Joe Burns Starting Tailback? [Archive] - BillsZone.com

Sennsai

10-09-2002, 05:06 PM

I was and still am one of the few people who believe Burns can be a solid back in the NFL. Granted, I don't put a lot of emphasis on the pre-season, but he didn't do anything to not warrant a chance, especially if the other RB's are a weakness on the team.

Burns doesn't have break away speed. Then again, only Bryson has that, but Bryson can't pound it up the middle. If you ask me(and I am very well aware that GW hasn't done that YET), I would platoon Bryson and Burns. Henry and his fumbles are back breakers. Do I trust Henry with the ball in his hands? No. I think Burns is a better runner to get the yards up the middle for us, than Henry is. Then also factor in Bryson for the sweeps, etc. Possibly play Henry as a 3rd down back, as he is a decent receiver, as long as he can hold onto the ball then.

Bottom line, I know GW won't bench Henry in favor of Burns, but if TH keeps fumbling, he has to do something.

THATHURMANATOR

10-09-2002, 05:07 PM

Well why not sammy morris over Burns?

casdhf

10-09-2002, 05:09 PM

Morris is probably more complete than Burns or Bryson

THATHURMANATOR

10-09-2002, 05:10 PM

I agree!

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 09:06 AM

Is it me, but everytime Buffalo has and injury timeout, Morris is the one their getting off the field. I think Sammy is very talented, but he must be able to get himself off the turf.
Furthermore, I understand that Bryson has the breakaway speed to score long TDs, but most of the time he's getting hit and stopped behind the line. He just doesn't have the natural RB vision or burst to hit the holes. Most of his better carries are outside. We need runners that can stay away from the negative yards and hit the holes between the tackles. Travis Henry can make the first person miss and hit the holes. He is a tough runner. So is Burns for that matter.

10-10-2002, 09:22 AM

"If WYS had his way it would be true!"

Indeed. And if you have yours, we won't have a rushing game until he gets replaced, we'll have an 800-1,000 yd. rusher w/ 7 TDs and 12 fumbles, 9 for losses at year's end.

"As good as Henry..."

That statement has denial written all over it. Unreal.

Longs of 29 and 17 and 16 after that suggest he doesn't have breakaway speed as Judge suggests.

No matter how you slice it, with his "long runs", without, however you want to do it, Henry ranks below average.

Meanwhile, everyone puts so much credence in his game v. the Jets when of all teams, we were the ones that put up the least amount of rushing yards against them.

Yeah, you're all right. Let's just settle for extreme mediocrity, turnovers, and a RB who mostly gets 1, 2, 0 yards or even negative yardage.

That will help us win games!!!

WooHoo!!

Go Travis. Go get yourself another one of those 14 carries for 41 yard games w/ a long run of 22. Gosh, I'm all excited now!

I just can't wait!

:rolleyes:

This is getting old. Let's start talking up how Robinson is the best OLB in the league and start fresh, shall we!

TT, EE, 80,

Come on! Start us off.

10-10-2002, 09:25 AM

P.S. How about not looking at three of his rushing plays and then making the entire analysis on that.

I for one, and I realize just how silly this is, but I firmly believe that what he does on 95% of his carries supercedes what he does on the other couple of percent. Particularly when his best ones aren't all that impressive as "long runs" go.

Earthquake Enyart

10-10-2002, 09:27 AM

You are right about Robinson, Wys. They talked him up, he knows the secret GW defense, blah, blah, blah. Haven't seen him make one play yet.

THATHURMANATOR

10-10-2002, 09:50 AM

I am not big on Robinson either but he really didn't cost all that much.

WYS I am not saying that Henry is playing great but I just am saying that IMO he is the best we have. I also think if they are going to give someone a shot besides Henry it should be Sammy Morris because he runs hard and has good hands out of the backfield.

10-10-2002, 09:50 AM

As opposed to what, the 10 or 15 plays a game that Henry makes?

THATHURMANATOR

10-10-2002, 09:51 AM

You talkin to me?

THATHURMANATOR

10-10-2002, 09:52 AM

WYS who do you think is our best running back???

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 10:10 AM

Whether you like it or not, Henry is the best RB we have.
Bryson couldn't see the hole if it were 30 feet wide and nothing but endzone ahead. He is just not an instinctive runner and has a hard time shedding tacklers. I think he is one dimensional, outside runner.

By the way, there was a reference to Henry's game against the Jets and how people give him too much credit for it.

Bryson's shining moments where last year against the Jets and Falcons. Not much run defense their either.

Judge

10-10-2002, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
Whether you like it or not, Henry is the best RB we have.
Bryson couldn't see the hole if it were 30 feet wide and nothing but endzone ahead. He is just not an instinctive runner and has a hard time shedding tacklers. I think he is one dimensional, outside runner.

I don't think Bryson has been given a sufficient opportunity to allow you to make this conclusion about him. In fact, based on the opportunity he's had I believe he has proven to have killer breakaway speed and a strong ability to stiffarm would-be tacklers to break a 3-yard gain into a 10+yard gain.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 11:24 AM

I'm not talking about breakaway speed, which we all agree he as, or even his stiff arm ability. I'm talking about the burst a RB needs to hit and get through the hole. Bryson doesn't have the quick burst. If you can get him to the outside, he can really get moving and maybe get some good yardage. The one problem with that is that defenses have the speed stop him before he can turn the corner.
In regards to the his stiff arm ability, it doesn't work when he's getting hit at the waist behind the line.

Judge

10-10-2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
I'm not talking about breakaway speed, which we all agree he as, or even his stiff arm ability. I'm talking about the burst a RB needs to hit and get through the hole. Bryson doesn't have the quick burst. If you can get him to the outside, he can really get moving and maybe get some good yardage. The one problem with that is that defenses have the speed stop him before he can turn the corner.
In regards to the his stiff arm ability, it doesn't work when he's getting hit at the waist behind the line.

Well, I disagree. I don't think Bryson has been given a sufficient opportunity to make those conclusions about him, and has in fact shown otherwise over the course of the few chances he's had.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 12:05 PM

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Great discussion though.

10-10-2002, 01:33 PM

That isn't the question here TT.

How many times and in how many ways can I say that?!?

The question is:

"Is our running game effective?"

And if not, which it obviously isn't, except to those who idolize Henry, then what can be done about it?

As to who our best back is, IDK. Neither do you!!

Have you seen Burns run in the NFL? I haven't. Neither have you.

Have you seen Bryson in games where he's gotten more than 15 carries as you say is not enough to determine how good Henry is?

A: Not really. He's had 16 or more carries three (3) times!!

In those three games he was:

19 for 82
16 for 130
28 for 107

for a total of:

63 for 319 yards and 5.1 YPC.

Other than the Jets game this year, Henry has had 16 or more carries in seven (7) games.

