How close is the offense to being very good?

[Mr. Cynical]

In light of the Henry trade debates, I wanted to know how far people felt our offense has to go before you consider it very good and "Big Dance" capable.

Edit: just to clarify...

1. means the offense is good and just needs a few tweaks
2. means the offense is average and needs some real work
3. means the offense is poor and needs an overhaul
4. same as number 3...inserted for humor ;)

[The_Philster]

If the coaches do what they are expected to do, we need help at C, FB, TE, and backup QB (QB of the future). A speed WR would help but Moulds has good speed, Reed is going into his 3rd season, and Shaw was a free agent find.

[Mr. Cynical]

Let's take a look at the offense position by position:

QB: Bledsoe. I think you know where I stand on that one. :D
WR: Moulds. Not replaceable.
WR: Reed. I like him and I think he will break out this year, but at this point he is replaceable.
WR: Shaw, Aiken, etc. Nothing special. All replaceable.
RB: Henry. Good, solid back who runs hard but also has a propensity to fumble and does not break open games. Although above average, he is still replaceable.
RB: McGahee. Can't tell yet.
RB/FB: None else to worth mentioning. All replaceable.
TE: Campbell. Replaceable.
RT: Mike Williams. Depends on who you ask, but I think he is probably the closest to Moulds on the not replaceable list.
RG: Pucillo? Tucker? Sullivan? Who? Replaceable.
C: Teague. Average to poor at C. Replaceable.
LG: Villarial. Don't know yet, but Brown, a Pro Bowler, was replaceable. At best Villarial will be a lateral move, maybe a bit better.
LT: Jennings. Special? I don't think so. Solid? Yeah, I think so. Replaceable? Yep.

So outside of Moulds and Williams (and obviously McGahee until we know what's what) I think any of these players have alot of room to be updgraded. We will never have a "very good" offense with these people starting.

However, I don't want nor think we should dump the whole team and create a cap hell. But on any given day if we have the chance like a Henry/#2 situation I would jump on it in a New York minute.

First things first...get rid of the Everlasting Money Pit at QB and start using that money more intelligently.

We need to rebuild, not reload. :up:

[The_Philster]

Why is McGahee obvious? :scratch: He hasn't played a down in the NFL and could end up re-injuring himself like Ki-Jana Carter did.

[Halbert]

Barring significant injury time at LB or DE, the defense should be championship caliber, giving the offense some flexibility regarding how well it has to play to win. If you believe the OL problems were the result of a first time ever OL coach, which I do, then the acquisition of McNally

Given the caliber of the defense, I think the offense will be plenty good enough to win. The factors that caused the breakdown last season (i.e. Gilbride, a rookie OL coach, and a very bad season by Bledsoe) should all be considerably better this season. The only real question is whether the new coaching staff can mesh with the players quick enough, but the talent is certainly there - and should get better by training camp.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Why is McGahee obvious? :scratch: He hasn't played a down in the NFL and could end up re-injuring himself like Ki-Jana Carter did.

Because you don't spend your 1st round pick on someone and cut them before they play a down. :)

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
Because you don't spend your 1st round pick on someone and cut them before they play a down. :)

Who said anything about cutting him? :huh:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by kal123


Because you don't spend your 1st round pick on someone and cut them before they play a down. :)

Who said anything about cutting McGahee?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by The_Philster


Who said anything about cutting him? :huh:

Jinx!:cheers:

[The_Philster]

:D
Originally posted by The Spaz
Who said anything about cutting McGahee?

