Hossage Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Lynch has gotten better every year he has been in Buffalo. I am a big critic of his, but I will give him and our coaches credit.
transient 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. I suspect that you're right with regard to NE's* defense. I envision them looking a bit like NO did last year, put up a ton of points, but gonna need every last one to win. I get the feeling that Belichick* may be reading a few too many of his press clippings about being a coaching genius, because that D lost an awful lot of talent for him to be trading Seymour in the eve of the season, even before losing Mayo. Monday night reminded me a bit of the NE*/Miami game last year where they just COULD NOT stop what was coming at them.
TheChimp Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Well, Jackson does have way more yards than Lynch right now.
thewildrabbit Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Last season, I started the same thread, as I felt that Freddie brought more to the table the Marshawn and asked opinions from my fellow Bills fans... A year later, now looking at this again..I honestly don't care who is better. We are lucky to have 2 very good RBs with different styles on our team...We have a power runner who will fight and drag defenders for extra yardage and well..Freddie did a good TT impression last night... We have the best of both worlds and they will both get their touches during the games...so just sit back and enjoy , each one brings something different to the table and that makes it more difficult for the opposing team to defend... Amen I noticed that Freddy appeared to tire in the 4th qtr, RB's take such a beating every game it is a good thing the Bills have two really good backs in Lynch and Jackson.
thebandit27 Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 You left off Antonio Pittman, Dante Rosario, Devard Darling, Matt Spaeth. Winslow played 10 games, had more yards. Jackson has better hands. If you're point is that the guys you mentioned barely played, then...ummm...okay. The point of my post is that the guys I listed are widely considered quality backs, WRs, and TEs, and Lynch had more catches than all of them. I would hope that Winslow had more yards since, you know, he's a TE. If he doesn't, then I'd hate to think what that says about his ability. Jackson may have better hands than Lynch, but that doesn't mean that Lynch has stone hands, which was your original point. At least I think it was, since you didn't really say anything other than "stone hands", which Lynch clearly does not have.
The Senator Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Better what? Lynch is a better quarterback than Jackson. (Probably better than Edwards, too.)
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Lynch has gotten better every year he has been in Buffalo. I am a big critic of his, but I will give him and our coaches credit. Probably no position needs as little time to transition from college to the pros than running back. Typically they are a bit deficient in pass blocking and that's about it. Every year there's a handful of rookie running backs that make a significant impact. Often, they are players not selected in the first round. Lynch was the same draft class as Peterson. I don't buy necessarily that Lynch's gotten better and if he's still improving, I would wonder why it is he hasn't already hit 100% of his potential. As for all those posting that they're glad we have both, I would say that goes for virtually all of us. But this thread wasn't about why we're glad/fortunate to have both. This thread was about who we think is better. Finally, for that very small percentage who think we should trade Lynch, IMO that would be a very bad decision for several reasons. There are many veteran backs making more than Lynch right now. He's actually cheap to keep. Also his trade value is diminished due to his off-field problems. And teams need at least two backs that can be counted on due to workload and injury. From what I saw in preseason, Omon is a non-factor in pass protection and would not be dependable as a long reliever. Keep what we have...why shuffle the cards?
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Not fair considering they are 2 different kinds of running backs. But given he has been to the pro-bowl, is younger and can run between the tackles effectively...i'll take Lynch.
PDaDdy Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Many have said it but personally I'm glad as hell we have both. I kind of look at Lynch and Jackson this way. 1) When there is no hole to run through or the defense blows through the offensive line I DEFINITELY want Lynch. It's not even close. I'm not 100% certain but it seems that we get more 8 in the box with Lynch. I have heard several people say that Lynch doesn't hit the holes hard. On MANY of the plays I have seen in the past THERE WAS NO HOLE TO HIT. Perhaps the real issue is that opposing defenses don't stack the line of scrimmage against Jackson like they do with Lynch. The real issue could be that Jackson actually has more holes to run through. 2) If there is proper blocking and a hole opened up Jackson might have a SLIGHT edge on Lynch. Jackson's speed makes him more of a home run threat. If the play develops such that a RB with speed can take it to the house, Jackson is likely that guy. If it's not a potential home run play, Lynch will ALWAYS get you those 1 - 5 extra yards at the end by shear force of will alone. Jackson runs pretty hard but Lynch is...well...a "beast" Lynch is a GREAT RB. It's just that Freddie is really good too. Something that nobody mentions is that Freddie is a actually a 28 yr old more mature man who has been playing professional football for his 6th season now. 3 in the NFL. Lynch is a 23 yr old kid who came out of college early who has yet to play his first game of his 3rd season.