In those 7 games he was:

22 for 58
17 for 30
19 for 113
27 for 63
16 for 51
19 for 97
27 for 101

for a total of:

147 for 513 and a 3.5 YPC.

So you tell me there TT!

Do you REALLY think that Bryson's been given a shot?
If so, then why do you think he sucks, b/c based on games where he's truly been handed the start, he's responded well.

Is Henry more powerful up the middle? Yes, I think he is.

BUT, and this is a HUGE "but", he has trouble finding holes even when they're RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. That was painfully obvious last week v. Oakland. Get a copy of the tape, I'll PROVE it to ya!

Bryson has his strengths. Henry has his. I'm sure Burns has a few too.

But what we KNOW is that Henry is inconsistent. Would Bryson be that inconsistent? We don't know. But all this nonsense of everyone KNOWING that Burns or Bryson couldn't do any better is ridiculous. I mean really. You guys are talkin' out of your poop shoots. :D Those statements saying Burns and Bryson suck or couldn't do any better are founded on NOTHING!! Literally.

I find it difficult to believe that most RBs in this league couldn't average what Henry has, even w/ the two or three long runs he's had out of over 80 carries in there. As far as RBs in this league go, he's not nearly even average, or so he's demonstrating.

I just don't understand how we have so many mystical maharishi's who can see the future here! Then you tell me the coaches know what they're doing! Really? Then why are we quite a bit worse on D this year? Why is our rushing game, even though we made MASSIVE improvements on our OL and have been virtually injury free this season, so crappy?

Why are we giving up almost 10 more PPG than we did last year?

Is this all b/c the coaches know what they're doing?

If you had any intellectual honesty here, you would at least admit that Bryson has performed well when given the job solely! You'd have no other choice. If after that you want to say that it's YOUR OPINION that he couldn't keep that up, then feel free to say that. But in the meantime, be honest w/ yourself and everyone else here and at least admit the FACTS/TRUTH, that namely we have barely seen Bryson in a F/T role and we haven't seen Burns at all.

Morris on the other hand also hasn't been given much of a chance. But in the one game that he was given 19 carries, he responded w/ less than a 3.0 YPC avg.

Bust on the stats all you want, but the reason you give the ball to the RBs is so that you can GAIN yards. Not just be able to look at your hero carry the ball and appease your sense of favoritism and bias. Henry isn't doing that! Certainly not in any way that suggests he's good at it.

I will say this though; that given a sweep I'd take Bryson over Henry any day of the week. Bryson clearly has so much more speed around the corners than Henry hands down! As to up the middle, IMO the runner who hits the holes best is better than one who has more "power" but doesn't hit the holes.

Cordially.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Judge

Well, I disagree. I don't think Bryson has been given a sufficient opportunity to make those conclusions about him, and has in fact shown otherwise over the course of the few chances he's had.

I'm playing devil's advocate here...

Don't you think Bryson had ample opportunity to prove himself the last 2 off-seasons?

10-10-2002, 01:45 PM

NC,

Welcome to BillsZone!!! Good to have ya here. Nice posts.

Now... :D

"Bryson's shining moments where last year against the Jets and Falcons. Not much run defense their either."

The bottom line is that EVERY time, while he's been on the Bills, when he's been "given the nod" and had at least 16 carries, he HAS responded. To then turn around and say that all of a sudden he can't or isn't going to do the same, is simply and purely baseless and whereever the statement is coming from, based SOLELY on opinion devoid of any kind of hard facts. That's all there is to it.

BTW, did anyone ever think that if we did put Bryson in there, w/ his ability to take the corner much more quickly and effectively than Henry, if we incorporated sweeps into our arsenal of offense, don't some of you think that might open up the middle some?

In any case, I somehow doubt that in those good games that he had, none of those yards were up the middle. And to suggest that last year's OL, in any game, were as good as this years, is simply laughable!

Also, you make arguments that are what, supposed to dismiss Bryson's performances based on the caliber of opponents?? OK! You're right. His games were against Atlanta and the Jets who had the 21st and 28th rushing Ds.

Well, can you now admit that since Henry's only two hundred yard games last year should be discredited as well based on the same EXACT criteria since his were against the Jets as well at 28th and then Carolina at DEAD LAST, 31st in the league??? This is what I mean! You dismiss Bryson on one criteria and then go on to explain why that criteria doesn't apply to Henry. It's intellectually dishonest! THIS year it was against a team also DEAD LAST and currently on pace to set an NFL record for most rushing yards allowed in a season as well as on a per-game basis at near 200 YPG allowed!

In any case, if you dismiss those games as you've done for Bryson, then in 18 starts now Henry hasn't had one single rushing game over 100 yards. NOT ONE!

So how good is he again???

Earthquake Enyart

10-10-2002, 01:48 PM

We saw Bryson try to take the corner a few times against the Bears when he was in and TH was benched with no success. I don't think this OL can block for a sweep. At least they haven't yet.

10-10-2002, 01:52 PM

"Don't you think Bryson had ample opportunity to prove himself the last 2 off-seasons?"

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in these threads!

By what? Playing pick-up street Hoops down here in D.C.!

:rolleyes:

Offseason!

The last time I checked, the only way to find out how good you are is by playing in games. He has had the opportunity to be the primary ball-carrier only 2 or 3 times while w/ the Bills and he's made the most of those opportunities by averaging 5.1 YPC and by having 2 games over 100 out of 3.

This argument is ridiculous. The entire sports media acknowledges that Henry is struggling and that we need a fix. And here are some Bills fans in total denial, suggesting that 3.5 YPC, 1 fumble for a TD, and 1 or 2 moderately long runs w/ absolutely no other performance out of our starting RB, w/ 80% of his carries being for between -2 and +2 yards, is GOOD!

Whatever! If that's really what you guys think, then let's just drop this.

Meanwhile, Bryson, even though he's played FAR better than Henry in games in which he's started, and Burns who's never set foot onto a football field as a starter, at least not in the NFL, are dismissed as worse than Henry.

Frankly, I'm not sure it gets that much worse than Henry and the way he's played over the past 4 games on average! Truly. 90% of the RBs in the league can get 3.5 YPC. It's ridiculous.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
"Don't you think Bryson had ample opportunity to prove himself the last 2 off-seasons?"

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in these threads!

By what? Playing pick-up street Hoops down here in D.C.!

:rolleyes:

Offseason!

Pardon my wording. I meant pre-season. Training Camp, etc.

10-10-2002, 01:54 PM

If Henry struggles v. the Texans and GW/KG don't replace him, w/ JR if necesary, I don't care, then they're gonna look like the idiots who didn't think Priest Holmes and Dilfer could play at Baltimore.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 01:55 PM

I did make clear that I was rebutting Judge's post about Bryson not getting a chance. So Wy are you arguing with me?