Is there an echo in here? :scratch:

[helmetguy]

First of all EVERYONE is replaceable. Second, unless you have unlimited cap space, you're not going to get all-world talent at every position. The smart guys, like Parcells, Bellichik, Levy, Vermiel, etc. know how to assess what they HAVE, not the flavor of the week that they WISH they had, and turn it into a stronger unit; the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. What Mularkey and his staff can do remains to be seen. GW was clueless about running an offense, but he did-to his credit-help to develop the defensive unit. Mularkey and Clements actually played the game, so they are already ahead of GW in that respect. Both made do with what they had in Pittsburgh, which was, by far, a lot more than could have realistically been expected. Add to that the fact that Kevin Gilbride's best days went to hell when Walt Corey (of all people) figured out you can beat "Run and Shoot" without six DBs on the field, and it's obvious this team got better the minute Gilbride went away. To say that our offense is so far away from success is to give Gilbride much more credit than he deserves. Like I said, we're better already without him. Addition by subtraction.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by helmetguy
it's obvious this team got better the minute Gilbride went away. To say that our offense is so far away from success is to give Gilbride much more credit than he deserves. Like I said, we're better already without him. Addition by subtraction.

:bf1: Dumping Gilbride was the biggest move of the offseason..and would be hard to top.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Why is McGahee obvious? He hasn't played a down in the NFL and could end up re-injuring himself like Ki-Jana Carter did.

Who said anything about cutting him? :huh:

You asked why he is an obvious "not replaceable", i.e., not cuttable. My answer was because we don't know what he can do yet, hence you can't replace him....or cut him....same thing. :)

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
:bf1: Dumping Gilbride was the biggest move of the offseason..and would be hard to top.

Not really. Dumping Drew would top it. Gilbride didn't cost $6M+. :D

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by kal123


Not really. Dumping Drew would top it. Gilbride didn't cost $6M+. :D

Lets pass on 3rd and 1 80% of th etime.

[ScottLawrence]

Dumping Drew would make my day!

But I agree with Kal and Helmet getting rid of Killadrive already made this offense better.

I think if we focus on the run and with a healthy Moulds and a better O-Line we can have a descent offense

[The Spaz]

3 of the possible choices are pretty much the same.:dizzy:

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
You asked why he is an obvious "not replaceable", i.e., not cuttable. My answer was because we don't know what he can do yet, hence you can't replace him....or cut him....same thing. :)
For all we know, he cpuld be a total bust...you'd rather have a potential bust than a sure thing?

Originally posted by kal123
Not really. Dumping Drew would top it. Gilbride didn't cost $6M+. :D
Yeah..we'd go into the season without any experience at QB and we'd tell the league we think that Kordell Stewart is a better QB than Bledsoe...I'd prefer not to be looked at as complete and utter morons....like we were when we let Flutie and RJ whine and ***** like they did

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
3 of the possible choices are pretty much the same.:dizzy:

:huh: Maybe 3 and 4 are the same, but 1, 2, and 3/4 are very different.

[The Spaz]

It is not that close, need to fix alot of holes.
It is very far, we should rebuild, not reload.
Are you kidding me? Scrap it except for Moulds, Williams and McGahee!

To me all those are saying are offense is ****.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
For all we know, he cpuld be a total bust...you'd rather have a potential bust than a sure thing?

This is what is known as "miscommunication to the highest degree". You are zigging, I am zagging. What I said is this:

Moulds, Williams and McGahee are the only ones who are not replaceable IMO, i.e., cuttable AT THIS POINT in time. The reason for Moulds and Williams is because they are worth keeping; the reason for McGahee is because we spent a 1st round pick on him and we don't know what he can do yet.

If your question is regarding me classifying Henry as replaceable, while not classifying McGahee as replaceable...yes, I still would say this IF we get something like a #2 for Henry. He is a good back but not a playmaker. Just the way it is.


Originally posted by The_Philster
Yeah..we'd go into the season without any experience at QB and we'd tell the league we think that Kordell Stewart is a better QB than Bledsoe...I'd prefer not to be looked at as complete and utter morons....like we were when we let Flutie and RJ whine and ***** like they did

To be honest I could care less about how we are looked at. I just want to build a team that can win. As it stands now, our offense needs to be rebuilt for this to happen IMO.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
It is not that close, need to fix alot of holes.
It is very far, we should rebuild, not reload.
Are you kidding me? Scrap it except for Moulds, Williams and McGahee!

