from the perspective that he was more or less their property unless or until they decided to trade him. Lou Saban's return proved to be the element to flip the switch for OJ, and that was possible because of the security provided by the old system of signing and retaining players.

 

That is a crucial difference from McGahee, who was entering a contract year and would be able to sign with someone else in 2008 no matter what the Bills did. Thus there was not the same incentive in the Willis case to keep trying to make it work, combined with the added pressure to try to get something for him. I mean, no one on this board would have thought it a good idea for the Bills to offer Willis the kind of contract Baltimore just gave him, and that is the only way the Bills could have kept him, which would have been doubling down on their original risk. If they had not signed him to an extension, they faced the choice of either having him hold out (possible though unlikely), or malinger (unlikely because of the contract incentive, but there is always the possibility that he is already as good as he is ever going to be) or have him play well and then hit the jackpot with someone else. Those considerations, more than baby mommas or Penthouse interviews, pushed the Bills to make a decision.

 

All distaste with the U and with Willis' other issues aside, I am not convinced that Willis is the elite back we all hoped he would be. The Ravens have decided to take a risk and pay him as though he already is. I am not unhappy that the Bills chose to spend their money elsewhere.

[John Adams]

OJ, Kelly, McGahee.

 

Even my 5 year old can do this. "One of things just doesn't belong here..." Come on. Willis didn't have heart and didn't play hard. From some reports, he was also not a film studier or team player. Oh, and he didn't play well on Sunday.

 

So besides that the Bills acquired 2 3rds for at best an average back, tell me why I should give a Stojan that he's gone.

[Marv's Neighbor]

OJ did tank it. He was drafted in 1969 and really didn't look interested until 1972.

 

I am not sure where those rumors of the playbook came from but Jauron flat out denied it in the press conference today, and I don't believe he is a liar. He's very diplomatic, but he just said, "No. I didn't see it."

I wouldn't say OJ "tanked it."

 

He was playing for Coach John Rausch (Genius) who tried to make him a wide receiver.

 

He didn't come into his own till Lou Saban came back and turned him loose as a RB.

[Lurker]

addition by subtraction

 

Good post. But this trade was the right thing to do.

 

I'd like to see Marv peddle those 3rd rounders, either as a way of moving up in the second round this year or getting an extra day-1 pick next year.

[dave mcbride]

That's certainly interesting. OJ was before my time, so I'll take your word for it.

 

I'm not sure where the playbook rumor came from; but it wouldn't surprise me that the coaches don't confirm it in a PC. It's not good practice to bad mouth former employees or bosses, regardless of whether or not its true.

 

I was really hoping Willis would stay another year and things would turn around for him and the team; the new emphasis on the line would pay off and his attitude would improve. In the end, we'd see a much better Willis. However, something definitely seemed to cause a riff between the Bills and Willis. They made no bones about wanting to trade him; he made no bones about wanting more. So, for whatever reason, it just didn't seem to work for Willis here. I do have a feeling he'll do pretty well in Baltimore, but I just don't think we can conclude at the end of the year (if he does have a great year) that he would have had an equally great year in Buffalo.

 

That's interesting because the assertion about OJ tanking it is based wholly upon third hand inference, not any solid evidence.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's interesting because the assertion about OJ tanking it is based wholly upon third hand inference, not any solid evidence.

I watched and went to a lot of games from 69-72 (and all of them after). OJ tanked easily as much as Willis did, if you consider Willis tanking, which I really don't. He rarely hit the hole hard. He danced all over the place. If he ran into the line and it was completely blocked he just basically dropped his head and gave up sometime. He moped a lot on the sidelines, constantly complained about Buffalo (although he was very nice to people on the street). He really didn't want to be here. A lot of it was coaching but there were a lot of similarities to Willis in how he played and acted and felt. If you said OJ gave 100%, hit holes hard, was a team guy and Buffalo guy those first 3-4 years you'd be a liar.

[dave mcbride]

I watched and went to a lot of games from 69-72 (and all of them after). OJ tanked easily as much as Willis did, if you consider Willis tanking, which I really don't. He rarely hit the hole hard. He danced all over the place. If he ran into the line and it was completely blocked he just basically dropped his head and gave up sometime. He moped a lot on the sidelines, constantly complained about Buffalo (although he was very nice to people on the street). He really didn't want to be here. A lot of it was coaching but there were a lot of similarities to Willis in how he played and acted and felt. If you said OJ gave 100%, hit holes hard, was a team guy and Buffalo guy those first 3-4 years you'd be a liar.