10-10-2002, 01:58 PM

Henry sure didn't do anything in the preseason. So why is HE starting then. He SUCKED except for 4 or 5 runs v. Minnesota.

So if that's the reasoning, then at least apply it to Henry too then.

And if you want to count the preseason, then Henry has had 1 good game in 9 this year.

Let's face it, he's got issues and is VERY average. To disprove that, he'll have to have more than a 100 yard game v. a scrub team when we're leading by 21 points.

But that's what he'll do. We'll go up by 20 in the third and he'll get the carries and have 100+. Then it will start again, how marvelous he is while for the next 5 games he can't run again.

We're all fans of this team. I just don't understand this irrational emotional argument suggesting we force a square peg into a round hole. Same on D.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
If Henry struggles v. the Texans and GW/KG don't replace him, w/ JR if necesary, I don't care, then they're gonna look like the idiots who didn't think Priest Holmes and Dilfer could play at Baltimore.

Guy. Why are you trying to flame on the hardcore board? Try to bring something "controversial" on the twilight zone. Maybe a nice abortion post will ruffle a few feathers.

What is going to happen is you will start to annoy posters and bait them into a fight. Then they will be banned. Like realistic and Ryan Butch, the list can go on and on.

I've received more than a few personal e-mails from friends who like me, are tired of your tireless twisted stat-infested logic deprived rants.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 02:00 PM

He's still a better RB than Bryson. That really bothers you, doesn't it. I just like to fire you up.

I will agree that he hasn't had the chance that you eluded to, but
he does need to stop pussy footing around in the backfield and just hit the hole.

Anyway, I guess I just favor Henry over Bryson.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Buffalo to trade Bryson (preseason). I just prefer the north-south RBs over sweep and beat them to the corner RBs.

10-10-2002, 02:01 PM

B/c Bryson HASN'T been given a chance.

Again, and you won't do it, neither has anyone else;

Name the games where Bryson's been "given a chance"!

Just name them. I already did and in those games he performed as well as we could ask any runningback to perform! What more do you want. 5 TDs and 300 yards?

Anyway, if as you say, and others as well, get your collective heads together and lay out which games it is that he's been given a chance.

Then, secondly, lay out the criteria on which you base that.

Thirdly, I'll then name the games that Henry's had the SAME opportunity and you then tell me which performed better!

Fair enough?!? If not, then I don't know what could be more fair.

Aside: Here's the part where others start into a tirade about how stats this and stats that..., blah, blah, blah...!

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 02:09 PM

"And here are some Bills fans in total denial, suggesting that 3.5 YPC, 1 fumble for a TD, and 1 or 2 moderately long runs w/ absolutely no other performance out of our starting RB, w/ 80% of his carries being for between -2 and +2 yards, is GOOD! "

Correction, I believe Henry has had 2 fumbles for TDs not 1.

Wasn't the TD receipt in OT good enough for you to even like Henry a little bit?

10-10-2002, 02:10 PM

NC,

If we're stuck w/ Henry for several years, then you had better resign yourself to the notion that our rushing game is gonna be less than average. We have a good enough team and an oustanding QB that forces teams to not stuff the box in general that it should be taking enough heat off the running game such that we should at least be able to put up some average games. Instead we're well below average at 27th in the league and can't even put up 80 YPG rushing.

That's sad. It also shouldn't be the case given the circumstances.

BFO,

Sorry. How about just answering the questions and for once simply justifying this position that Henry's other than very average (at best), while Bryson has proven that he can't run, and Burns sucks.

Again, not too much to ask. At this point, we're being blindly asked, by you and others, to simply accept the notion that we have the best we're gonna have and that's it.

It's funny, as soon as I, or anyone else, asks for some validation of the arguments, the personal insults fly. I'm simply attacking the posts. Not you or anyone else personally. If my challenging the coaches bothers you, I don't know what to say.

But IMO they're not doing a very good job this year. Our D is far WORSE than it was last year. So is our rushing game. Can you imagine if Drew gets hurt? We'll go from 1st in passing to near last w/ VP in there. Then what? We rely on Henry to rally us.

;)

I really don't think I'm asking too much. If you feel that my line of reasoning is incessant, then SIMPLY support your position, and that of many others, w/ FACTS. Do it and I'll go away. It's really that simple.

10-10-2002, 02:12 PM

NC, if Henry hadn't fumbled in that game to begin with, we wouldn't have been in O/T. We could just as well have lost. Then it would have been PURELY Henry's fault just as it was in the Denver game.

I meant 1 fumble per game. which is what he's had and on pace to set NFL records I believe.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 02:14 PM

That would be quite a dubious record.
I just thought I would lighten it up a bit.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:15 PM

Yeah the D is playing poorly. Everyone agrees.

We haven't ran the ball that much. Everyone agrees.

We are putting up close to 33 points a game. Therefore, the running game's ineffectiveness is a moot point.

Get it?

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 02:19 PM

I still think we need to devote ourselves to establishing the running game. We need to keep the D off the field. If we need a quick score, then release the hounds, but I'm in favor of long, time consuming, grind it out TD drives. Which is dependant on the running game. It may not be glamorous, but if we can start to run it, our weakest link, the defense, can't give up more points.

10-10-2002, 02:20 PM

I guess I just dont' understand why some, many, simply don't want to at least try some other options.

What? Are we a playoff team? Hardly! So what are we gonna lose? We gonna finish 5-11 instead of 6-10? We gonna have 5 yards less rushing in a game?

I don't see why all the aversion to trying something, anything, else. But to suggest and insist that Henry's playing anything other than poor-fair football for a RB is to deny the facts.

Let's see how he does this Sunday. But IMO a 100 yard game is practically expected here. Dallas had well over 100 as did S.D. Edge had 25 carries for 88 yards and that was with Manning only tossing for 272 and 2 TDs. So I would think that if Henry is any good at all, he can do at least 25 for 88. Ie., if he doesn't put up at least 90 yards on at minimum a 3.5 YPC avg. then we need to look into other options.

10-10-2002, 02:23 PM

"We are putting up close to 33 points a game. Therefore, the running game's ineffectiveness is a moot point."

It isn't moot. We're 2-3! If we had any semblance of a running game and a RB who could get 3, 4, 5 yards on a regular basis, which Henry cannot, then we would have won more games by controlling the clock and giving our offense some MUCH needed balance.

If you think we're gonna score 30-some points each and every week and that Drew is gonna pitch 300 plus and 3 TDs each week, then you're foolin' yourself. I'm in good company in the sports media w/ that line of reasoning.

We obviously can't rely on TOs to help us since we don't/can't force any. Drew can't do it all each and every week. He simply can't.

Get it? ;)

10-10-2002, 02:24 PM

BTW, "poorly" isn't the word. I'm not sure there is one that describes exactly how the D is playing. But "poorly" understates the matter somewhat fiercely.

