The Dean Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think Rhodes is better than Taylor? Say it aint so, Deano. Depends on how they are used. If you plan to use the guy regularly in your RB rotation, I think Taylor might be slightly better, right now, than Rhodes. There if far more wear on Taylor's tires, but as a down-in, down-out RB, he is probably the better of the two. But, if you already have two backs that you plan to handle the bulk of your running game, and are looking for a contributor on third down, and plan to use in the passing attack, Rhodes wins, IMO. I think both teams (Bills and Pats*) got the back that is best suited to them. But, the Pats* have to regularly use a back who would see limited time on the Bills...and they pay him quite a bit more. If Marshawn and Fred go down during the season, they might wish they signed Taylor, but that's about the only time I see getting Rhodes instead of Taylor as a negative.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Slow down with the injury bit. Fast freddie, turned into fragile freddie the first couple years of his career. He has been an amazing compliment back and stayed healthy while occasionally carrying the load on his own a few years as well as when Jones-drew was banged up. He did get banged up a bit last year but he has been healthy for at least a five year stretch. comparing the two, him and rhodes, there is really no difference. They are both compliment backs with limited burst at this point and capable hands. Neither capable of carrying the load. Dont get all inflated on rhodes just because he is on our team and start thinking he is better than some who have been much better for much longer. The only thing rhodes does that is better than Taylor, is his birth certificate is newer! Typical of people to downplay a players career just because he wanted to get "a competitive advantage" and join NE! I was not downplaying Taylor. I was downplaying Maroney. Taylor when healthy is a Great back.................the trouble is he has been injury prone his entire career. Maroney on the other hand had a great rookie year & that is it. He has been nothing special since then & is every bit as injury prone as Taylor. I was responding to afcfan1's post saying Taylor will not be the starter for the Pats* If not Taylor......................who starts for the Pats*? Taylor is by far the BEST RB on that team.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Depends on how they are used. If you plan to use the guy regularly in your RB rotation, I think Taylor might be slightly better, right now, than Rhodes. There if far more wear on Taylor's tires, but as a down-in, down-out RB, he is probably the better of the two. But, if you already have two backs that you plan to handle the bulk of your running game, and are looking for a contributor on third down, and plan to use in the passing attack, Rhodes wins, IMO. I think both teams (Bills and Pats*) got the back that is best suited to them. But, the Pats* have to regularly use a back who would see limited time on the Bills...and they pay him quite a bit more. If Marshawn and Fred go down during the season, they might wish they signed Taylor, but that's about the only time I see getting Rhodes instead of Taylor as a negative. The thing is, Jackson already fills quite well the role you would think a guy like Rhodes can fill. Jackson is a good reciever out of the backfield, and is likely shiftier and quicker than Rhodes, at this point. Therefore, Taylor would have been a better back for the Bills, because he could be our Marshawn at the beginning of the year, when Lynch is in street clothes. Another way to look at it, is none of us seriously thought we would sign Taylor...the thought of him signing here to be a third running back immediately struck us (or most of us) as unrealistic. But with Rhodes, that doesn't seem unrealistic in the least, as thats what he's been the last couple of years. I agree there are SOME things Rhodes can do better than Taylor, mainly catching the ball. But if we're talking overall backs, there's no conversation, IMO.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 lmao There are actually people who think paying $2.5M per year for an injury-prone 33 year old running back who had ONE TD last year is a good deal. lol the tried and true straw man defense!
Commander Posted May 25, 2009 Author Posted May 25, 2009 lol the tried and true straw man defense! No straw, man, just facts!
The Dean Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I agree there are SOME things Rhodes can do better than Taylor, mainly catching the ball. But if we're talking overall backs, there's no conversation, IMO. At this point in time, the difference in the overall game is not as dramatic as you might think. Taylor looked visibly old at times, last year. I am subjected to a log of Jag football, living down here, and I got to watch him quite a bit. Neither of these guys is a respectable starting RB at this stage of the game, IMO. The difference in their abilities in the receiving game is enormous, however. Either would make an acceptable 3rd string RB for the Bills, Rhodes can actually be a weapon as a 3rd down back, if needed. Yes, if you were forced to start one, you would probably take Taylor. But that advantage might last for another year...and it might not, if Taylor has to carry the bulk of the load. The Bills aren't in that position.