StupidNation Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Many have said it but personally I'm glad as hell we have both. I kind of look at Lynch and Jackson this way. 1) When there is no hole to run through or the defense blows through the offensive line I DEFINITELY want Lynch. It's not even close. I'm not 100% certain but it seems that we get more 8 in the box with Lynch. I have heard several people say that Lynch doesn't hit the holes hard. On MANY of the plays I have seen in the past THERE WAS NO HOLE TO HIT. Perhaps the real issue is that opposing defenses don't stack the line of scrimmage against Jackson like they do with Lynch. The real issue could be that Jackson actually has more holes to run through. I disagree. I'd have Jackson. Jackson will shoot for a small gain while Lynch will get stopped for a loss or no gain. Jackson will sneak for 1-3 yards while Lynch is thinking TD. 2) If there is proper blocking and a hole opened up Jackson might have a SLIGHT edge on Lynch. Jackson's speed makes him more of a home run threat. If the play develops such that a RB with speed can take it to the house, Jackson is likely that guy. If it's not a potential home run play, Lynch will ALWAYS get you those 1 - 5 extra yards at the end by shear force of will alone. Jackson runs pretty hard but Lynch is...well...a "beast" Funny, I think Lynch may be better with better blocking than Jackson and I think Jackson is a better RB. Lynch reacts better to space forward while he reacts retarded behind the LOS when he takes those long side-steps that work in college but not the pros. Lynch with momentum forward is a load to take down while Jackson is just elusive and has better vision. Something that nobody mentions is that Freddie is a actually a 28 yr old more mature man who has been playing professional football for his 6th season now. 3 in the NFL. Lynch is a 23 yr old kid who came out of college early who has yet to play his first game of his 3rd season. Now is the key word. RBs are good for about 4 years, sometime 6. Jackson could conceivably play 3 great years and Lynch could be washed up. Time is short for a RB. Jackson has better vision, elusiveness, follows blocks better, pass protection, better receiver and more of a worry to D-coordinators. Lynch is better as a load to take down once he has forward momentum. Jackson is will have less negative to zero yardage plays than Lynch and is more versatile. My only question in this equation is can Jackson take a 16 games of beatings? Lynch has proven he can't yet, can Jackson?
transient Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I'd take Frank Reich any day, that Kelly guy's a bum!
billsfreak Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 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? What maybe a 5th or 6th rounder? I think that is all the Bears got for Thomas Jones and he has never been on the verge of a season long suspension with just one more blunder. The Bills wouldn't have gotten that much for Lynch, so it wouldn't have been worth trading him. It also would have left us with no depth at that position, having them both is a luxury.
PDaDdy Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I disagree. I'd have Jackson. Jackson will shoot for a small gain while Lynch will get stopped for a loss or no gain. Jackson will sneak for 1-3 yards while Lynch is thinking TD. Funny, I think Lynch may be better with better blocking than Jackson and I think Jackson is a better RB. Lynch reacts better to space forward while he reacts retarded behind the LOS when he takes those long side-steps that work in college but not the pros. Lynch with momentum forward is a load to take down while Jackson is just elusive and has better vision. Now is the key word. RBs are good for about 4 years, sometime 6. Jackson could conceivably play 3 great years and Lynch could be washed up. Time is short for a RB. Jackson has better vision, elusiveness, follows blocks better, pass protection, better receiver and more of a worry to D-coordinators. Lynch is better as a load to take down once he has forward momentum. Jackson is will have less negative to zero yardage plays than Lynch and is more versatile. My only question in this equation is can Jackson take a 16 games of beatings? Lynch has proven he can't yet, can Jackson? Wow! Are you even watching the same team I am?!?!?!? Seriously. I think you have a pretty big bias against Lynch. 1) I have seen our o-line get crushed, Lynch jitterbugs behind the line caving in on him, picks a spot and drives defenders from 1 yard behind the line of scrimmage for a 4 yard gain. 2) Lynch DOES NOT need forward momentum to do this!!! Jackson is NOT a soft runner but Lynch runs harder and it's by a significant easily observable margin!! 3) Comparing Lynch and Jackson elusiveness is very difficult. They are BOTH elusive!!! They do it in different ways. Lynch is more that Barry Sanders stop in his tracks, shimmy, slip and slide to break tackles and power through a guy type RB. Jackson uses his speed and is a more fluid open field runner that glides side to side to avoid tackers. 4) I have no idea what you are trying to say with years in the league. Jackson being the older guy with more miles on him has better long term potential and the guy that has yet to play his first game of his 3rd year his career could be almost over? That is just completely back-assward. Again I say WOW!!! I think you developed your opinion of the RBs before actually impartially observing their play.