:D

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
I still think we need to devote ourselves to establishing the running game. We need to keep the D off the field. If we need a quick score, then release the hounds, but I'm in favor of long, time consuming, grind it out TD drives. Which is dependant on the running game. It may not be glamorous, but if we can start to run it, our weakest link, the defense, can't give up more points.

Agreed.

But we haven't been doing too poorly in the time of possession game. Almost equal.

Jets 21:06
Bills 39:08

Bills 30:23
Vikings 39:49

Bills 27:13
Denver 32:47

Bears 29:04
Bills 32:54

Raiders 28:28
Bills 31:32

10-10-2002, 02:26 PM

NC,

You got it. That's exactly right. There isn't at team in the history of the league that entered they playoffs and had as it's only strength a passing game while simultaneously having a bottom 5 rushing game and a dead last or near it, D.

It just doesn't happen. Actually, to the contrary. Many teams w/ no passing game to speak of and only a solid rush O and solid D have made the POs and performed well.

10-10-2002, 02:27 PM

BFO,

Now, think about how much better we'd do w/ any semblance of a rushing game!

We would have dominated games, kept ourselves out of O/T, and won v. the Broncos and the Jets.

Earthquake Enyart

10-10-2002, 02:32 PM

Five posts out of 6. Five minute major.

Why don't you just edit the old post to add more "fill"? When you post 3 times in a row and 5 out of 6, you look like a lunatic.

Relax.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
BFO,

Now, think about how much better we'd do w/ any semblance of a rushing game!

We would have dominated games, kept ourselves out of O/T, and won v. the Broncos and the Jets.

We faced some of the top rushing defenses.

Look what we did against the Jets. We ran all over them. And guess what? We lost!!!! The running game isn't the only answer.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 02:42 PM

It's not the only answer, but it will help by keep the defense off the field. They can't hurt us if their not playing.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:49 PM

True, but maybe that's not our greatest strength. I'm looking at it as 6 of one half a dozen of another.

Maybe we wouldn't be able to put up that many points with a running game. Maybe keeping the other team off the field would make them score less. But what good is that if we can't put up the points to match?

There is no simple answer...

10-10-2002, 02:50 PM

"Look what we did against the Jets. We ran all over them. And guess what? We lost!!!! The running game isn't the only answer."

We gave up 2 return TDs.

What's your point anyway?

You gonna answer the above questions?

EE,

"Why don't you just edit the old post to add more "fill"? When you post 3 times in a row and 5 out of 6, you look like a lunatic."

I am a lunatic! :evil:

Why don't you just answer my questions and put up some support for your arguments?

Can't do it, can ya! (Psst: the evidence doesn't exist. There is none that supports the notion that Bryson or Burns wouldn't do any better and/or that Henry is anything other than less than average as NFL RBs go.)

Still waiting nonetheless. BFO just completely gave up w/o any sort of a fight at all. As anticipated, disappointed nonetheless.

Shameful. :D

:evil:

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:51 PM

BTW, I favor a running game too. But I don't want to sacrifice 33 points a game. The only time a passing game kills you is when you go for back to back to back 3 and outs.

10-10-2002, 02:53 PM

It's a well-known fact that you won't go anywhere in the NFL w/ only a passing game. Especially in an outdoor stadium when the weather goes downhill.

The play of the D has little if anything to do w/ the notion that Henry isn't being productive.

10-10-2002, 02:53 PM

The idea is to have Henry play well to help the D.

Not the D play well to rest Henry and make him play well.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
"Look what we did against the Jets. We ran all over them. And guess what? We lost!!!! The running game isn't the only answer."

We gave up 2 return TDs.

What's your point anyway?

You gonna answer the above questions?

Sure.

We gave up 2 return TDs. Right. We should have won. Just like we should be 5-0 if our d could have stopped the other teams.

This line of questioning is going similar to your "take the longest runs away" assessment.

The bottom line is the O is performing outstanding. Our D (and special teams in the Jets case) is letting us down. A simple “sustained running game” won’t help patch that up.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
The play of the D has little if anything to do w/ the notion that Henry isn't being productive.

Who implied that?

Did you know that we have played some of the top run defenses. Besides the Jets. So maybe the gameplans were to pass.

Lets see what we do against Houston. Should be interesting. I predict more running. Since they are #22 rush D.

Earthquake Enyart

10-10-2002, 03:05 PM

2 in a row....
Easy BF1, easy.

10-10-2002, 03:06 PM

"The bottom line is the O is performing outstanding. Our D (and special teams in the Jets case) is letting us down. A simple “sustained running game” won’t help patch that up."

A good, solid rushing game allows a team to keep the other team's O off the field. That's quite a bit.

A good, solid rushing game, when coupled w/ the kind of passing game that we have, would place us in the "best offense in the league" category. As of now we aren't close w/o it.

A good solid rushing game allows the team that has it the ability to control the clock much better than a team w/o it.

A good, solid rushing game keeps your own defense off the field so that they're much better rested when they're on it. In our case, that would be huge since we apparently have no talent or any sort of schemes that take advantage of the talent we do have. At least if our D were well rested, they might be able to make up for some of that late in games by being fresh.

You sorely underestimate the value of a good solid rushing game, and one that we don't possess.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 03:12 PM

Another thing: When you have a solid running, you can control the clock to preserve a win. There's nothing more frustrating to a defense than being behind and knowing a team is going to run and you can't stop them or stop the clock.

LtBillsFan66

10-10-2002, 03:19 PM

We haven't had too many opportunities to "preserve a win" yet. We have been mostly coming from behind.

Lets see how we do against teams with not so great run defenses.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by BillsFanOne

I'm playing devil's advocate here...

Don't you think Bryson had ample opportunity to prove himself the last 2 off-seasons?

Yeah, and he's done pretty well. Well enough to merit more playing time in the regular season. And his regular season play shows he deserves a better chance at a bigger role in the offense.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
He's still a better RB than Bryson. That really bothers you, doesn't it. I just like to fire you up.

I will agree that he hasn't had the chance that you eluded to, but
he does need to stop pussy footing around in the backfield and just hit the hole.

Anyway, I guess I just favor Henry over Bryson.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Buffalo to trade Bryson (preseason). I just prefer the north-south RBs over sweep and beat them to the corner RBs.

You just said it: you favor Henry over Bryson. That's why you think Henry's a "better RB".

Analytically looking at them, there's no way to conclusively decide that Henry's clearly better.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 03:32 PM

So. I never said anything about being analytical.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
So. I never said anything about being analytical.

Exactly- so you should back off your assertion that Henry is better, and just say it truthfully- that you prefer Henry over Bryson and that it's based on subjectivity rather than any real basis.

