Guest dog14787 Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Wow are you for real.... Lynch behind this OLINE ran for 1100+ in 13 games last year..... Yup , but to say we tried to force feed Marshawn to the defenses last year constantly is almost an understatement, Lynch is a tough cookie, no doubt about it.
YOOOOOO Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Yup , but to say we tried to force feed Marshawn to the defenses last year constantly is almost an understatement, Lynch is a tough cookie, no doubt about it. He's on his way to a 1500 total yard season....I said when this season started it would be 1800.....and barring injury...i bet he lands closer to 1800.....
cantstopbeastmode Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 It should be really obvious to you guys that Jackson is better than Lynch, simply because of YPC. Benjarvus Green-Ellis has more YPC than Joseph Addai this year, so he must be way better too. Come to think of it, Correll Buckhalter is way better than Reggie Bush, too. Don't you guys read boxscores? I mean 1st you guys think whitner is good and he has 0 ints, and now you defend lynch, too? He only has a 3.7 YPC!!!! Are you guys !@#$ing stupid??? I bet you guys think Spencer Johnson is a better tackler than Rian Lindell, too. Well you're WRONG!!!! They both have 3 solo tackles this year. Fans who actually watch games and don't just read boxscores are so dumb...
Guest dog14787 Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Since you seem so hellbent on pointing toward the statistics of both guys, you seem to be forgetting the most important one of them all. Marshawn Lynch - 6 Touchdowns Fred Jackson - 1 Touchdown And not many of them have come easy. What would Lynch have to do to prove "differently?" If Lynch gets the ball 70% of the time and 90% of the time in the red zone, what in the world does that prove?
Guest dog14787 Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 This is a really dumb statement. Then why doesn't somebody come up with something, anything that says otherwise, because you sure don't see it in the stats and you sure don't see it on the field. Jackson played two seasons for the Sioux City Bandits in the National Indoor Football League (2004) and the United Indoor Football League (2005). He was named the 2005 UIF co-MVP in 2005 as he ran for 1,770 yards and 41 touchdowns. Maybe it was a different league, but so what, don't try to tell me Fred Jackson can't find the endzone if you give him the chance.
jester43 Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 I tried to explain this before. I'll list the problems in order of magnitude 1. they have NO pass rush 2. they have an elephant offensive line that cannot run block and sometimes struggles to pick up the blitz 3. Lynch is ordinary 4. the backup QB is a worthless. 5. Robert Royal is a bust Other than that the Bills are a good team. i can't really argue with you, other than to say lynch is a little better than ordinary. willis mcgahee was ordinary. lynch is not a superstar, but better than ordinary. on the other hand, he's not going to be better than ordinary for long if our line doesn't stop letting other teams beat the piss out of him every week.
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 If Lynch gets the ball 70% of the time and 90% of the time in the red zone, what in the world does that prove? Good point. That is almost too logical for this board, it will sail right over a number of heads.
Speedy G Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 The bottom line is not about the RB's, it's the O line! They are not very good at run blocking and Royal is a part of that, if they could run block, both backs could have 1000 yd seasons.
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 i can't really argue with you, other than to say lynch is a little better than ordinary. willis mcgahee was ordinary. lynch is not a superstar, but better than ordinary. on the other hand, he's not going to be better than ordinary for long if our line doesn't stop letting other teams beat the piss out of him every week. I could be willing to saying a little better than ordinary. Ordinary was the best word I had available to counter all this 'beast mode' nonsense. I think we both agree that this player isn't anything close to what some fans build him up to be. I'm not convinced at this point that he is the best back on the Bills, let alone one of the top players in the league.
Dibs Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Good point.That is almost too logical for this board, it will sail right over a number of heads. Funny really.....you talk about things sailing over the heads of others yet in 26 posts the only thing you have put forward to back your statement that "Lynch is ordinary" is.....well.....saying that "Lynch is ordinary". This thread feels a bit like a Python sketch....... "Lynch is ordinary" "No he isn't" "Ohhhh, yes he is!" Perhaps if you'd back up your base claims with some analysis of his play. Dissection of certain key plays where he has erred, assessment of his blocking & blitz pickup, pass catching analysis, fumble proclivity, toughness, durability, initial burst.......all compared with the analysis of other RBs(particularly FJ).....perhaps if you did more than state "This is what I reckon & all y'all are wrong if you disagree.....because it's obvious you idiots." you would have less antagonistic responses and might actually garner respectful responses leading to intelligent football discussion.
