PDA

View Full Version : Our RB situation won't be that bad!


jamze132
03-11-2007, 07:42 AM
Think about it. Why the hell do we need the headache of McGahee and his 990 yards all season when we can bring in ALMOST anyone and they can at least match that. I am glad that he is gone so we can move on. And I bet that just about everyone in the locker room is glad he is gone as well.
YardRat
03-11-2007, 07:47 AM
We're not going to have a dominant individual RB this year unless we get lucky in the draft...everybody might as well get used to it.
SquishDaFish
03-11-2007, 07:49 AM
As much as I was a HUGE fan of his. I totaly agree with you.
Luisito23
03-11-2007, 08:37 AM
We're not going to have a dominant individual RB this year.


Well being that we haven't had one since Thrumal left, I'm sorta used to this.....






GO BILLS!!!!!!
Yasgur's Farm
03-11-2007, 08:53 AM
We'll be fine... There's plenty of moves we could make.

1) We can sign 1 or both A-train/Chris Brown.
2) We can draft a day 1 RB.
3) Josh Reed may even become part of the mix based on his usage last season.

As for FB... I'm pretty sure we're gonna go with Ryan Neufeld or Brad Ceislak.

How about that for a 3rd down package... Evans and Jarrett at WR, Royal at TE, Reed at RB and Ceislak at FB.
justasportsfan
03-11-2007, 08:59 AM
the A-train could've gained those 990 yards himself.
Michael82
03-11-2007, 10:59 AM
the A-train could've gained those 990 yards himself.
He had more 100 yard games than McGahee anyways. I have a feeling he would have broken 1,200 yards if he actually started all year. McGahee ran when he felt like it. :ill:
raphael120
03-11-2007, 11:01 AM
hey, if the superbowl bound colts went with a rookie and a relatively unknown backup RB in Rhodes, we can def get by with a decent rookie RB and A-Train.
jamze132
03-12-2007, 07:11 AM
I don't want to draft a RB in the first unless Peterson fell to 12, which is next to impossible. I say we go with Patrick Willis at 12 and either Bush or Irons in the second. We can then draft CB and WR/DT in the 3rd.
BillsFever21
03-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Think about it. Why the hell do we need the headache of McGahee and his 990 yards all season when we can bring in ALMOST anyone and they can at least match that. I am glad that he is gone so we can move on. And I bet that just about everyone in the locker room is glad he is gone as well.

That 990 yards was in only 14 games. He would've went close to 1,200 yards without missing his first 2 games in his career.

Not anyone could match his production the last two years. Our OL was awful to begin with. Our offense in general wasn't great. We were playing from behind most of the time which also forced us to give up on the running game.

So you think Shaud Williams could've matched his production? Not a chance. With a respectable OL and a good offensive system McGahee would be a great back.
BillsFever21
03-12-2007, 11:32 AM
He had more 100 yard games than McGahee anyways. I have a feeling he would have broken 1,200 yards if he actually started all year. McGahee ran when he felt like it. :ill:

He had more 100 yard games then McGahee. You sure about that? Don't be blinded by the rose colored glasses. Anthony Thomas sucks. There is a reason why nobody has really wanted him for years.

This is just another example of Bills fans rooting on a player when they are here and thinking they are the best but as soon as they fall out of favor or don't wanna play for Buffalo anymore and/or doesn't play for Buffalo anymore they automatically become a bum.

Just like Antonie Winfield when he left. Everybody said he wasn't worth the money and wasn't very good. McGahee and Clements is just another example.
justasportsfan
03-12-2007, 11:32 AM
That 990 yards was in only 14 games. He would've went close to 1,200 yards without missing his first 2 games in his career.

Not anyone could match his production the last two years. Our OL was awful to begin with. Our offense in general wasn't great. .try telling that to Ronnie Brown who played just as much as Willis, who's O was arguably just as bad as ours and an OL that was just as bad as ours and yet had better nos. than Willis. Let's not forget who their OC was.
patmoran2006
03-12-2007, 11:40 AM
While Im not a big fan of Willis McGahee and I hope he rots now after his post-trade comments...

The bottom line is he is better than anyone we have on the roster now, anyone we may sign via FA and better than any rookie we'll draft to start.

Say what you want, but at the end of the day RB is just now yet another position that is a weaker than it was last year, on a team that was pretty weak to begin with.
camelcowboy
03-12-2007, 11:42 AM
While Im not a big fan of Willis McGahee and I hope he rots now after his post-trade comments...