That's OK- you're entitled to your opinion. But I think you have to be honest about it- Henry has not yet shown this overwhelming talent that would make him a clear #1 choice over Bryson. And Bryson has shown more than enough ability to be given a fair shot at taking Henry's job away from him.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 03:39 PM

I won't say that. I don't think Bryson is the instinctive runner that Henry is.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
I won't say that. I don't think Bryson is the instinctive runner that Henry is.

And that's based on your subjective view. That's OK- like I said, you're entitled to that view, just as I am that Bryson in his limited opportunity has shown great potential and maybe more than Henry has overall.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 03:45 PM

I don't know about GREAT potential, maybe just potential fits.

I don't have any problem with giving him an opportunity. I just don't think he's the answer.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44
I don't know about GREAT potential, maybe just potential fits.

I don't have any problem with giving him an opportunity. I just don't think he's the answer.

We don't know unless he gets the opportunity. And I think he's shown enough that he could be the answer.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Judge

We don't know unless he gets the opportunity. And I think he's shown enough that he could be the answer.

Tell me again, what he's shown that he could be the answer.
Just asking. I'm just not overly impressed.

doug45

10-10-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by THATHURMANATOR
Well why not sammy morris over Burns?

I would really like to see Sammy Morris get a chance. I think he could help us a great deal.

Judge

10-10-2002, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44

Tell me again, what he's shown that he could be the answer.
Just asking. I'm just not overly impressed.

He's shown breakaway speed, ability to get around the corner on a pitch/sweep, good pass catching ability, an ability to gain some tough yardage, and from my recollection has been able to pick up a blitz in pass protection.

In short, he's shown all elements of having the potential to be a complete RB. I'm not saying he's a hall-of-famer, but I am saying he deserves a shot at seeing how good he can be, just as much as Henry does.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Judge

He's shown breakaway speed, ability to get around the corner on a pitch/sweep, good pass catching ability, an ability to gain some tough yardage, and from my recollection has been able to pick up a blitz in pass protection.

In short, he's shown all elements of having the potential to be a complete RB.

Ok.
I'll give you breakaway speed, the corner and even pass catching.
I'm not sure about the tough yards. I recall him being taken down pretty quickly and getting run through trying to block. I believe the announce said 'see how ????? exploded through the blocker'. The blocker being Bryson. Maybe you've seen some things that I haven't.

I'd like to see him run through traffic, not outside, and get through some tackles up the middle. Those are the tough yards.
I hope he can. That would be great for the team.

Judge

10-10-2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by NC-BILLS44

Ok.
I'll give you breakaway speed, the corner and even pass catching.
I'm not sure about the tough yards. I recall him being taken down pretty quickly and getting run through trying to block. I believe the announce said 'see how ????? exploded through the blocker'. The blocker being Bryson. Maybe you've seen some things that I haven't.

I recall him picking up some tough yards against the Bears, and picking up multiple blitzes in that game. That's my recollection.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 04:07 PM

Great discussion!!!! I'll pick up later.

10-10-2002, 04:11 PM

BFO,

"We haven't had too many opportunities to "preserve a win" yet. We have been mostly coming from behind."

Speaking of which, if Henry hadn't fumbled for a TD in that game, we'd have been up either 20 or 24-0 and we'd have had a game in which to preserve a win. Instead, Henry fumbles, yet again, and we keep the Bears in the game via momentum and confidence.

10-10-2002, 04:17 PM

NC,

"tough yards?"

You think Henry's been getting the tough yards????

That's crazy. The tough yards is my entire point. Henry busts out 2 or 3 moderately long runs and then CAN'T get the "tough yards" when we really need them!

Since when is Henry deft at getting the tough yards? He isn't!

That's the point of this entire exercise. It's all in your head. Like Judge says, you subjectively harbor this unfounded viewpoint, not only you but EE, TT, 76777, etal., and that Henry is better in spite of the fact that he doesn't get the tough yards regardless of what the lipservice is.

What is so difficult to understand about that. Having a 1.5 or 2.0 YPC avg. is NOT getting the tough yards. How many 3rd's and 1 can you have.

I'll do a little analysis on Henry and how many times he gets the first down on 5 or less to go....

BRB...

:D

Kelly The Dog

10-10-2002, 04:32 PM

How about the fact that both offensive coordinators chose Henry over Bryson. How about the fact that the earlier regime never chose Bryson either. How about the fact that at the same school that Henry went to, Bryson the tailback was turned into a fullback because he wasn't going to be first OR second string as a TB, the same school that Henry is the all-time leading rusher in during the same time period. How about the fact that Bryson has never played four games in a row as a full-time running back in his life, unless you count high school. How about the fact that after Henry fumbled four games in a row and every coach in their right mind would have benched him for the rest of the game, Bryson did nothing, fumbled himself, and the coaches felt they HAD to get Henry back in their to win, put him in and immediately the offense clicked and he scored the game winning TD. How about the fact that Bryson has never beat out a back for a starting position on any team he has been on for any coach or system. And I LIKE Bryson! It's so clear to me, and apparently every coach that has ever coached Henry or Bryson, that Henry is the better back.

Novacane

10-10-2002, 04:33 PM

Wys.....why do you hate travis henry?

10-10-2002, 04:34 PM

Over the past 4 weeks, on downs where Henry carried the ball w/ 5 or fewer yards to go, he got the first down, "tough yards" on 5 of 11 plays while fumbling once.

So much for Henry getting the "tough yards." Eh!

10-10-2002, 04:41 PM

Kelly,

How 'bout the FACT that Henry more times than not, has less than 3 YPC?

How 'bout the FACT that Henry's YPC average is a shoddy 3.5

How 'bout the FACT that he leads the league in fumbles AND fumbles lost?

How 'bout the FACT that he's contributing little right now to our offense?

Do those things factor into your analysis???

I guess you agreed w/ the Ravens' coaches for letting Priest Holmes and Dilfer go simply b/c they're coaches!

And I suppose you applaud GW and the "coaches" for taking an abysmal defense from last year and humiliating us even further by making it the WORST in the league this year allowing 10 more PPG and oodles of yards, in spite of talent upgrades at DB and LB!

Apparently you have quite the confidence in the coaching staff, eh!

I'm starting to lose mine. It's reasoning like yours that's gonna keep us in the basement for a couple of years.

B2R46,

"Wys.....why do you hate travis henry?"

I told you, I have nothing against him. He simply isn't getting the job done!

Why do you LOVE him in spite of his glaring inability to provide effective rushing for this team other than v. the absolute worst of rush Ds??

Novacane

10-10-2002, 04:44 PM

I don't love him WYs. I just think the bears game proved he is the best RB on this team. When he was out our O stalled.

I'd love to upgrade the posistion but it ain't gonna happen with what we have on the bench.