Ish Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Lynch, Jackson can only win you a game or two, he's the Backup RB for a reason
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Lynch, Jackson can only win you a game or two, he's the Backup RB for a reason Yes, and that reason is because Lynch was a first round pick and Jackson was an undrafted free agent.
StupidNation Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Wow! Are you even watching the same team I am?!?!?!? Seriously. I think you have a pretty big bias against Lynch. 1) I have seen our o-line get crushed, Lynch jitterbugs behind the line caving in on him, picks a spot and drives defenders from 1 yard behind the line of scrimmage for a 4 yard gain. 2) Lynch DOES NOT need forward momentum to do this!!! Jackson is NOT a soft runner but Lynch runs harder and it's by a significant easily observable margin!! 3) Comparing Lynch and Jackson elusiveness is very difficult. They are BOTH elusive!!! They do it in different ways. Lynch is more that Barry Sanders stop in his tracks, shimmy, slip and slide to break tackles and power through a guy type RB. Jackson uses his speed and is a more fluid open field runner that glides side to side to avoid tackers. 4) I have no idea what you are trying to say with years in the league. Jackson being the older guy with more miles on him has better long term potential and the guy that has yet to play his first game of his 3rd year his career could be almost over? That is just completely back-assward. Again I say WOW!!! I think you developed your opinion of the RBs before actually impartially observing their play. I think you're the one with the bias. I've watched them both. Are you about to tell me Lynch is better in pass protection and as a receiver? Are you about to tell me that Jackson isn't more of a threat in this offense? If so you have bias, not I. Lynch's biggest problem is not that he can't do the same things as Jackson, but he isn't as mentally capable as Jackson. Jackson will look for a block and follow it, Lynch runs into defender frequently. Lynch has a bunch of runs that were negative and 0 gains. Watch the games last year and the year before. He runs sideways and gets caught with no forward momentum and can't do "beast mode". Beast Mode is only when he goes forward, not those long side steps. I have no bias, but Jackson has better vision, blocking and receiving skills. Marshawn is better at getting extra yards when going forward. I'll make it easier for you to understand... if it was 3rd and 3 I would take Jackson all day long. He'll look for 1st down on the run instead of a long gain and if he gets it he will and he is a bigger threat on a screen. He just has more dimensions. If you can't see that you have the bias amigo
Endzone Animal Posted September 21, 2009 Author Posted September 21, 2009 I think it's pretty obvious to everyone right now that Jackson is the best running back on this team. He starts the rest of the way - barring injury of course. Putting aside the fact that Marshawn is an illiterate thug from the hood with a bad attitude on and off the field; Jackson is just a better player, period, and deserves to be the man.
Heels20X6 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I think it's pretty obvious to everyone right now that Jackson is the best running back on this team. He starts the rest of the way - barring injury of course. Putting aside the fact that Marshawn is an illiterate thug from the hood with a bad attitude on and off the field; Jackson is just a better player, period, and deserves to be the man. Well, it's lovely when you have a personal vendetta against a player and you thinly disguise it under a post of "who's better: Lynch or Jackson?". I'm not even going to ask where you get the idea that he has a bad attitude ON THE FIELD because it's asinine that you even wrote it...
Endzone Animal Posted September 21, 2009 Author Posted September 21, 2009 Well, it's lovely when you have a personal vendetta against a player and you thinly disguise it under a post of "who's better: Lynch or Jackson?" No, I put up an objective poll in which over 60% of the voters agree that Lynch is not as good as Jackson. I guess you're just all flustered because your boy is overwhelmingly getting punked in the poll. Sorry that you are taking losing a message board poll so personal, but, as they say, them's the breaks. Deal with it.
Recommended Posts