San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I'll believe Lynch is a better runner when my eyes tell me that that is actually the case. When I see Lynch run I see a guy who doesn't understand blocking schemes (or who has very poor vision or instincts). It doesn't matter how athletic you are. To be an effective running back you have to maximize the blocking that you are given. Lynch does not do that. Jackson does. And enough with the "oh we're very fortunate to have both, they're complimentary, etc" The poll question is which player is better.
bananathumb Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Guess we'll see when Lynch comes back. If Fred and X-man have two more good games, AVP and those above him are gonna have some big decisions to make. Personally, I'd give Marshawn the ball a lot to see how he looks and if he craps out, go back to Fred as starter. If Lynch looks good too, trade-talk is gonna come up, especially if the Bills' season looks dismal and other teams need a feature back for a playoff run. Lynch makes too much to be a back-up.
mrags Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 This is a great post. I feel the same way many other posters do on this topic. I think Lynch is great for short yardage and brute force. No one will question his drive. I do however question his football and overall intelligence. Is it so hard to see that the guy consistantly makes bad decisions? Instead of running through a hole he runs into the back of one of his blockers, or right into a defender instead of trying to avoid him. He also makes decisions like driving around in a car with a gun and weed. I dont think its all that bad to have either. Just because you have a gun doesnt make you a criminal, and just because you smoke pot doesnt mean you are bad either. But common sense would tell you that in your position being in the spotlight you need to make better decisions to do those things in public. Fred Jackson on the other hand is a model teamate and an all around good guy (from what ive heard). I love how they commented on MNF that this guy played in arena leagues for $200 a game. That is just rediculous. Its obvious the guy has a love for the game. Me makes great decisions on the field. He is a good blocker, tough (not as tough as Lynch) runner, good route runner pass catcher, and even though he is much more elusive than Lynch he doesnt sacrifice much power while doing that. I am a fan of converting the carries 60-40 in favor of Jackson. Most teams in the league go with a RBBC now and we shouldnt be much different. We have 2 great backs on this team and we should take advantage of the skills of both of them while we have them. But if I was the GM of this team I'd have to take a long look at Lynch and his bad decision making on and off the field before I thought about keeping him. My 2 cents flame away.
Billadelphia Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Wow, 2-1 in favor of Jackson? That is surprising. I still vote Lynch... BEAST MODE!! Surprising? It doesn't surprise me at all based on the first game. Didn't you know that a player's legacy is formed by what they did the last week, according to some on this board? If Jackson had a bad game, the poll would have been "Who should start at RB in week 2, Omon or Josh Reed?"
Reed83HOF Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Opening Story on the yahoo fantasy sports homepage... Main story story/comment
Guest dog14787 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 This is a great post. I feel the same way many other posters do on this topic. I think Lynch is great for short yardage and brute force. No one will question his drive. I do however question his football and overall intelligence. Is it so hard to see that the guy consistantly makes bad decisions? Instead of running through a hole he runs into the back of one of his blockers, or right into a defender instead of trying to avoid him. He also makes decisions like driving around in a car with a gun and weed. I dont think its all that bad to have either. Just because you have a gun doesnt make you a criminal, and just because you smoke pot doesnt mean you are bad either. But common sense would tell you that in your position being in the spotlight you need to make better decisions to do those things in public. Fred Jackson on the other hand is a model teamate and an all around good guy (from what ive heard). I love how they commented on MNF that this guy played in arena leagues for $200 a game. That is just rediculous. Its obvious the guy has a love for the game. Me makes great decisions on the field. He is a good blocker, tough (not as tough as Lynch) runner, good route runner pass catcher, and even though he is much more elusive than Lynch he doesnt sacrifice much power while doing that. I am a fan of converting the carries 60-40 in favor of Jackson. Most teams in the league go with a RBBC now and we shouldnt be much different. We have 2 great backs on this team and we should take advantage of the skills of both of them while we have them. But if I was the GM of this team I'd have to take a long look at Lynch and his bad decision making on and off the field before I thought about keeping him. My 2 cents flame away. Fred Jackson should be the feature back and have Marshawn come in on short yardage situations or when Fred needs a breather, Jackson is just to good run and pass to take him out of the game in my opinion. We are running at about a two to one favorite for Fred Jackson so its fairly obvious the Fans are in favor of Fred Jackson starting over Marshawn Lynch.