10-10-2002, 04:48 PM

B2R46,

Posted by you:

"As long as we win I don't care if TH gets 35 yards on 20 carries!"

Again, and you think that would be part of why we would win a game???

You then necessarily think that Bryson couldn't do that, rush for a 1.75 YPC avg.? Or Burns?

You would then insist on keeping Henry in there for his "big plays" and "tough yards", eh!

Again, why do you LOVE Henry???

10-10-2002, 04:49 PM

There's absolutely no other reason in the world why such a performance, and one that's not uncommon for Henry, would warrant defending his role as a starter. None!

Yet, you continue to do it....

True love I say...

B2R46 :pet: Henry

BillC

10-10-2002, 04:49 PM

Wys is a bigger bag of wind than Rush Limbaugh.

He will paint any picture he wants with any stat he wants....

10-10-2002, 04:50 PM

10-10-2002, 04:51 PM

And of course you and the other Henry defenders won't put up any to defend your own arguments or any to prove your point that Bryson is incapable of doing the job.

GEE! I wonder why that is...

;)

Ooh! Mr. Kotter, I know, I know...

Kelly The Dog

10-10-2002, 05:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wys Guy
[B]Kelly,

How 'bout the FACT that Henry more times than not, has less than 3 YPC?

How 'bout the FACT that Henry's YPC average is a shoddy 3.5

How 'bout the FACT that he leads the league in fumbles AND fumbles lost?

How 'bout the FACT that he's contributing little right now to our offense?

Do those things factor into your analysis???

No, you're wrong about the more times than not 3YPC. He's played in 18 games and 10 are more than 3 and 8 are less than three.

No, you're wrong about the shoddy 3.5. Last year for the season it was 3.4 and this year it is an above average 4.1 for a total of 3.6 and rising

Yes, he leads the league in fumbles after five games. He lost three. The first one was at midfield and the Jets punted right back. The second one at Denver hurt us. Third one he came back later and scored the game winning TD. I think he fumbles too much too but the fact is that only one has hurt us so far.

Your last statement is so rdiculous I shouldn't even comment but I will. Your comment is NOT a FACT, it is an opinion, a minority opinion at that, and I guess being in the top ten in rushing, second in the league in touchdowns, and on a pace for 1500 yards from scrimmage, 64 receptions, a 4.1 yard average and 19 touchdowns, one of the best years ever for a Bills running back, is not contributing to the team.

10-10-2002, 05:16 PM

How many mediocre games is it gonna take all of you who insist on keeping Henry in there to finally say enough is enough, let's try something different???

How many?

Give us a number. B/c as of now, since we don't play any more teams that allow almost 200 YPG, presumably Henry won't do any more than he's done over the past 4 weeks. Especially if we have a few injuries, which we've been EXTREMELY fortunate not to have had, on the OL.

If he continues to play "as well as he has", he'll have the following stats at the end of the season:

868 yards
11 TDs (3 of which occurred in the Jets game)
a 3.8 YPC avg.
13 fumbles
9 LOST fumbles
2 yards or less, no gain, or negative yardage on ~ 50% of his runs
3 yards or less, no gain, or negative yardage on over 50% of his runs

That's what we'll end up with. And on a team that's taking the heat off of the rushing game the way that Drew is, there's no excuse for that and he has to bear a portion of the blame.

The fact that he can't seem to gain more than 2 yards, often negative or no gain on significantly more than 50% of his carries is abysmal enough.

Wouldn't you say?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, Henry for the Pro-Bowl...!!

At least he leads the league in something now and probably will at season's end; fumbles and fumbles lost.

Boy, I sure feel better.

I've laid this out in just about every way imaginable. I have absolutely no hope that Henry will ever be more than a second-string RB unless he somehow "bursts forth" over the next 4 games before the bye week. Barring that, I don't care what we do after the break other than starting Henry.

I'd like to have a winning team on the field for game 1 next year. Not a team that we need to tweak for 6 weeks while going 2-4 while GW figures out what he should have figured out this year.

I've been extremely vocal on what was a common sense issue since last year; fix the DL or it's gonna cost us up to 5 games. It has. Yet GW and the coaches begged to differ and sold us up the river by insisting that we had all the talent to make this blasted 46 work. In fact, it's the WORST Bills D EVER so far. We're on pace to give up almost 600 points! So if the coaches are so daggoned intelligent, why on earth have we regressed since last season defensively. Last year we were on the field for 60% of the game w/ our D. This year it's more even. YET, we're giving up almost 10 PPG more!

So if the question is is GW and the coaches doing the right thing re: Henry, I'll stand by my position that he needs to be replaced. With what, I don't care right now, but since Bryson has played well in ALL games in which he's had more than 16 carries, I certainly think he's earned at least a shot in the midst of all of Henry's dire failures and abysmal performances.

Kelly The Dog

10-10-2002, 05:21 PM

It's simply amazing that you just discount a whole game, the players best game, to prove your point with the reasoning that we dont play any more teams that give up a ton of yards on the ground like that when we even PLAY THAT SAME TEAM AGAIN. Nor do you ever respond to the 35,367 times people prove your distorted stats wrong.

10-10-2002, 05:49 PM

See, here's part of the problem Kelly, I said 3 YPC, NOT a 3 YPC avg.

In FACT, OVER 50% of Henry's runs over the past 4 games have gone for 3 yards, 2 yards, 1 yard, no gain, or negative yardage. That's a fact.

Over half! Still think that's good?

Again, referring to the past 4 games since we don't play any Ds that give up 200 yards rushing in a game, he's averaged a hearty hi-ho 3.75 YPC. Again, that's w/ the help of one long 29 yarder or he's down around 3.25 YPC.

The fumbles speak for themselves. He, Henry, cost us the game v. Denver and almost cost us the game v. Chicago and for sure kept them in the game w/ his early fumble. Enough said there.

Lastly, my statement wasn't ridiculous. What is ridiculous is thinking that Travis is going to have another game like he did v. the Jets when we don't play another D that bad or that he'll even have another game over 100 yards other than perhaps v. Cincy or Detroit. He sure won't do it more than once, possibly twice v. Miami, N.E., G.B., S.D., K.C., and I don't think he's gonna do it htis week either.

You place so much emphasis on that Jets game. Henry started in the top 3 after that Jets game and has fallen every single week since. Why is that do you suppose? Coaching I'm sure!

He's NOT in the top 10 now, and several other backs behind him have only played 4 games and are sure to catch him where he is now with their 5th. If you look at Henry's average over the past 4 games he wouldn't even make the top 28 RBs and would be behind such marvelous RBs as Pittman, Jamal White, and Michael Bennett.

I know you won't see this realistically until it hits you right between the eyes, but that's OK. Better late than never though as long as it's this season.

