IndyJay1234 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 No RB contoversy in St. Louis, Cincy or KC. Funny two of the team happen to have RB that are considered by most to be better than Travis Henry. Cincy has Rudi Johnson who is pretty damn good himself. (Please lets not get in a Travis is better than Faulk argument here. Point is they had a very solid starter) These teams actually drafted RB's in the first round that did not suffer the major injuries Willis did. Wow. Weird. What else can we create Buffalo News. KC D sucked last year. Why did they not trade Larry Johnson to Miami? Well because Priest got hurt a few years ago and he has hinted at retirement himself. Also Depth.. Two good RB's... Why would TD do that. So stupid. Oh wait Travis is hurt and we have a pretty good back-up. Still lets stir the pot. Why did they draft Willis again.? Wait. We need to run the ball this year. Last year was a joke. Throw, Throw Throw.... Why did they draft Willis again? Travis you ran half the year on a broken leg and gutted it out when you probably should have taken a day off to properly heal. Why did they draft Willis again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 No RB contoversy in St. Louis, Cincy or KC. Funny two of the team happen to have RB that are considered by most to be better than Travis Henry. Cincy has Rudi Johnson who is pretty damn good himself. (Please lets not get in a Travis is better than Faulk argument here. Point is they had a very solid starter) These teams actually drafted RB's in the first round that did not suffer the major injuries Willis did. Wow. Weird. What else can we create Buffalo News. KC D sucked last year. Why did they not trade Larry Johnson to Miami? Well because Priest got hurt a few years ago and he has hinted at retirement himself. Also Depth.. Two good RB's... Why would TD do that. So stupid. Oh wait Travis is hurt and we have a pretty good back-up. Still lets stir the pot. Why did they draft Willis again.? Wait. We need to run the ball this year. Last year was a joke. Throw, Throw Throw.... Why did they draft Willis again? Travis you ran half the year on a broken leg and gutted it out when you probably should have taken a day off to properly heal. Why did they draft Willis again? 5542[/snapback] You're post confused the hell out of me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 5551[/snapback] this is what face I made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He wants to trade both our RB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 so you want to trade both of our running backs for a goalie and shooting guard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He wants to trade both our RB's. 5561[/snapback] He wants to trade the writers from the Buffalo News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 You're post confused the hell out of me... 5546[/snapback] I think the point (and it is well taken) is that other teams with very good running backs 'ala Marshall Faulk, drafted 1st round runners, and runners that actually could play in there very first year, but there is no running back issue in those citys. TH is one of the best backs in the league, but with his putting the ball on the carpet and series of injuries (although he plays through more injuries than, IMO, any back in history) a quality backup such as WM made and still makes sense. One of them will be trade bait in 2005....assuming they both have injury free and productive seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I think the point (and it is well taken) is that other teams with very good running backs 'ala Marshall Faulk, drafted 1st round runners, and runners that actually could play in there very first year, but there is no running back issue in those citys. TH is one of the best backs in the league, but with his putting the ball on the carpet and series of injuries (although he plays through more injuries than, IMO, any back in history) a quality backup such as WM made and still makes sense. One of them will be trade bait in 2005....assuming they both have injury free and productive seasons. 5569[/snapback] I got that much, kind of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 I got that much, kind of... 5575[/snapback] Sorry it is early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 indy you bring up some good points, but those teams are in a bit of a different situation than us... In StL, faulk is over 30, and is looks as if hes nearing the end the road...also hes had some injury problems over the past few years, so having jackson around makes sense... In Cincy, Rudi is in a contract year this year and wants some big bucks...hes pissed this year at how much they are payin him...so they may let him chase the huge bucks somewhere else now that they have chris perry... and in KC, holmes has been great, but hes also over 30, the time when backs usually break down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He wants to trade the writers from the Buffalo News 5564[/snapback] Funny, thing is, I was thinking the exact same thing myself last night while watching Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson get some reps at RB. Add to the teams IndyJay listed, the Saints (Ricky #5 rd 1 1999; Deuce McAllister #23, rd 1 2001), Seahawks (Shaun Alexander, # rd 1 2000 when they had both Ricky Watters and Ahman Green), and Rams (Trung Canidate #31 rd 1 2000 when they had just won the SB with Faulk) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Since Lori (whom I admire despite never meeting ) inspires me to historical and grammatical study, I thought of some other examples from Bills history: 1986: Bills draft Ronnie Harmon (ugh) Even though they have Greg Bell entering his third year. 1988: Bills draft Thurman Thomas, even though they have Ronnie Harmon (ugh) entering his third year. And Thomas was wearing a friggin' cast on draft day! This may have been said before, but there are plenty of other examples as well of teams that drafted running backs with a starter in place. In general, it is a matter of insurance for a position with an average career of three years. It also bears repeating that Henry had an uneven 2002 season--great runs, lots of fumbles--and could have gone either way in 2003. Granted, I think the Ronnie Harmon (ugh) draft was one of the stupidest picks ever, but that is because it was made by Hank Bullough, who would enter any battle of wits unarmed. Go Bills! Funny, thing is, I was thinking the exact same thing myself last night while watching Steven Jackson and Larry Johnson get some reps at RB. Add to the teams IndyJay listed, the Saints (Ricky #5 rd 1 1999; Deuce McAllister #23, rd 1 2001), Seahawks (Shaun Alexander, # rd 1 2000 when they had both Ricky Watters and Ahman Green), and Rams (Trung Canidate #31 rd 1 2000 when they had just won the SB with Faulk) ...... 