thebandit27 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I'll believe Lynch is a better runner when my eyes tell me that that is actually the case. When I see Lynch run I see a guy who doesn't understand blocking schemes (or who has very poor vision or instincts). It doesn't matter how athletic you are. To be an effective running back you have to maximize the blocking that you are given. Lynch does not do that. Jackson does. And enough with the "oh we're very fortunate to have both, they're complimentary, etc" The poll question is which player is better. With all due respect, SJ, I just can't believe there's all this hoopla over the fact that the guy ran for 57 yards (at 3.8 per carry, no less), and benefited from playing against a defense designed to only allow a dump-off passing game. Don't get me wrong, I think he caught the ball well out of the backfield, and followed his blocking perfectly on some well-set-up screens, I just feel that concluding that he's a better player than Lynch from watching that game is a bit dubious. As an aside, there are (currently) 66 posts on the subject, while 159 people have voted on it, so it appears that even those that say we're lucky to have both (which we are) apparently still express their preferences.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 With all due respect, SJ, I just can't believe there's all this hoopla over the fact that the guy ran for 57 yards (at 3.8 per carry, no less), and benefited from playing against a defense designed to only allow a dump-off passing game. Don't get me wrong, I think he caught the ball well out of the backfield, and followed his blocking perfectly on some well-set-up screens, I just feel that concluding that he's a better player than Lynch from watching that game is a bit dubious. As an aside, there are (currently) 66 posts on the subject, while 159 people have voted on it, so it appears that even those that say we're lucky to have both (which we are) apparently still express their preferences. Perhaps if the vote had a third choice Lynch / Jackson split carries equally it would be the front runner.
billsfreak Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I say Jackson. He is in much better shape, has a better burst, is a better receiver, has a much better attitude, and is much, much smarter. Lynch is good for some brute force, but Freddie just brings more to the table. Dude, you are talking out your backhole on this. I might, repeat might, buy the better attitude part, but the other things you have absolutely nothing to base them on. Shape-how would you know? Smarter-Have you seen their IQ tests? Better receiver? based on what-one 20 yard screen play for a touchdown? This post is nothing but you wanting someone to agree with you, see your family for things like that.
DarthICE Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I say Jackson. He is in much better shape, has a better burst, is a better receiver, has a much better attitude, and is much, much smarter. Lynch is good for some brute force, but Freddie just brings more to the table. Jackson should be the starter. Better at hitting the hole, faster I think, catches better. Just because we spent a first rounder on marshawn isn't a reason to start him.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Dude, you are talking out your backhole on this. I might, repeat might, buy the better attitude part, but the other things you have absolutely nothing to base them on. Shape-how would you know? Smarter-Have you seen their IQ tests? Better receiver? based on what-one 20 yard screen play for a touchdown? This post is nothing but you wanting someone to agree with you, see your family for things like that. He doesn't have to go anywhere to get folks to agree, two thirds of the board already agree with him. Everything Jackson does on and off the field suggests he's smarter, its obvious he finds the holes better and its obvious he's a better reciever and when you have TE commenting to the effect that we need to utilize Fred Jackson because he's one of our biggest weapons speaks volumes in my opinion.