Do I think OJ tanked it on the field? No, I don't, so I guess that makes me a "liar." But then again, I think it's idiotic to say that McGahee tanked it on the field when he very clearly didn't. More to the point, whether a player likes a city or not has nothing to do with how he performs on the field when seven people averaging 278 pounds are trying to kill him whether he "hits the hole hard" or not. Avoiding contact is an impossiblity in the NFL, so I see no reason why tanking it is ever on the radar screen of a young running back -- he's going to get pounded in any case. WM ran hard while he was here, and I expect him to have a pretty good couple of years in Baltimore before he starts to break down. He just isn't that fast, and he's not much of a receiver. Heck, OJ was a better receiver than WM.

 

I'm one of those folks who likes receivers to be able to catch balls both regularly and in a variety of ways (ie., not just swing pass dumpoffs). Many of the most dynamic offenses over the years have featured such backs, and I'd like the Bills to have one as well.

[Kelly the Dog]

Do I think OJ tanked it on the field? No, I don't, so I guess that makes me a "liar." But then again, I think it's idiotic to say that McGahee tanked it on the field when he very clearly didn't. More to the point, whether a player likes a city or not has nothing to do with how he performs on the field when seven people averaging 278 pounds are trying to kill him whether he "hits the hole hard" or not. Avoiding contact is an impossiblity in the NFL, so I see no reason why tanking it is ever on the radar screen of a young running back -- he's going to get pounded in any case. WM ran hard while he was here, and I expect him to have a pretty good couple of years in Baltimore before he starts to break down. He just isn't that fast, and he's not much of a receiver. Heck, OJ was a better receiver than WM.

 

I'm one of those folks who likes receivers to be able to catch balls both regularly and in a variety of ways (ie., not just swing pass dumpoffs). Many of the most dynamic offenses over the years have featured such backs, and I'd like the Bills to have one as well.

I should have used "tanked" in quotes. I didnt first use that phrase. I said and meant that he tanked it as much as Willis tanked it, IMO even more. But I don't think Willis tanked it. I meant he danced, didn't hit holes hard, looked and sometimes played disinterested, didn't like being and playing in Buffalo. The same criticisms of Willis. IIRC, in his own words he said he was contemplating retiring after 3 years and he definitely wanted to be traded. There were stories all over the place. And again, ultimately I am not too unhappy with Willis gone, under all the circumstances.

[Dwight Drane]

If Marv and Co. felt that McGahee could tie his shoelaces, they might have kept him around.

 

1) Kelly can charm the pants off of you and is a Good Ol' Boy when he has a pitcher of beer in his hand. You know he is going to get it done

2) OJ could charm the pants off of you and understood the balance of paying attention to the fans/alumni/owners and doing things for himself. While anyone under 30 just remembers him for a trial, he was the man once Saban came to town. Heck, he still comes back to Buffalo as a fan.

3) McGahee doesn't have the mental capacity to understand anything abstract. He is a creature of habbit, and he has bad ones at that. That is why he is gone.

[dave mcbride]

I should have used "tanked" in quotes. I didnt first use that phrase. I said and meant that he tanked it as much as Willis tanked it, IMO even more. But I don't think Willis tanked it. I meant he danced, didn't hit holes hard, looked and sometimes played disinterested, didn't like being and playing in Buffalo. The same criticisms of Willis. IIRC, in his own words he said he was contemplating retiring after 3 years and he definitely wanted to be traded. There were stories all over the place. And again, ultimately I am not too unhappy with Willis gone, under all the circumstances.

 

Any replacement backs out there that you like? I never see Pac 10 games -- is Lynch the sort of guy who can immediately make an offense more versatile?

[Kelly the Dog]

Any replacement backs out there that you like? I never see Pac 10 games -- is Lynch the sort of guy who can immediately make an offense more versatile?

I like Lynch a lot, and he seems to be very versatile. He will likely make a good pro, IMO, but just as likely to either be very good, or less than good. It's a crapshoot with running backs as much as any skill position like QB and WR. I just think we have three gaping holes on defense. If Okoye or Branch is there I think we have to take him.

 

I also think there are good backs in the 2nd and 3rd round who have a chance to be very good complementary players, like Leonard and Booker, Hunt, Bush, etc. So I would much prefer we go defense first and maybe first two (depending on who is left). I definitely think we can get away with, and maybe surprise with, a backfield of Chris Brown, A train AND a #2 pick or #3 if one of the above mentioned guys is part of the package. That scenario even works with a Corey Dillon. But just two of them are a disaster waiting to happen. You can't count on Brown or Dillon or A Train to carry the load, but you are safe with any combination of the two as long as you have a young hungry skilled player hopefully who can catch and make people miss.