10-10-2002, 05:52 PM

"It's simply amazing that you just discount a whole game, the players best game, to prove your point with the reasoning that we dont play any more teams that give up a ton of yards on the ground like that when we even PLAY THAT SAME TEAM AGAIN. Nor do you ever respond to the 35,367 times people prove your distorted stats wrong."

I'm using his most recent games and discounting that against which he played what is shaping up nicely as the worst Rushing Defense of all time!

Naturally, you don't find it even slightly "amazing" at all that you are "discounting 4 games" in making your assessments, do you?

:lol: that is pretty funny!

Like I said, and unfortunately for you, 8 of the 11 games that we play are on the opposite end of the spectrum rush D wise from the Jets. Even the other three games, Cincy, Houston, and Detroit are not nearly that bad.

At the by week let's see how your numbers compare! Let's see if Henry's anywhere near the top 10. Let's see if he can stop fumbling. Let's see if starts being consistent. Let's see if in fact he's even still starting.

The coaching staff isn't, I hope, gonna wait forever. But w/ this crew, you never know. Fitting the square peg to the round hole seems to be the favorite management style and coaching approach.

Maybe we can call it the Square Peg Rushing Offense!

Kelly The Dog

10-10-2002, 06:02 PM

No, wrong again. I said the ridiculous statement was ridiculous because you discounted the JET game in your stats and said we dont play any more teams that bad but we play the JETS AGAIN. That's how stupid and ridiculous that statement is.

And I didnt discount the last four games, I counted all the games he played like everyone else on the planet does when talking about season statistics. And if he keeps up this pace, with 340 yards after 5 games, which is an average of 68 yards a game times 16 games, that is 1088 yards. And 4.1 yards a carry. He's also caught 20 passes for 150 more yards which would be 64 CATCHES for 480 more yards. He's scored 6 touchdowns in 5 games which would give him 19. Even though he certainly needs to hang onto the ball better he hasn't dropped a pass yet and he has been blocking very well on blitz pick-ups.

RedEyE

10-10-2002, 06:37 PM

It may just be me, but it seems ridiculous to only blame Henry for the reason the Bills are amounting low rushing yards. There are more things to consider before assesing accusations.
Is the OL blameless? The sacks continue to stack up. Granted it's not nearly like it was last season, but the #s seem higher each game.

What about effective play calling? It should not be discounted that Henry posted over 100 yards and 3 TDS against the NYJ in week 1. Infact, it should prove his potential as a feature back in Buffalo. The low rushing #s posted in weeks 2 - 5 can only be attributed to poor play calling. After week 1 Gilbride has gone into each game calling in an average of only 16 rushing plays per game. The real question here is why would KG consider that when he obviously knows that Henry can carry the load? The more you pass the ball the higher the probability in sacks and turnovers. Henry was on mark to break a hundred against Oakland, the #1 rush defense in the league. Instead, KG continued to make Bledsoe throw the football (an exact total of 53 times). I'd be really interested to see the play calling percentages from Gilbride's coaching past. Specifically the pass to run percentages.

Furthermore, Henry has also improved vastly in his ability to catch the ball. This attribute alone makes him more of an asset then any of the back ups. Henry is currently tied for second place in total TDs along side such backs as Lamar Smith, Charlie Garner, and Shaun Alexander. All of them 4TDs below Priest Holmes.

Henry's fumbles were a concern, but he proved last week against Oakland that he has made the appropriate strides to correct that problem. Remember, in his rookie season he only amounted for 5 fumbles all year. He certainly hasn't been known for continuosly losing the ball prior to the begining of this season.

NC-BILLS44

10-10-2002, 08:18 PM

Interesting stat.

Henry 82 carries 4 fumbles. 1 fumble per 20+ attempts
Bryson 13 carries 1 fumble. 1 fumble per 13 attempts
HMMM

Henry 82 carries 340 yds - 4.1 YPC
Bryson 13 carries 35 yds - 2.7 YPC

Not to mention Bryson's multiple negative carries in the Bears game. Yes. I just reviewed the tape again. Bryson was going nowhere. Not long after one of his missed reads, regarding th line blocks, he was out of there. The play I'm talking about looked like D. Moore missed a block on the outside. But, after checking it out, the hole was up the middle and Bryson didn't hit it. He decided to go outside, right into the defender.

10-10-2002, 10:00 PM

You guys crack me up!

Don't forget to add that Henry's fumble was returned, for the second time this season, for a TD and that the reason he fumbled was b/c he was loosely holding the ball which was plainly evident for anyone wishing to see it. Bryson was holding on tight and the LB hit him right where the ball was in a conscious attempt to jar it out.

This is romper-room polemics!

My dad can kick your dad's butt...

:D

Let's see how your hero does on Sunday. It would be courteous of you all to suggest when we do something different. If it's Gilbride's fault, then let's get rid of him. Just lay it out as to why Henry is running like a stiff and then toss out a solution. I'd like to get this thing fixed. You pick it. But then stick to it.

As I see it, VERY plainly, Henry misses holes. He had two very large ones this past Sunday, as much in front of him as the path that he chose to take instead into a pile of linemen. So I don't think we can give Henry a pass here. Nevertheless, if you guys think so, then please let us all know why our rushing game is currently averaging less than 80 YPG and how we can fix it.

If it's Gilbride, then say so and let's put the heat on him. But it's gotta be something. Is it the linemen? Then let's get a few new linemen! Which ones? Williams? Teague? Who?

First Gilbride's a genious. Now according to these past few posts, he doesn't have the sense God gave a walnut to figure out that Drew needs some help from his rushing game.

So what is it fellas? My vote: Gilbride realizes that Henry can't be counted on. But apparently I'm wrong. So lay it out plainly and strap some nads on and make a strong manly statement one way or another! Will ya...

This is getting to be a women's tea!

:D

I'm startin' to smell Estrogen!

justasportsfan

10-11-2002, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Judge

I don't think Bryson has been given a sufficient opportunity to allow you to make this conclusion about him.

I agree!
I say both Henry and Bryson should play one entire half each against the texans.

BTO6
"Wys.....why do you hate travis henry?"

Answer: Henry 5'9" = Flutie 5'9"

Nuff said! :D

10-11-2002, 12:07 AM

LOL

Other than that, no comparison other than they're both mediocre.

justasportsfan

10-11-2002, 01:21 AM

Wys, don't you hate it when Henry gets tackled behind the line of scrimmage?

venis2k1

10-11-2002, 02:26 AM

Judge

10-11-2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by justasportsfan

I agree!
I say both Henry and Bryson should play one entire half each against the texans.

That's not a bad idea. We probably should extend that into a 2-week audition to give each guy a chance at playing in the first half, and each guy in the second half (when the game could either be in a blowout or close battle- different playing conditions).

Not Miami though. We can't experiment against them, so Centers can play that entire game- I'd like to see the audition against Houston and Detroit. Similar quality opponents.