To me all those are saying are offense is ****.

Well, ok... if you put it that way. You're right. :up:

Seriously though, what I meant is this:

1. Offense is good, just needs 1 or 2 key positions filled.
2. Offense is below average and needs 5+ changes
3. Offense is crap, needs overhaul
4. Same as 3 basically, but names the players to keep

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
He is a good back but not a playmaker. Just the way it is.

On what do you base this? We can't judge anyone based completely on what they did under Gilbride. Anyone who can't see what a problem he was (99% pass plays on 3rd down) ..I just don't know what to say to. :chuckle:


Well, it's apparant that some feel that Kordell Stewart is better than Bledsoe (Mularkey did wonders with him but Bledsoe sucks so bad he can't do anything with him)...why waste a draft pick on a QB? Let's bring in Kordell...no one else is pursuing him. :lol:

[Novacane]

Originally posted by The Spaz


Lets pass on 3rd and 1 80% of th etime.



A larger % of those were called runs that Drew audibled out of. He even admitted that

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Fairway To Green
A larger % of those were called runs that Drew audibled out of. He even admitted that

question is...who installed the audible system? If Drew had running plays available for him to call, then he :angry: screwed up but none of us know for sure who was responsible...unless you were in the offensive meetings.

[helmetguy]

Henry's NOT a playmaker? Did I read that right? If that is so, how is it that his trade value would be as high as #2 overall in the draft? In order for a playmaker to make plays, he has to at least be on the field, right? If I have a guy who gets me about four yards a carry, wouldn't it make sense to have him on the field when I'm within three yards of the first down marker or the end zone? And, if I did have the foresight to have my four-yard-per-carry back on the field, and he did move the chains, or did score the touchdown....hmmmm..... wouldn't that be considered "making the play" and, hence, my tailback would thus be a playmaker? Of course, this is all hypothetical.

[Novacane]

Your poll question was how close are they to being very good. I don't think this offense is close to being very good but I think it is close to being good enough. With a great D and improved special teams they would not have to be very good. Just run the ball and don't screw it up.

[The_Philster]

:gag:
Originally posted by helmetguy
Henry's NOT a playmaker? Did I read that right? If that is so, how is it that his trade value would be as high as #2 overall in the draft? In order for a playmaker to make plays, he has to at least be on the field, right? If I have a guy who gets me about four yards a carry, wouldn't it make sense to have him on the field when I'm within three yards of the first down marker or the end zone? And, if I did have the foresight to have my four-yard-per-carry back on the field, and he did move the chains, or did score the touchdown....hmmmm..... wouldn't that be considered "making the play" and, hence, my tailback would thus be a playmaker? Of course, this is all hypothetical.

C'mon...playmakers can make plays from the bench and you know it. :cynic:

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Fairway To Green
Your poll question was how close are they to being very good. I don't think this offense is close to being very good but I think it is close to being good enough. With a great D and improved special teams they would not have to be very good. Just run the ball and don't screw it up.

:jawdrop: I'm getting scared...I haven't agreed with your posts in a while. But that was excellent. :ontome:

[Novacane]

Originally posted by The_Philster


question is...who installed the audible system? If Drew had running plays available for him to call, then he :angry: screwed up but none of us know for sure who was responsible...unless you were in the offensive meetings.



He would have been better off most of the time just running the play called. That was his fault not Gilbrides. Not to defend the moron.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
On what do you base this? We can't judge anyone based completely on what they did under Gilbride. Anyone who can't see what a problem he was (99% pass plays on 3rd down) ..I just don't know what to say to. :chuckle:

I base it on:

1. The # of times he fumbled (where and when as well)
2. Less than stellar ability to turn the corner
3. Lack of open field moves
4. Lack of breakaway speed

All of these are irrespective of Gilbride. Henry does pretty well north-to-south, but that's about it. My final word on Henry is that he is a solid back, but very replaceable if given a high pick.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
I base it on:

1. The # of times he fumbled (where and when as well)
2. Less than stellar ability to turn the corner
3. Lack of open field moves
4. Lack of breakaway speed

All of these are irrespective of Gilbride. Henry does pretty well north-to-south, but that's about it. My final word on Henry is that he is a solid back, but very replaceable if given a high pick.