billsfreak Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 He doesn't have to go anywhere to get folks to agree, two thirds of the board already agree with him. Everything Jackson does on and off the field suggests he's smarter, its obvious he finds the holes better and its obvious he's a better reciever and when you have TE commenting to the effect that we need to utilize Fred Jackson because he's one of our biggest weapons speaks volumes in my opinion. Just what makes these things so obvious? One game? If one game made a career Timmy Smith would be in the Hall of Fame and be regarded up there with Walter Payton and Jim Brown.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 With all due respect, SJ, I just can't believe there's all this hoopla over the fact that the guy ran for 57 yards (at 3.8 per carry, no less), and benefited from playing against a defense designed to only allow a dump-off passing game. Don't get me wrong, I think he caught the ball well out of the backfield, and followed his blocking perfectly on some well-set-up screens, I just feel that concluding that he's a better player than Lynch from watching that game is a bit dubious. As an aside, there are (currently) 66 posts on the subject, while 159 people have voted on it, so it appears that even those that say we're lucky to have both (which we are) apparently still express their preferences. In response to the bolded Bandit, my conclusions didn't come from watching the Monday Night game...I think you know me better than that. Including preseason, we've watched Jackson play in probably 30 games for the Bills. That's enough to get to know a player. If I looked up their career stats, I'd bet that Jackson also has a higher yards per carry and a higher yards per reception. But that's not relevant either. My observations of their skills over the last two plus years make me think Jackson is a better running back.
cantstopbeastmode Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Let me start off by saying I love Fred Jackson. I have talked to him 3-4 times before, he's a great guy. He sure as hell had a great game the other day. BUT lynch is unbelievable. He's the better player. You guys must've forgotten the Browns game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adxy0HAkyHI
mrags Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Dude, you are talking out your backhole on this. I might, repeat might, buy the better attitude part, but the other things you have absolutely nothing to base them on. Shape-how would you know? Smarter-Have you seen their IQ tests? Better receiver? based on what-one 20 yard screen play for a touchdown? This post is nothing but you wanting someone to agree with you, see your family for things like that. Hate to say it freak but you seem to be outnumbered on this one. The fact that you think his attitude is the best thing Jackson has over Lynch tells many people that you dont watch many games. He is a better receiver based on stats that I listed below for you and its obvious in games. And if you only base your opinion on one 20 yard screen pass and claim its crap then you should go back and watch the games that Jackson has played in the last few years. Almost everyone here agrees he is a better blocker, receiver, route runner, and hits his running assignments better than Lynch. What games are you watching? And you dont have to be a genius to know that hitting someone with your car, or smoking weed with a pistol in your possession isnt a smart thing to do. Lynch had 47 rec. for 300 yrds and a 6.4 avg with a 42 long 1 TD Jackson had 37 rec. for 317 yrds and a 8.6 avg with a 65 long and 0 TD's If Jackson was the featured back he would easily blow Lynch's receptions out of the water. He already has more yards, higher average on both rushing and receiving. The only debate should be if Jackson can hold up to the weekly wear and tear of an NFL season.
Thurman#1 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Almost everyone here agrees he is a better blocker, receiver, route runner, and hits his running assignments better than Lynch. First, that only shows how useless polls are. Personally, I never vote in them, outside of actual political votes. Second, "almost everyone" thinks that? Really? As I look, lit's 61 to 38% percent who think only that Jackson is better. NOT that he is a "better blocker, receiver, route runner, and hits his running assignments better than Lynch." Man, are you assuming way way way too much. And by the way, could you tell me exactly where even 61% is considered "almost all." His being the favorite here could be largely because we've seen him and haven't seen Marshawn, don't you think? The same polls last year had different results. And when Marshawn is running for us again, the results will be different again. Off the field, I have serious questions about Marshawn. On the field, none at all, not one.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 First, that only shows how useless polls are. Personally, I never vote in them, outside of actual political votes. Second, "almost everyone" thinks that? Really? As I look, lit's 61 to 38% percent who think only that Jackson is better. NOT that he is a "better blocker, receiver, route runner, and hits his running assignments better than Lynch." Man, are you assuming way way way too much. His being the favorite here could be largely because we've seen him and haven't seen Marshawn, don't you think? The same polls last year had different results. And when Marshawn is running for us again, the results will be different again. Off the field, I have serious questions about Marshawn. On the field, none at all, not one. Thurman, once again to the bolded above...why are you thinking that these opinions stem only from Monday night? We've had over 2 years and over 30 games (including preseason) to observe both of these players. I think that people's opinions of Lynch and Jackson have been formed over that time period, not off just one game.
