mrags Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 mrags throws that theory out the window, he seems to be a Jackson supporter but is throwing around childish names and acting angry. As for me, I support both of them, they both wear a red helmet with the charging buffalo on them. I also support both of them. Stated that several times in my posts through this thread. Again, I never called you any names. Billsfreak!!! Dont be mad, Im not.
Guest dog14787 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Looks like as more votes come in Marshawn is narrowing the gap a little. Maybe its not as cut and dry as I had originally thought and in all fairness some folks are probably more focused on the most recent game than overall and we do have to remember Fred Jackson is more experienced and Marshawn Lynch is only going to get better. I stand by my vote, but not to the point of discounting completely the premise that when all is said and done, Marshawn will leave a bigger mark on the NFL. In my mind Fred Jackson is the better back, but some of the more intelligent posters on this board Like Kelly, Dean even Tim Graham believe differently. Regardless of who's better, their both real good RB's and the combination makes for one of the better one two punches in the NFL.
/dev/null Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The correct answer - BOTH! Thunder and Lightening baby. Thunder and Lightening
Heels20X6 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The correct answer - BOTH! Thunder and Lightening baby. Thunder and Lightening Comparing the two is like saying apples are better than oranges... It's amazing how some (not all) of you have such short memories....last year, Marshawn had games where he was our ONLY offensive weapon. And now some (not all) of you want to shop him around because Freddie had a great game? Not to mention that the two of them consider each other brothers off the field (a recent interview on Canada's Sportsnet had Lynch saying that he "needs Jackson, he's the guy I turn to and who I spend my days with". You all want Marshawn to become a better person? Then let him keep hanging out with a class act like FJ. Yeesh. Why can't we just be happy we have two awesome backs?!?
Guest dog14787 Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Comparing the two is like saying apples are better than oranges... It's amazing how some (not all) of you have such short memories....last year, Marshawn had games where he was our ONLY offensive weapon. And now some (not all) of you want to shop him around because Freddie had a great game? Not to mention that the two of them consider each other brothers off the field (a recent interview on Canada's Sportsnet had Lynch saying that he "needs Jackson, he's the guy I turn to and who I spend my days with". You all want Marshawn to become a better person? Then let him keep hanging out with a class act like FJ. Yeesh. Why can't we just be happy we have two awesome backs?!? I can be happy with that assumption.
mrags Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 I can be happy with that assumption. Agreed, I never said I didnt want both. I was simply voting the question and answering with my opinion. But yes, we have both and Im happy for that. Lets all hope Lynch doesnt do anything stupid in the future to jeopordize that.
Mr. WEO Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 While I appreciate the well-stated and clearly well-thought-out opinion, Lynch caught 47 passes in 2008, and it's worth noting that he had more catches than the following RBs: Leon Washington Chris Johnson Frank Gore Fred Jackson Thomas Jones Darren McFadden Clinton Portis Just for fun, he also had more catches than the following players: Kellen Winslow Visanthe Shiancoe Mark Clayton Tony Scheffler Patrick Crayton Donald Lee Justin Gage Chris Chambers So, his hands can't exactly be that bad now, can they? You left off Antonio Pittman, Dante Rosario, Devard Darling, Matt Spaeth. Winslow played 10 games, had more yards. Jackson has better hands.
gomper Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 If this organization had any clue, they would have realized Freddy's true ability and traded Lynch in the off season. Could you imagine the caliber players or draft picks the Bills could have garnered?
fishgrappler Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 If this organization had any clue, they would have realized Freddy's true ability and traded Lynch in the off season. Could you imagine the caliber players or draft picks the Bills could have garnered? Gomper....Really???? ...... your going to put a post on like you knew that it was obvious that "Jackson is better than Lynch." Since you have a crystal ball out can you tell me what their record will be? Oh yeah...was Jackson in the pro bowl this past year too? You must have more insight the the NFL. You're a hater...stay off. The best teams at any level of sport have DEPTH.
gomper Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Aaaahh...yeah Fish. Did you watch Jackson last season? Depth is one thing but having an asset is another. Mark my words...they'll deal one of them by the draft next year.
rstencel Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Aaaahh...yeah Fish. Did you watch Jackson last season? Depth is one thing but having an asset is another. Mark my words...they'll deal one of them by the draft next year. I'd take that bet, only way one of them leaves is by holding out, or letting contract expire. Who you going to rely on if trade one when the other comes out, or gets hurt, Omon?
gomper Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 So you'd rather have excellent RB's who split time rather than deal one at his highest market value for proven players or picks? I'd rather have one feature back and upgrade my team in other positions of need but trading an asset. Knowing the Bills, this move is way too bold for them. Not to piss anyone off, but you think Belichick wouldn't spin a great deal for Lynch in the same situation?