Well...I disagree on that stuff preventing him from being a playmaker...and I'm looking forward to seeing how he improves with an offensive coordinator who knows how to use his abilities...but it's refreshing to enter into a debate with someone who doesn't make me :xplode::chuckle: :cheers:

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by helmetguy
Henry's NOT a playmaker? Did I read that right? If that is so, how is it that his trade value would be as high as #2 overall in the draft? In order for a playmaker to make plays, he has to at least be on the field, right? If I have a guy who gets me about four yards a carry, wouldn't it make sense to have him on the field when I'm within three yards of the first down marker or the end zone? And, if I did have the foresight to have my four-yard-per-carry back on the field, and he did move the chains, or did score the touchdown....hmmmm..... wouldn't that be considered "making the play" and, hence, my tailback would thus be a playmaker? Of course, this is all hypothetical.

How about this... I'll call him a "workhorse" RB. Better? He's tough and makes yards. As for being worth a #2 pick, THAT is the hypothetical. You can't use that as a basis of his value until it actually happens. Until then, his worth is what you judge it to be. I judge it to be solid but not spectacular.

Let me ask you this....if McGahee returns to pre-injury form, who would you start?

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
Let me ask you this....if McGahee returns to pre-injury form, who would you start?

I'd split the carries between them myself...kinda like what we did with Thurman and Kenny Davis

[DraftBoy]

Originally posted by helmetguy
Henry's NOT a playmaker? Did I read that right? If that is so, how is it that his trade value would be as high as #2 overall in the draft? In order for a playmaker to make plays, he has to at least be on the field, right? If I have a guy who gets me about four yards a carry, wouldn't it make sense to have him on the field when I'm within three yards of the first down marker or the end zone? And, if I did have the foresight to have my four-yard-per-carry back on the field, and he did move the chains, or did score the touchdown....hmmmm..... wouldn't that be considered "making the play" and, hence, my tailback would thus be a playmaker? Of course, this is all hypothetical.


Making the play is not the same as a playmaker at least in IMO...Ex. Jake Delhomme's makes the plays, Micheal Vick is a playmaker....Travis Henry does what the play calls for grab the ball and run towards the endzone, and he does it well, while carrying defenders with him, but aside from that he doesnt do much else...A playmaker takes the play as it is supposed to be made and makes it more, much more for that matter. Simply being able to make the 1st down on a 3rd and 3 doesnt make you a playmaker, no it makes you a good back. A playmaker would get the 1st down and break some tackles and juke a guy out of his shoes on his way to the endzone. Of course this is just a hypothetical situation. To answer the question is this: What is Travis Henry? A solid North South runner with subpar speed and few open field moves. Good bullnose player who will plow you and you need to wrap up but he will not break the big one when your team needs it.

This offense is still far off from being good. You got 2 solid WR's, 2 decent OT, a potential playmaker in the backfield, and already solid RB back there too, and QB who doesnt know how to get rid of the ball on time...Too many holes to fill to think we are very good if even good right now.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
I'd split the carries between them myself...kinda like what we did with Thurman and Kenny Davis

First, I should say cheers to your other post about entering into a debate without wanting to strangle that person. I agree. :beer:

As for splitting time, this may work this year, but I don't see it happening the next year. Contrary to what some may believe, I do think Henry is a starter in this league. As such he won't want to split time. I'm pretty certain that unless McGahee is a bust, Henry will be on another team in '05. And TD wouldn't have blown a 1st pick on an RB if he didn't feel the same way.