SouthernMan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I say Jackson. He is in much better shape, has a better burst, is a better receiver, has a much better attitude, and is much, much smarter. Lynch is good for some brute force, but Freddie just brings more to the table. If Jackson were a couple of years younger, I say trade Lynch for a high draft pick or a need position, if at all possible. Problem is he's going on 29 years old - close to the time RBs often hit the wall. He may have a year or two of equal productivity left. After that, he'll start to look average. Lynch is a douchebag nitwit who needs to grow up. You're a professional now a-hole. Act like it. Maybe acting all gangsta was a good defense mechanism back in the hood, but time to put that act behind you. Apart from the character issue, his running style is not very fluid. He's great at churning out those extra yards with 3 defenders wrapped around him (the anti-Antowain Smith), but he's slow to hit the holes and takes too long to hit full speed. Jackson, on the other hand, sees the field, adjusts well, runs with patience (overused cliché, but true), and has a good burst when he sees an opening. Besides that, I think he's a better receiver and a whole lot smarter. If the question were, "if you could have only one of them, who would it be?", my answer would be Freddie. It's a bloody shame the Bills weren't able to draft a few picks higher when the took Lynch. Can you imagine the Bills skill level with Adrian Peterson (and Fred)?
rstencel Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I see a lot of Joe Cribbs in Freddie, myself. I don't honestly, Cribbs was a real good insider runner, and could wear down a defense. Also wasn't the greatest receiver. I think the Comparison to Hooks is more accurate honestly. As far as who is the better back, think depends on the role. Lynch is a better every play back, because he can do all the plays. Much better inside runner. Has decent speed and hands. Good blocker. Jackson is more dynamic, and exciting back though. He has all the making of a great 3rd down back, or a good back for a pass first type offense, that spreads out the defense. However do not feel like he can be the main back for conventional set. Not the type of back that will wear down a defense and make consistent gains with inside running game. Much prefer to have both backs and use them appropriately, as both are very good. But if had to only have one, with buffalo's offense would choose Lynch. Now if talking Colts or Chargers offensive style, would pick Jackson.
mrags Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 First, that only shows how useless polls are. Personally, I never vote in them, outside of actual political votes. Second, "almost everyone" thinks that? Really? As I look, lit's 61 to 38% percent who think only that Jackson is better. NOT that he is a "better blocker, receiver, route runner, and hits his running assignments better than Lynch." Man, are you assuming way way way too much. And by the way, could you tell me exactly where even 61% is considered "almost all." His being the favorite here could be largely because we've seen him and haven't seen Marshawn, don't you think? The same polls last year had different results. And when Marshawn is running for us again, the results will be different again. Off the field, I have serious questions about Marshawn. On the field, none at all, not one. Ok so I apparently over exagerate almost all. Its a 2/3 vote in favor of Jackson at this point. And based on the responses on this board it looks like many are in favor of him overall then Lynch. There is no clear cut way to say who is better or worse. My opinion is that Jackson is a better all around back, and a better receiver and only sacrifices a little bit of running power but makes up for it with elusiveness and quickness. And to say that we have seen him and not Marshawn might be the worst argument you could make. We have seen them both for the past 2+ years. I have been calling for Jackson to start since last year and will be extremely happy when he tears it up and wins the job outright while Lynch is sidelined for another dumb thing he did off the field that is jeopardizing his football future. I do not want to sound like a Lynch hater. I happen to like Lynch very much, and will continue to root for him on Sundays. I just dont understand everyone's love for him. The guy isnt all that great. Hes played in 15 games the past 2 years and has barely surpassed 1,000 and 1,100 yards rushing. You dont have to be great to rush for 63 yards a game. I know everyones response will be that Jackson only rushed for 57 yards on Monday. He also had 83 receiving which Lynch could only dream about. Jackson is a gamer, someone you have to game plan for. He can eat you up rushing or receiving. With Lynch all you need to do is stack the box and gang tackle him. It happens to be my opinion. No one is right about this. The fact is that we are blessed to have both and we need them both. They each have their skills that the other cannot provide. Lynch is great in short yardage. Id still rather have Lynch running the ball if were inside the 5 yard line than Jackson. My real question is why cant we get both of these guys out on the field at the same time more often?
Recommended Posts