Fan in Chicago Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 If Lynch gets the ball 70% of the time and 90% of the time in the red zone, what in the world does that prove? That he scores TDs from the RZ at a far higher rate than Jackson.
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 The bottom line is not about the RB's, it's the O line! They are not very good at run blocking and Royal is a part of that, if they could run block, both backs could have 1000 yd seasons. The offensive line aside Lynch is still nothing special as a runner other than the fact that he fights for everything he can get. He's not the type of runner that can find holes like a Thurman Thomas or a Joe Cribbs. To me this is similar to the Losman thing where some fans were saying...we dont have the receivers or the Oline or the coaching sucks. But I was convinced that regardless of the other problems is was evident that Losman sucked. Here I'm not saying Lynch sucks, but I'm saying that regardless of the Oline, I can see how good he is or isn't. Any RB is going to be better behind a better line, that is a given. But the mediocre Oline isn't disguising how good Lynch is or isn't.
Dibs Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 ......Lynch is still nothing special as a runner.......I can see how good he is or isn't...... Oh....well, if you say so then I guess it must be the case. Thanks for informing us of the real situation.
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 Oh....well, if you say so then I guess it must be the case.Thanks for informing us of the real situation. You're welcome.
Speedy G Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 The fact of the matter is : this is a team game and I dont care how good he is or isnt, we dont have thurman anymore, so to compare them is not a fair thing to do, and if you were comparing him with thurman, then you should compare their respective O lines, thurmans was much better, so I say it again, this O line's run blocking is the weak point on the TEAM!!!
Guest dog14787 Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 That he scores TDs from the RZ at a far higher rate than Jackson. If you never got past the 3rd grade maybe. This is the two games Fred Jackson took Marshawn's place last year as the starter. Washington: 16 for 82, 0 TD, against a stout run defense and Miami: 15 for 115, 0 TD averaging 6.3 yards a carry as a starter, let me repeat, Fred jackson averaged 6.3 yards a carry as a starter when marshawn Lynch had ankle problems last year. If its all the O-lines fault why is it then Fred jackson does so much better then Lynch behind the same O-line? Why, because Fred Jackson see's the holes and goes through them, Lynch is determined he has to plow through defenders to make a hole and I don't care how much power you have, when you run smack into defenders in this league its not going to add up to much. Go take a look at Willis McGahee's numbers, he runs the same way. It might look impressive, but its not big play. FRED JACKSON DESERVES TO START
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 The fact of the matter is : this is a team game and I dont care how good he is or isnt, we dont have thurman anymore, so to compare them is not a fair thing to do, and if you were comparing him with thurman, then you should compare their respective O lines, thurmans was much better, so I say it again, this O line's run blocking is the weak point on the TEAM!!! I'll say this again.. I don't need 5 all pros on the offensive line to evaluate how good lynch is as a runner, I've watched this game for too many years to need that. He lacks elusiveness and the ability to hit holes the way great running backs do. And again he might not even be the best RB on the Bills roster.
JimmyPage Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 If you never got past the 3rd grade maybe. This is the two games Fred Jackson took Marshawn's place last year as the starter. Washington: 16 for 82, 0 TD, against a stout run defense and Miami: 15 for 115, 0 TD averaging 6.3 yards a carry as a starter, let me repeat, Fred jackson averaged 6.3 yards a carry as a starter when marshawn Lynch had ankle problems last year. If its all the O-lines fault why is it then Fred jackson does so much better then Lynch behind the same O-line? Why, because Fred Jackson see's the holes and goes through them, Lynch is determined he has to plow through defenders to make a hole and I don't care how much power you have, when you run smack into defenders in this league its not going to add up to much. Go take a look at Willis McGahee's numbers, he runs the same way. It might look impressive, but its not big play. FRED JACKSON DESERVES TO START Very interesting.
Recommended Posts