But I still say that if McGahee performs like his old self in camp and preseason that he will (and should IMO) start. He gives them a lot more explosiveness (again, if he is 100%).

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
First, I should say cheers to your other post about entering into a debate without wanting to strangle that person. I agree. :beer:

:chuckle: I thought you'd like that.

Personally, I'd prefer to keep Travis over McGahee...but that's at the moment. He's shown a lot more heart in the last couple of seasons than anyone on this team in years, IMO...and it reminds me of players from the Super Bowl days. But who knows what we'll see from McGahee? :idunno:

[helmetguy]

Here's a better question, until you KNOW you have a replacement, do you still replace what you have?


On the question of McGahee, we'll see what he can do. Should Henry continue to be as productive (if not more so) there just may come a day when we can't afford him anymore. That's part of the reason McGahee was drafted in the first place-in anticipation of a future critical need.

All the things you listed that Henry lacks, by the way, are the same things they said about Thurman Thomas. Thomas was a great cut-back runner. He also played behind a lighter, faster offensive line than what we have now, which is why it looked like he "turned the corner" better than Henry. It's possible that Henry doesn't have that cut-back ability, but I would love to find out. When's the last time we ever ran any counters? It's been a long time. Why? The size of our O-line, primarily. So, wouldn't it figure then, if you play to the strength of your personnel, you have you beef up front knock people down and let Henry run over everybody else? Mind you,I'm not saying Henry is Thurman Thomas' reincarnate. Just pointing out that he's very good at what he does, when he's allowed to do it.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by helmetguy
Here's a better question, until you KNOW you have a replacement, do you still replace what you have?


On the question of McGahee, we'll see what he can do. Should Henry continue to be as productive (if not more so) there just may come a day when we can't afford him anymore. That's part of the reason McGahee was drafted in the first place-in anticipation of a future critical need.

All the things you listed that Henry lacks, by the way, are the same things they said about Thurman Thomas. Thomas was a great cut-back runner. He also played behind a lighter, faster offensive line than what we have now, which is why it looked like he "turned the corner" better than Henry. It's possible that Henry doesn't have that cut-back ability, but I would love to find out. When's the last time we ever ran any counters? It's been a long time. Why? The size of our O-line, primarily. So, wouldn't it figure then, if you play to the strength of your personnel, you have you beef up front knock people down and let Henry run over everybody else? Mind you,I'm not saying Henry is Thurman Thomas' reincarnate. Just pointing out that he's very good at what he does, when he's allowed to do it.

To answer your question - in the hypothetical case of trading Henry for a #2 pick, yes. IMO, we need to rebuild the offense and what better way than to get some high draft picks. It's a risk, yes, but one I feel makes sense given the length of time we've gone without a really good and consistent offense.

Now, I understand and agree with what you are trying to say about playing to Henry's strengths, e.g., better Oline, counters, etc. There is no doubt that MM/TC will try to think of ways to help his game. However I still say that the oline doesn't make a bit of difference with respect to his moves and his open field speed. We've seen him enough to know that these are most certainly not his strengths. Note: TT had great hands and was great at picking up blitzes in addition to moving side to side and juking, so he had this over Henry as well. But I know you weren't trying to compare Henry to him directly. Just wanted to make a note of it. :)

In any case....

My question to you still remains....if McGahee is back to his pre-injury form, who would you rather start?

[helmetguy]

If we were building from scratch, I'd say grab all the draft picks you can, suffer from the growing pains and go from there.

Like I said earlier, McGahee actually has to show that form first. Unless he's head and shoulders above Henry, then yes I'd start him. It took Edgerrin James a full season to get his feet under him before he returned to form the following year. As of right now, though, Henry is still my starter, and McGahhe can win the job if, once the season starts, he IS that much better than Henry.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by helmetguy
If we were building from scratch, I'd say grab all the draft picks you can, suffer from the growing pains and go from there.