GW- are you reading this board?

:up:

10-11-2002, 01:00 PM

I think some of the people within the organization have a pulse on fan opinions from a variety of sources.

Whatever happens, give Bryson three starts in a row before coming to a conclusion.

I say let Henry start for one more game. If he plays well, then IMO he needs to play at least two of the three other games prior to the break, well before he is allowed to start after the bye week. He needs to have at least 2 100 yard games in the next 4 I don't care who we play. When you go to the playoffs you don't get a handicap b/c your RB is weaker than the others. He needs to play v. the best teams.

Anyway, if Henry doesn't meet that criteria, and I'm quite sure he won't, not nearly, then Bryson gets the first three/four games after the bye week. Three of the four will be the same teams that Henry faced. K.C. is better than both Chicago and Minnesota. So that would be a fair test.

Judge

10-11-2002, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
I think some of the people within the organization have a pulse on fan opinions from a variety of sources.

Whatever happens, give Bryson three starts in a row before coming to a conclusion.

I say let Henry start for one more game. If he plays well, then IMO he needs to play at least two of the three other games prior to the break, well before he is allowed to start after the bye week. He needs to have at least 2 100 yard games in the next 4 I don't care who we play. When you go to the playoffs you don't get a handicap b/c your RB is weaker than the others. He needs to play v. the best teams.

Anyway, if Henry doesn't meet that criteria, and I'm quite sure he won't, not nearly, then Bryson gets the first three/four games after the bye week. Three of the four will be the same teams that Henry faced. K.C. is better than both Chicago and Minnesota. So that would be a fair test.

Yup. You're right once again Great Wys! That would be the ideal way to allow each guy a fair shot at proving what he can do.

Typ0

10-11-2002, 01:24 PM

You harp on and on about stats and how they are the most important thing and then when the stats don't support your opinion you say they don't count. You pulled this crap last week with Henry's stats. I tell you what, Barry Sanders was a below average back if you take away his two longest runs in every game, I guess that means he was an average back. These people are right we would have Joe Burns getting hand-offs from Travis Brown if you had your way. If you can't see Travis Henry is a fighter by watching the game you have some serious blinders on. There have been so many backs that excelled because they fight to get their yards. When Henry hits 3 defenders one yard behind the LOS, he fights to get back to the LOS. When Bryson hit's the LOS and there isn't a hole he falls down. The best backs work hard on every play to get all the yards they can and then open up some game-breakers on a few plays because they have been working so hard every time they touch the ball. You can't be serious Henry's stats were poor last game. 15 carries for 58 yds and a TD, 7 catches for 47 yards...have you been visiting the Merry Pranksters too much? Henry is going to rush for 1000 yards this year and he isn't even getting the carries he should be. What are you complaining about so much? I'm sure glad you are good at making wing-sauce my friend.

NC-BILLS44

10-11-2002, 03:00 PM

Amen!!!!!!!!

RedEyE

10-11-2002, 03:16 PM

:hail: TypO

Moulds Rocks

10-11-2002, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Judge
On that note, when is Travis Henry going to have a long run? As in a breakaway 50+ yarder?

I'd feel alot more comfortable about him if he could show some kind of breakaway ability. Bryson has clearly demonstrated that ability.

It would be nice to have the ability to strike from anywhere on the field via the pass AND the run.

Hmmmm.... Isn't Bryson's career long something like 20 yards? :finfan::whip:

Moulds Rocks

10-11-2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Wys Guy
You guys crack me up!

Don't forget to add that Henry's fumble was returned, for the second time this season, for a TD and that the reason he fumbled was b/c he was loosely holding the ball which was plainly evident for anyone wishing to see it. Bryson was holding on tight and the LB hit him right where the ball was in a conscious attempt to jar it out.

This is romper-room polemics!

My dad can kick your dad's butt...

:D

Let's see how your hero does on Sunday. It would be courteous of you all to suggest when we do something different. If it's Gilbride's fault, then let's get rid of him. Just lay it out as to why Henry is running like a stiff and then toss out a solution. I'd like to get this thing fixed. You pick it. But then stick to it.

As I see it, VERY plainly, Henry misses holes. He had two very large ones this past Sunday, as much in front of him as the path that he chose to take instead into a pile of linemen. So I don't think we can give Henry a pass here. Nevertheless, if you guys think so, then please let us all know why our rushing game is currently averaging less than 80 YPG and how we can fix it.

If it's Gilbride, then say so and let's put the heat on him. But it's gotta be something. Is it the linemen? Then let's get a few new linemen! Which ones? Williams? Teague? Who?

First Gilbride's a genious. Now according to these past few posts, he doesn't have the sense God gave a walnut to figure out that Drew needs some help from his rushing game.

So what is it fellas? My vote: Gilbride realizes that Henry can't be counted on. But apparently I'm wrong. So lay it out plainly and strap some nads on and make a strong manly statement one way or another! Will ya...

This is getting to be a women's tea!

:D

I'm startin' to smell Estrogen!

:idea: Henry is tthe better RB. END OF STORY!

10-11-2002, 08:45 PM

"I tell you what, Barry Sanders was a below average back if you take away his two longest runs in every game, I guess that means he was an average back."

What, you're a comedian now?! First Henry's just like Emmitt and now Barry Sanders was never any better than Henry either!

:lol:

Funny thing is that you're absolutely right there Typ0 on being an average back other than for big plays! With one BIG difference that is. Namely, that Sanders' big plays all went for TDs or HUGE chunks of yards. Not 29 or 16 only. Henry couldn't hang up Sanders' jock strap at this point.

If Sanders had decided to play 13 seasons like Emmitt or Payton, he would have been over 20,000 career yards easily. Think Henry will ever even have a third of that? At the rate he's going at, it would take him more than 20 seasons.

The BIG difference between Henry and Sanders however is that Sanders 2 big runs went for a combined 150 yards and 2 TDs. Henry's haven't! Nor did Sanders fumble on a regular basis to give games away.

Sanders, as long as you mention it, was not the best RB for controling the clock. But you couldn't afford to keep him out b/c of those couple of big plays that he could have at any time and regularly did.

Henry on the other hand, well, he's caused more harm than good. You simply cannot even come close to saying that about Sanders.

Other than that, I assume you jest. B/c to compare Sanders to Henry is completely and utterly laughable. You just did that.

When Henry has a 2,000 plus yard season, come talk to me. Otherwise don't embarass yourself like that in public. Check out Sanders' '97 season:

http://www.football-reference.com/players/SandBa00.htm

Then take a look at the others too. In '97 he had 14 of 16 100 yard games w/ 2 of those being over 200 yards and over a 6 YPC average that season. His lifetime YPC avg. was 5.0 and his lowest rushing total in any given season was 1115 yards.

Let's at least be reasonable here...

:rolleyes: