What would YOU do regarding our RB situation next season?

[WG]

First of all, assume that several things WILL occur:

ASSUME:

That Henry has close to (1,750+) or reaches a 2,000 yard season and at least 15 TDs, reduces his fumbling to 8 or fewer fumbles w/ 5 or fewer lost FUMs, and continues to be a very good receiver out of the backfield w/ at least 40 grabs out of the backfield and well over 2,000 total yards.

Also, assume that McGahee doesn't play at all this year or if he does, it is sparingly over the last 4-6 games. Say no more than 10 carries per game and you can assume that he doesn't get hurt since if he does, he'll be next to worthless.

What would you do next season regarding our RB situation given those occurences??

Please, do not answer the question outside of those parameters.

[WG]

If you say that you'd like to trade one of them, state what you would like to see in return.

[Patrick76777]

Assume Henry has a 2000 yard season?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[WG]

"..or close to.."

Can't you read?

What, is it that far fetched for you 76?!?!?!?!?!

If he had had as many carries as Ricky Williams did he would have had over 1,700 yards. I don't think that 1,800 is out of reach at all. In fact, if we do what we say, I think he will come very close to 2K. He clearly improved as the season went on. I realize that that type of analysis is beyond your simple comprehension, but the facts are that in the last 10 games of the season excluding that miserable G.B. game, Henry averaged 4.7 YPC and had over 1,000 yards.

Over the season, that would have produced about 1,700 yards on ~ 24 carries/game avg. I can easily see Henry adding to that and improving on that mark as long as Gilbride doesn't get in the way. When I said "close to it", I meant 1750+. Either way, he should easily have well over 2,000 total yards if he gets the nod more than 11-15 times a game rushing.

Besides, just answer the question! Why is everything a hardship w/ you?

[HenryRules]

Where's the "ease McGahee into the mix with both remaining happy option".

Three examples of this that I can think of:

Wheatley and Garner split time, with Garner getting the bulk of the carries, in Oakland with both being happy and both of them have had productive seasons as a starter in Oakland.

I'm not sure, but I also believe that when Shaun Alexander first came along, he and Ricky Watters split time in Seattle for a season before Ricky moved on.

Deuce McAllister was not unhappy his first year in the league being behind Ricky Williams.

The backup RBs I just listed may not have liked their situations if they continued long-term, but for one year, none of them seemed to have a problem with it.

Your options seem like what we might be facing come 2005. I don't think the 3rd and 5th options apply for next year though.

[lunatic_bills_fan]

Thats a good question Wys. To me, it'd be real tough to get rid of a 1500+ yard back, especially if he does it twice in a row. Im glad Im not making that decision. Best case scenario, we get a real good chance to see Willis at 100% before the decision is made, but that is unlikely.

[TigerJ]

My perfect scenario is this:

McGahee is put on PUP.

Henry gains in excess of 1600 yards.

McGahee is activated somewhere around the end of November and over the remainder of the season gains 250 yards or so on 35 carries in a backup role through the remainder of the season, just to give the Bills confidence that he is 100%.

The Bills trade Henry for a top ten draft choice in the 2004 draft.

I'm in agreement with you Wys, (I think) in that I don't think Henry and McGahee can coexist on this team long term (beyond next season). It would make no sense to me to have a back I thought could gain 1600-1800 yards or more riding the bench and gaining a few hundred paltrey yards. I know you think Buffalo should have passed on McGahee. I agree that it was certainly not a need pick. Had there been a stud d-lineman available at that point who represented great value and was a good fit in the Bills system, I would rather have seen that happen. I don't think the Bills thought those circumstances existed and so took the high risk/high return pick in McGahee. Now that he's ours, I think the scenario I outlined above is a best case outlook.

[WG]

Originally posted by lunatic_bills_fan
Thats a good question Wys. To me, it'd be real tough to get rid of a 1500+ yard back, especially if he does it twice in a row. Im glad Im not making that decision. Best case scenario, we get a real good chance to see Willis at 100% before the decision is made, but that is unlikely.

Well, unfortunately, the team has already shot that notion in the foot. It appears all but certain that McG will start the season on PUP. If we're in a position to "see Willis at 100%" first, then that will likely mean that our serious playoff hopes have been dashed. It would be foolish to pull Henry if we're doing well w/ him as a part of the reason.