Commander Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true Good read on the risks of taking aging running backs to fantasy owners. "Running backs take more physical punishment than any other offensive skill position, so it's no shock that some tend to break down once they close in on the age of 30. Throughout the history of the NFL, even the best backs have seen their numbers fall closer to their 30th birthdays. Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, Eddie George, Franco Harris and O.J. Simpson are just a few of the names that found pro football more difficult at an extended age, and their numbers showed that to be true." FYI, at 33 Fred Taylor is the oldest of the 10 running backs they review.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Are you saying Rhodes is more than a 1 yr fix. Like I said before, your own front office would have preferred to get Taylor. Rhodes was what was left over. Over the last 4 yrs Fred Taylor has averaged almost 4.7 yds/carry while Mr Rhodes is about 3.5. As for third down, he was sent packing by the Colts because he isn't willing to stand in and block, which is something third down backs should be able to do. This is another Fred Taylor strength. The only people who would take a guy like Rhodes over Fred Taylor, right now in their careers, are in this forum. It's no wonder why this team is tied for the longest playoff drought in the NFL. Rhodes over Taylor, you've got to be kidding. You may be this boards equivalent to Courtney Love as far as brain power goes but in this case you're right Nancy. Rhodes name doesn't belong in the same sentence as Taylor's no matter what spin you try to put on it. I will however say that I am biased, I've known Fred and followed his career since he was a soph. in HS but with that I can tell you that he is a freak of nature and don't be surprised if he has a couple of more brilliant seasons before he retires. Furthermore you're right when you say that it's this mentality that has caused our playoff drought to last this long.
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Fred Taylor was a great RB. But he's outlived the normal lifespan for a RB and came off a pretty poor season.
Passepartout Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 RBs do take the most punishment on their bodies. More than any other player in that position.
CHUK ny Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Freddie on one leg is faster than Rhodes. Dont get me wrong i love rhodes and all, it is just that i am not going to say that he is better than Freddie just because we got rhodes...We brought in freddie first and offered him a contract. We also brought in the likes of Deshaun foster and kevin jones prior to agreeing with rhodes...so apparently the bills were much higher on taylor than rhodes as well! Now we're referring to Fred Taylor as "Fast Freddie"?
Saint Doug Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Either way, all this stuff is a mute point. Jackson is our starter for the first 4 games.
djcalvin79 Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 having flogged the Pisa-contract thread to death, we've now made the jump to arguing which one of two past-their-prime RBs is better.. which is redundant since Rhodes is here & Taylor is at the Pats* and never shall the twain meet except in battle can we talk about something more relevant like what the new wedge regulations will do to our return units, or if Bobby April will make a good head coach?
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Either way, all this stuff is a mute point. Jackson is our starter for the first 4 games. The first 4 games? Dang, that appeal must have gone horribly wrong!
Lurker Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 The first 4 games? Dang, that appeal must have gone horribly wrong! If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape: Linky "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28."
stuckincincy Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape: Linky "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28." Good point.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 If the 3-gamer remains, FJ will probably get a lot of carries in week 4, since Lynch will need more than a week of practice before he's in game shape: Linky "Pending the appeal, Lynch is barred from taking part in any team activities for the first three weeks of the regular season, and can’t rejoin the team until the week of Sept. 28." I'm pretty sure he can be with the team during preseason, so it won't be like a JP deal to get ready.
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Unless Fred is tearing-it-up, Lynch starts his first game back.
nucci Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I find it interesting the passion discussing two players that would be 3rd string on our roster.
VOR Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) I find it interesting the passion discussing two players that would be 3rd string on our roster. Well that's what happens when Patriots* fans claim that he could start for the Bills, or even see as much time playing as he would with their team. Edited May 26, 2009 by VOR
Recommended Posts