rstencel Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 So you'd rather have excellent RB's who split time rather than deal one at his highest market value for proven players or picks? I'd rather have one feature back and upgrade my team in other positions of need but trading an asset. Knowing the Bills, this move is way too bold for them. Not to piss anyone off, but you think Belichick wouldn't spin a great deal for Lynch in the same situation? Yes, I would rather have two backs than one. Giants had 3 good backs when they won their Super Bowl, Miami has 2 great backs, and road them to division last year. Carolina drafts backs in first round like Bills draft CB's. And Pats have been bringing in RB's by the boat load last few years. They have ex starters in backup roles including a 3rd down back with skills very similar to Jackson, and one that is on list of all time leading rushers. So to say they wouldn't keep more than one back seems unlikely by those actions, plus Bill seems to like to have his starter being a big inside runner, so think he would be starting Lynch over Jackson honestly. Injuries are very common in NFL and RB's are very susceptible. Jackson is getting to age where injuries are going to be more common, and Lynch hasn't exactly been able to go through a whole season without getting dinged up. Plus they have different styles which could be used to play off each other.
benderbender Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Lynch never quits on a play. His determination to make something out of every play and make the defense work to take him down is what I like.
Alaska Darin Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Lynch never quits on a play. His determination to make something out of every play and make the defense work to take him down is what I like. Now if he could just learn to read his blocks.
StupidNation Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 The best way to view the question is who would you rather have for one game if you could choose only one? For me that's Jackson hands down. He's more versatile and a great guy to move the chains and works for 1st downs. That's why I'm pro-Jackson over Lynch. Lynch goes for 12 yards and many times gets negative or zero yards on a carry while Jackson is happy with 4 or 5. Jackson is also better out of the backfield in catching and blocking. More versatile, more options, better guy for winning games. I do see the appeal of Lynch with power and toughness, but I fail to see him as a better player. Also, if Dean says Lynch is better that's proof that Jackson is superior.
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Why does it matter? They are both Buffalo Bills and we're lucky to have them both.
NewEra Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 If this organization had any clue, they would have realized Freddy's true ability and traded Lynch in the off season. Could you imagine the caliber players or draft picks the Bills could have garnered? for a running back that has had multiple run in with the law? lol I LOVE lynch, but RB's don't carry much weight when it comes to trades. we MIGHT have gotten a 2nd round pick.
transient Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Bucky Gleason agrees with us: Lynch is a powerful back, but Jackson is a better one. He's more suited for the Bills' no-huddle attack. He's a better receiver and more elusive in the open field, which fits the Bills' short-passing game. The Bills should keep him as their primary back and change the pace with Lynch rather than the other way around. Compare their character, and it's no contest. Jackson has been humble since he arrived while Lynch has been nothing but trouble. He's not worth the aggravation. He can easily be replaced. For all the mistakes Lynch has made off the field, his biggest was opening the door for Jackson on the field. Uhh... Gleason's a hockey writer, for the most part, so I don't know if he is exactly the definitive voice in this argument to back your opinion. Purely from an every down back standpoint, and not as a situational player, I think Lynch deserves the nod. As several have pointed out, he played very well last year and made it to the ProBowl in a season where the Bills could not throw the ball to save their lives. Every defense was stacking the line to stop him, which leads to negative plays and a lower average yards per carry across a full season than for players like Jackson who see the field more in third and long type situations (where you can utilize his experience, blocking, and receiving ability.) Additionally, if I recall, from a receiving standpoint a lot of those receptions for ML were the same checkdowns that everyone is so pissed about, and usually occurred because the play was about to get blown up anyway. Not a great way to pad your stats. Obviously this past preseason was a disaster, and the offense as a whole and the line specifically looked a million times more competent on Monday night. It will be interesting to see what happens when they design a gameplan around Lynch's strengths, as they did for Jackson. That being said, I'm not anti-Jackson, and would actually love to see them line up in a 4 receiver set, and motion Jackson out of the backfield to the line a la the Thurman years. Overall, I think a 60/40 Lynch to Jackson ratio would end up benefiting Jackson, because Lynch is a mother- to bring down and Fred could more easily tear through a worn out defense. ML reminds me of a bigger version of Travis Henry (who, in terms of tackling difficulty, was compared to a bowling ball with spikes protruding from it rolling downhill in a pre-draft analysis... love that analogy,) only with more speed and better hands. Lets just hope in the end he turns out more like Jackson than Henry on a character level.
NewEra Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Lynch is my favorite player due to his toughness and unwillingness to go down. His resilience is infectious and his humor keeps everyone upbeat. Jackson is the better player. I hope Marshawn proves me wrong. Either way...having both is amazing. Enjoy it while it lasts. and PRAY our OL plays that well every game. I have a feeling last weeks performance was partly due too the Pats ineffective DE's and losing Mayo as it was the greatness of our OL.
Recommended Posts