As well, wasn't it TD who said McG may not even play this year? I think that's the most likely scenario to play out. I see little upside to playing him only sparingly during the last 4 or 5 games. He'd have to rush for 6 YPC or more to make it have much meaning. Meanwhile, that'll be during the worst time of the year weather wise, and the turf, even the new stuff, will be cold and hard. The last thing we need is for Willis to get hurt. If that were to happen it would be terrible for this year's draft and bad for any other reason too.

Originally posted by HenryRules
Where's the "ease McGahee into the mix with both remaining happy option".

Three examples of this that I can think of:

Wheatley and Garner split time, with Garner getting the bulk of the carries, in Oakland with both being happy and both of them have had productive seasons as a starter in Oakland.

I'm not sure, but I also believe that when Shaun Alexander first came along, he and Ricky Watters split time in Seattle for a season before Ricky moved on.

Deuce McAllister was not unhappy his first year in the league being behind Ricky Williams.

The backup RBs I just listed may not have liked their situations if they continued long-term, but for one year, none of them seemed to have a problem with it.

Your options seem like what we <i>might</i> be facing come 2005. I don't think the 3rd and 5th options apply for next year though.

Not the same HR. Wheatley was given the chance to be the sole starter but never proved that he could do it. Same w/ Garner. Garner is a role player who is not a F/T rusher. Too small. Wheatley was never as good as Henry is either.

Deuce was a rookie and Williams was coming off of 884/2 and 1,000/8 seasons, not a 1,438/13 season where he was underutilized. Henry is not rookie, neither will McG be. As well, Deuce had nowhere near this "instant star RB" status that McG has. It's almost as if the entire media "knows" that McGahee is going to be the next Payton.

I don't see us having two happy RBs next season. That's all. I wouldn't respect McGahee if he didn't want and expect to play next year and barring something really, really strange this season, Henry will have earned the right!

I.e., there's no way Henry sits IMO! That would be one of the stupidest moves in NFL GM history if it were to happen and a complete waste of talent for a season, both for us as well as Henry.

[WG]

BTW, Wheatley had over 1,000 yards (1,046) only once in his career. Garner only twice (1,229/1,142) both times w/ S.F. who use undersize scatbacks better in their system.

Garner didn't hit 600 rushing yards until his 5th season and Wheatley not until his 6th or 7th season.

[WG]

BTW, I don't think any of the last 3 options apply for next year. I think we'll be forced to trade one of the two. It would be the biggest waste of a pick that could have helped us for two seasons if McG sits this year and plays Henry's backup next.

Like Ingtar said, a first rounder this year is only worth a 2nd rounder next. Even though there were no obvious picks, there were several players who would have been worthy at only a handful of picks lower. I, as you know, liked Henderson. But if this goes to next year too, then even if we trade for a 1st rounder in '05, the same can be said then about that pick. A first rounder in '05 will be the equivalent to a 3rd this year.

I can easily see some players that would have been worth selecting in the early 2nd let alone the third.

[BillsNYC]

let them battle it out in training camp the next year...as TD stated, no job is sacred..

[HenryRules]

Why did you bother putting up 5 options if you don't think opinions that differ from yours are possible? You're saying that its impossible that Henry sits, yet that's an option, why isn't McG being happy while he eases in an option?

Wheatley definitely proved capable of being a starter ... in his only year as a starter in Oakland, he ran for over 1000 yards averaging 4.5 ypc with 9 TDs over 14 games. How is that not starter-worthy?
And Garner is definitely capable of being a full-time primary carrier, or did you miss him when he was with the 49ers just before Oakland where he was putting up around 1200 yards a season?
Just because Oakland makes use of their depth doesn't mean the players they have aren't capable of performing well.
Yes, neither of those players performed like Henry did last year, but both of them have had years with Oakland where they've proven worthy of starting. McGahee hasn't proven himself worthy of starting yet.

If McGahee sits out this entire year, I also don't see how that puts him in a different situation than McAllister's rookie season. Just because a guy is on the roster doesn't mean that he's paid his dues and earned the chance to start. McAllister was able to impress the NO staff every time he got the ball in his rookie year and in practice. McGahee will get the opportunity next year. Also, to say that McAllister was not as highly touted as McGahee is misleading. Yes, before the injury, McGahee was expected to be a great back ... however, everyone in the league expected McAllister to run for 1000+ yards as a rookie, how many are expecting McGahee to do that? Those sort of expectations are what would cause disruption, not the expectation that a few years from now someone could be great.

[WG]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Why did you bother putting up 5 options if you don't think opinions that differ from yours are possible? You're saying that its impossible that Henry sits, yet that's an option, why isn't McG being happy while he eases in an option?