The bottom line is he is better than anyone we have on the roster now, anyone we may sign via FA and better than any rookie we'll draft to start.

Say what you want, but at the end of the day RB is just now yet another position that is a weaker than it was last year, on a team that was pretty weak to begin with.

Agreed this is not a upgrade, but im not losing any sleep over the fact it was done. Just one more hole we need to fill.
mikemac2001
03-12-2007, 01:00 PM
hey, if the superbowl bound colts went with a rookie and a relatively unknown backup RB in Rhodes, we can def get by with a decent rookie RB and A-Train.

Think rhodes wasnt an unknown backup, he was a solid backup for that team for years that new the system and offense...he is a backup that is all though...when he was given chances to be starter he wasnt anything special but is very effective coming off the bench
Saratoga Slim
03-12-2007, 01:04 PM
While Im not a big fan of Willis McGahee and I hope he rots now after his post-trade comments...

The bottom line is he is better than anyone we have on the roster now, anyone we may sign via FA and better than any rookie we'll draft to start.

Say what you want, but at the end of the day RB is just now yet another position that is a weaker than it was last year, on a team that was pretty weak to begin with.

Agreed that we now have a major hole to fill, which is why I was kind of hoping we'd have him play out the year. It would be nice if we only had to deal with LB, CB and possibly DT. Also agreed that Willis can go to hell for running his mouth.

I guess my end of the day is a little more optimistic than yours. As of right now, we're concededly weaker at RB, LB and CB than last year. But we should be noticiebly better on the OL. And we should get better production from JP as well as numerous of the defensive guys that were rookies last season. Thus I see our additions and subtractions as mostly a wash at this point, with room for positive improvement as we address the RB, LB and CB holes through the draft or possibly still adding a few FAs.
Statman
03-12-2007, 02:31 PM
Think about it. Why the hell do we need the headache of McGahee and his 990 yards all season when we can bring in ALMOST anyone and they can at least match that. I am glad that he is gone so we can move on. And I bet that just about everyone in the locker room is glad he is gone as well.
Yeah, we can get that from anybody, but our rushing offense sucked hind teet last season.

I'm sure that the Raiders and Rhodes will get what they got last year too. So what.

Besides the Jets, can anyone name just one game that McGahee stepped up, took control, and ran us to a win? I can't. In fact I don't think he's had one good game vs. a top defense since he's been with us.

Replacing his production isn't what counts. It's improving on it.
RockStar36
03-12-2007, 02:34 PM
He had more 100 yard games than McGahee anyways. I have a feeling he would have broken 1,200 yards if he actually started all year. McGahee ran when he felt like it. :ill:


Huh??
Michael82
03-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Huh??
yeah, that stat was wrong. He had 1 100-yard game vs McGahee's 2 100-yard games. Wow! and he only started 3 games compared to the 13 that McGahee started. :yawn:
GarnOFreak
03-12-2007, 02:37 PM
How did I miss this? nobody else noticed Kirwan's Mock from the 4th?

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/10056634

Has us taking Peterson with pick 12.
RockStar36
03-12-2007, 02:38 PM
yeah, that stat was wrong. He had 1 100-yard game vs McGahee's 2 100-yard games. Wow! and he only started 3 games compared to the 13 that McGahee started. :yawn:

And A-Trains 100 yard game was against the worst run D in the league.

I agree that Willis didn't give it his all every game and it hurt the team. But I still think Willis is a better RB than A-Train, no doubt about it.
Michael82
03-12-2007, 02:43 PM
And A-Trains 100 yard game was against the worst run D in the league.

I agree that Willis didn't give it his all every game and it hurt the team. But I still think Willis is a better RB than A-Train, no doubt about it.
And McGahee's 2 100-yard games were against the Jets. The only team that he actually shows up for and they also had a pretty pathetic run defense.
Saratoga Slim
03-12-2007, 03:43 PM
How did I miss this? nobody else noticed Kirwan's Mock from the 4th?

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/10056634

Has us taking Peterson with pick 12.

Wow. I've been urging DL with the #12 pick b/c I'm not high on Lynch, but Peterson would be very tough to turn down if he falls.

It IS possible, but I doubt it. Kirwan's analysis makes sense, but if Peterson is a top-5 talent, some team between 5-11 is going to grab him regardless of need. Look at Reggie Bush in NO--they already had McCallister.