Like I said earlier, McGahee actually has to show that form first. Unless he's head and shoulders above Henry, then yes I'd start him. It took Edgerrin James a full season to get his feet under him before he returned to form the following year. As of right now, though, Henry is still my starter, and McGahhe can win the job if, once the season starts, he IS that much better than Henry.

I guess I see it as we have already been suffering the growing pains without growing, so if we're going to suffer again, we may as well grow some at the same time. ;)

You say you would start WM if he was head and shoulders above Henry. What I'm "hypothetically" proposing is if he is the same as he was in college, he is already head and shoulders above him. So I guess what I'm saying is.....based on what he has shown pre-injury, do you think he is a better back than Henry? Forget about his injury for a moment and just focus on what he did before it. I know there is no guarantee in the real world situation but I'm just interested in your opinion on the hypothetical right now. :)

[The Spaz]

If your offense is setup to pound the ball then why in the **** would you play "Run N Gun"?:mad: That's what I think was the main problem was. Yeah we have Gash split him out wide, yeah it's 3rd and 1 lets put henry on the bench and split gash out wide at the same time. ****ing brilliant if you ask me.:mad: You base your offense on your personnel it's that simple, you don't force a system down your players throat when there built for something completely different.

[Mr. Cynical]

I agree.:) KG was an idiot and didn't fit the system to the players, so TH would likely have gotten more yards.

I never said there was a "problem" with Henry. He did well..I mean, he did go to the pro bowl so there's no debating that.

But I guess I'd ask you the same question - WM or TH next year assuming he is 100%?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by kal123
I agree.:) KG was an idiot and didn't fit the system to the players, so TH would likely have gotten more yards.

I never said there was a "problem" with Henry. He did well..I mean, he did go to the pro bowl so there's no debating that.

But I guess I'd ask you the same question - WM or TH next year assuming he is 100%?

I say both next year depending on if the Bills absolutely know for certain that McGahee is 100%.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
I say both next year depending on if the Bills absolutely know for certain that McGahee is 100%.

This is the "safe" and "practical" answer. But for the purposes of my question however, the injury is assumed 100%, so you have to choose one or the other as the starter. Meaning, if healthy, who do you think is the better back? :D

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by DraftBoy
Making the play is not the same as a playmaker at least in IMO...Ex. Jake Delhomme's makes the plays, Micheal Vick is a playmaker....Travis Henry does what the play calls for grab the ball and run towards the endzone, and he does it well, while carrying defenders with him, but aside from that he doesnt do much else...A playmaker takes the play as it is supposed to be made and makes it more, much more for that matter. Simply being able to make the 1st down on a 3rd and 3 doesnt make you a playmaker, no it makes you a good back. A playmaker would get the 1st down and break some tackles and juke a guy out of his shoes on his way to the endzone. Of course this is just a hypothetical situation. To answer the question is this: What is Travis Henry? A solid North South runner with subpar speed and few open field moves. Good bullnose player who will plow you and you need to wrap up but he will not break the big one when your team needs it.

This offense is still far off from being good. You got 2 solid WR's, 2 decent OT, a potential playmaker in the backfield, and already solid RB back there too, and QB who doesnt know how to get rid of the ball on time...Too many holes to fill to think we are very good if even good right now.

:up:

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by kal123
This is the "safe" and "practical" answer. But for the purposes of my question however, the injury is assumed 100%, so you have to choose one or the other as the starter. Meaning, if healthy, who do you think is the better back? :D

It depends on what Mularkey chooses to do with the system. In Pittsburgh, when he took over for Gilbride, he ran the same system with fewer checkdowns for the QB and a power running game with Jerome Bettis...bringing in Amos Zereoue for a change-up.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
It depends on what Mularkey chooses to do with the system. In Pittsburgh, when he took over for Gilbride, he ran the same system with fewer checkdowns for the QB and a power running game with Jerome Bettis...bringing in Amos Zereoue for a change-up.