5597[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I agrree with the initial post for the most part, only difference between Willis, Larry Johnson, Stephen Jackson and Chris Perry are where they were projected assuming no injury, you could have made a serious argument before Willis's injury he was at leat Top3, if not the best, player in that entire draft, which is why I really belive the controversy is so high with the Bills versus the other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 True, but the fact that Willis was potentially such a steal (a top three pick chosen 23rd because of the questions about his knee) makes TD's decision to take a chance that much more understandable, does it not? Either way, there is no need for a controversy; let them play and see how it works out. The Bills are better off this year with both of them. I think we can all agree on that. I agrree with the initial post for the most part, only difference between Willis, Larry Johnson, Stephen Jackson and Chris Perry are where they were projected assuming no injury, you could have made a serious argument before Willis's injury he was at leat Top3, if not the best, player in that entire draft, which is why I really belive the controversy is so high with the Bills versus the other teams. 5620[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Willis was a much higher profile player in college (over any of those other guys). The only people who started the controversy are Henry and Rosenhaus. Willis added to it by staying mum and the press ran with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Good points. I often wonder if some of these "controversies" are created by the Buffalo News to try and sell their pathetic rag. I actually think Sullivan hates the Bills and wouldn't know what to do with himself should we start winning again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 No RB contoversy in St. Louis, Cincy or KC. Funny two of the team happen to have RB that are considered by most to be better than Travis Henry. Cincy has Rudi Johnson who is pretty damn good himself. (Please lets not get in a Travis is better than Faulk argument here. Point is they had a very solid starter) These teams actually drafted RB's in the first round that did not suffer the major injuries Willis did. Wow. Weird. What else can we create Buffalo News. KC D sucked last year. Why did they not trade Larry Johnson to Miami? Well because Priest got hurt a few years ago and he has hinted at retirement himself. Also Depth.. Two good RB's... Why would TD do that. So stupid. Oh wait Travis is hurt and we have a pretty good back-up. Still lets stir the pot. Why did they draft Willis again.? Wait. We need to run the ball this year. Last year was a joke. Throw, Throw Throw.... Why did they draft Willis again? Travis you ran half the year on a broken leg and gutted it out when you probably should have taken a day off to properly heal. Why did they draft Willis again? 5542[/snapback] faulk and priest are the only 2 RBs better than henry in this topic.... so now im confused..... are you trying to say St. Louis's backup is better than henry?? are you trying to say the bengals RBs are better than henry?? are you trying to say KC's first round draft pick last year, who hasnt done ANYTHING is better than henry?? are you saying there backups are better than McGahee?? (this may be true, since McGahee hasnt played a regular season game yet..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Since Lori (whom I admire despite never meeting ) inspires me to historical and grammatical study, I thought of some other examples from Bills history: 1986: Bills draft Ronnie Harmon (ugh) Even though they have Greg Bell entering his third year. 1988: Bills draft Thurman Thomas, even though they have Ronnie Harmon (ugh) entering his third year. And Thomas was wearing a friggin' cast on draft day! This may have been said before, but there are plenty of other examples as well of teams that drafted running backs with a starter in place. In general, it is a matter of insurance for a position with an average career of three years. It also bears repeating that Henry had an uneven 2002 season--great runs, lots of fumbles--and could have gone either way in 2003. Granted, I think the Ronnie Harmon (ugh) draft was one of the stupidest picks ever, but that is because it was made by Hank Bullough, who would enter any battle of wits unarmed. Go Bills! 5614[/snapback] We need a special smilie just for the times that someone says "Ronnie Harmon (ugh)" just doesn't do it for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 I guess my point is that the News stirs the pot and then argues that what else were they to think? Travis has been a very good back, no question. Fact is he is not a Top 5 back. I think that we took a chance to get a great back. Top teams have GREAT backs. Willis can be a Top 3 back. But He cannot be a great back this year. He needs to recover. I think deep down we know that if Willis returns to form and becomes a great back TD will trade Travis next season. Trading Travis this year would be foolish. We need them both and the News is acting foolishly to create this stir. Everyone knows that if we traded Travis before we know what we have in Willis we would be silly. Willis may never recover. Lets wait the year out before creating a stir. I also get upset because if we do trade one of the backs what value will we get if the News forces and tips the Bills hand? I look at KC and say in 1-2 years they will need Larry Johnson. I look at STL and say in 1-2 years they will need S. Jackson. They do this to remain in the Top tier of teams in the league. I look at the Bills and think in 1-2 years having a top 3 back would be a great thing. If Willis does not recover it is still a nice thing to have a Travis Henry. The guy is great. TD loves to take chances. This much we have seen. He took a chance of Drew. It worked for 8 games. Now it is up in the air. He took a chance on Mike Williams over Bryant McKinnie. Still up in the air. TD took a chance on Willis. We will see. TD took a chance on Losman. He loves to roll the dice. The News questioning the plan is foolish in my mind Personally, I like his plan. (Well like most of you, I like it today. Tomorrow I probably will have a personality shift and blast TD) However, I question how it will work out. The fact is that great teams have top talent. The Bills have good players all around but not Top talent. I look at the Colts and KC and think man do they have great talent. Manning, Harrison, Pollard, and Edge. I think the plan has always been build a solid D and hope that a (Big Three) Losman, McGahee, and Evans will be great talent players capable of unbelieevable things. Travis is solid but not great. I just have trouble with the News questioning what we were thinking. It is not that hard. The plan may fail because the players may not turn out to be what we were hoping but the plan is simple if you look at it. The News just has to look at the glory days. Kelly, Thurman, and Reed. That was a pretty solid 3! At this point I am rambling so I will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.