Wheatley definitely proved capable of being a starter ... in his only year as a starter in Oakland, he ran for over 1000 yards averaging 4.5 ypc with 9 TDs. How is that not starter-worthy?
And Garner is definitely capable of being a full-time primary carrier, or did you miss him when he was with the 49ers just before Oakland where he was putting up around 1200 yards a season?
Just because Oakland makes use of their depth doesn't mean the players they have aren't capable of performing well.

If McGahee sits out this entire year, I also don't see how that puts him in a different situation than McAllister's rookie season. Just because a guy is on the roster doesn't mean that he's paid his dues and earned the chance to start. McAllister was able to impress the NO staff every time he got the ball in his rookie year and in practice. McGahee will get the opportunity next year. Also, to say that McAllister was not as highly touted as McGahee is misleading. Yes, before the injury, McGahee was expected to be a great back ... however, everyone in the league expected McAllister to run for 1000+ yards as a rookie, how many are expecting McGahee to do that? Those sort of expectations are what would cause disruption, not the expectation that a few years from now someone could be great.

I put up the options that are possibilities. There's a LOT of things that I don't consider real options that are entirely possible.

I'm very sorry that your standard for "indisputable starter status" is only barely over 1,000 yards, less than 10 TDs. Mine is a tad bit higher. If Henry had only 1,046 yards on 9 TDs following 5 or 6 seasons of mediocrity then I'd say start Gary and start McGahee unquestionably in '04.

Wheatley only proved that he can't stay injury free and that he couldn't put up 1,000 yards or even close on any consistent basis nor that he could even average 4.0 YPC for any more than a single season.

If you think Wheatley is great or that he's significantly better than Henry, just say so HR! Don't mince words here!

How many are expecting McGahee to rush for 1,000 yards you ask?

I would say that people are expecting quite a bit more out of him than that even given the level of hype. If all he's gonna do is rush for 1,000 then the debate has ended! Why trade away a guy who can consistently rush for 1,500, on a paltry number of carries by comparison, when all we expect out of his replacement is 1,000?

Makes no sense. Again, just answer the question. Quit w/ the nonsense.

Wheatley? Gimme a break here! I fully expect McGahee to match Wheatley even if he does sustain further injuries and Henry has already proven that he's better than Wheatley ever beyond any reasonable doubt. Henry's had more rushing yardage over his first two seasons than Wheatley had in his first 5! Henry should easily surpass Wheatley's career receiving production this season. So let's quit w/ the nonsensical debate here.

[casdhf]

Whem you assume it makes an ass out of you.

[HenryRules]

First, I'd bet that only about 10 RBs in the NFL got 10 or more TDs last season and that only half a dozen or so that got 1000 yards were able to average 4.5 ypc. Those two as a combination are pretty damned good.
Second, where have I said that either of them are as good as Henry. Wheatley doesn't have to be as good as Henry to be able to provide a similar situation ... in case you haven't noticed, Wheatley is the backup in Oakland. Wheatley's is a similar situation McGahee's. Wheatley has proven, in his single year of starting in Oakland that he is capable of being a starter in that offense. McGahee has not proven that he is capable of being a starter in our offense. Until McGahee does that, I don't know why he would be unhappy sitting and I haven't heard him say anything to make me believe otherwise.

Are you seriously saying that there are lots of people expecting McGahee to run for 1000 yards this year? What have you been smoking? Most people don't expect him to play this year. Next year, if healthy, people probably think he could go for a 1000. I don't see how that's any different from McAllister. The difference between what is expected from McGahee in 2004 and what was expected from McAllister as a rookie is not nearly as big as you are trying to make it out to be. Its actually quite similar. Being a first-round RB right off the bat says that you have the ability to be a big-time performer. The fact that McAllister sat for a year and didn't get unhappy makes my option a valid option. To say otherwise is to act like a child who won't admit that not everything is exactly the way he sees it.

When have I once said that your way is impossible, instead of give you instances where my option has occured and not caused a problem ... in fact, I can't think of any instances where having two RBs on a team has caused a big problem (Hambrick thinks he can start in Dallas and he co-existed with Emmit for a couple of years, neither are similar to Henry and McGahee but its another example I just thought of) ... please tell me how, with these examples, my proposal is such an impossibility. The fact that I've found situations where you have to nitpick on details instead of saying the situations never occurred, pretty much means i'm right.