But see, that's just it. A good coach fits the system to the players. Would you rather run a system to fit McGahee or Henry?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by kal123


But see, that's just it. A good coach fits the system to the players. Would you rather run a system to fit McGahee or Henry?

Piittsburgh used Zeroue and Bettis the Panthers used Davis and Foster. Why couldn't that work for us?

[IHateTheDullphins]

Originally posted by The Spaz


Piittsburgh used Zeroue and Bettis the Panthers used Davis and Foster. Why couldn't that work for us?

Exactly :bf1:

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Piittsburgh used Zeroue and Bettis the Panthers used Davis and Foster. Why couldn't that work for us?

Not saying it couldn't "work" this year, but the Bus/Z situation is completely different from TH/WM.

Zeroue came into the league in '99 (not as a 1st round pick) and Bettis was already in the league for 6 years. Z didn't see any playing time until 2001, when the Bus got hurt and had been already in the leage for 8 years. And let's face it, it's not like they put together 2,000 yards together. TH outran both of them last year by a wide margin. This is why I hate RBC (run by committee). And one other note, Z was cut, so it wasn't like they loved it either.

With Henry and McGahee, you have 2 starters (NOTE: Assume for the rest of this post that WM is 100% - don't feel like typing it over and over). TH is in the league for 3 years and hitting his stride, not declining like Bus in '01. WM is a 1st round pick and is likely to be a franchise back. Z is nohwere near that caliber.

Again, there's really nothing to decide on at this point unless someone wants to trade for Henry. If we don't get a trade, then I'm sure they'll find ways to use both of them. But if we do get a shot at a high pick, it's worth the risk imo.

And finally, if WM shows his stuff in camp and preseason, I still say you have to start him. He is a more explosive back than Henry. Why else would TD have taken the risk of drafting him?


Bettis
Year G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1999 16 16 299 1091 3.6 35 7 5 64
2000 16 16 355 1341 3.8 30 8 5 71
2001 11 11 225 1072 4.8 48 4 9 46
2002 13 11 187 666 3.6 41 9 2 42
2003 16 10 246 811 3.3 21 7 2 43

Zeroue
Year G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1999 8 0 18 48 2.7 8 0 0 3
2000 12 0 6 14 2.3 11 0 0 1
2001 14 0 85 441 5.2 32 1 5 25
2002 16 5 193 762 3.9 42 4 4 35
2003 16 6 132 433 3.3 22 2 1 22

[The Spaz]

Hell the Eagles used Staley, Westbrook and the other guy who's name escapes me right now.

[justasportsfan]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Hell the Eagles used Staley, Westbrook and the other guy who's name escapes me right now.

Brian Westbrook 117 613 5.2 62 7
Correll Buckhalter 126 542 4.3 64 8
Duce Staley 96 463 4.8 22 5
Donovan McNabb 71 355 5.0 34 3
James Thrash 5 52 10.4 47 0


With Mularkey in there, I think Drew could rush for just as much yards as McNabb last year....even more.

Henry who has prvoen to get a few more yardage after the initial hit would be better used for short yds. That's is WM is indeed healed and can live up to his potential.

[JefftheBillsfan]

i dont think your original post kal was fair. just about everyone in the leauge is "replaceable."

[elltrain22]

Nice poll. Good question.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by JefftheBillsfan
i dont think your original post kal was fair. just about everyone in the leauge is "replaceable."

How is it not fair? It asks where you think the offense is at it's current state, e.g., good, average, poor and crap. To improve, you need to make changes. Those changes depend on who you have and who you can get. You don't "replace" players that are already "above the line" as it pertains to a "very good offense". That includes Moulds, Williams, McGahee (for now) and Henry (remember I only agree with dumping Henry if we get something valuable like a high draft or a trade for something else we need)

[JefftheBillsfan]

i must have misinterpreted it as you saying those are spots you think we need to look to improve. my fault.

[Mr. Cynical]

It's all good. :up: