Interesting point regarding the Henry/McGahee situation...

[lordofgun]

Found this quote elsewhere on the internet...


McGahee did in one game what Henry couldn't do, break 100 yds. And before you say he played Miami look at the ypc that each D is gving up.


Henry:
Jacksonville 3.8 ypc, Henry gets 3.26
Oakland 3.9 ypc, Henry gets 3.19
New England 4.3 ypc, Henry gets 4.08
NYJets 4.1 ypc, Henry gets a solid 2.95


McGahee:
Miami 4.0 ypc, McGahee gets 4.27

So not one time did Henry at least get what a defense was giving up on average!

[Ed]

And if you take away Henry's rushes, all those ypc averages only go up. That is interesting, but I don't think it's any secret Henry has been underachieving.

He started out slow though, last year too. Only 80 something yds against the Pats, 26 yds against the Jags, and then missed most of the Miami game and all of the Philly game because of his ribs. I can't remember what he did against the Bengals in week 5.

I'd love to see Willis start again, but I think Travis will bounce back. It'll take a few more games to be able to make better comparisons though.

Nice find.

[Drewpac]

Jacksonville 3.8 McGahee 3.4
Oakland 3.9, McGahee -1.5
Jets 4.1, McGahee 5.3

Can't count the NE or Miami games since both RBs didn't play in those games. McGahee had one game that was considerably better than Henry (vs. Jets). But he only had 8 carries in that game and remember that he benefited from a tiring 4th quarter Jets defense.

Don't get me wrong, I think McGahee's for real and I have no problem with him starting over Henry; but those stats mean nothing because of the small sample size and the differing circumstances they were compiled under.

[lordofgun]

Jacksonville 3.8 McGahee 3.4
Oakland 3.9, McGahee -1.5
Jets 4.1, McGahee 5.3

Can't count the NE or Miami games since both RBs didn't play in those games. McGahee had one game that was considerably better than Henry (vs. Jets). But he only had 8 carries in that game and remember that he benefited from a tiring 4th quarter Jets defense.

Don't get me wrong, I think McGahee's for real and I have no problem with him starting over Henry; but those stats mean nothing because of the small sample size and the differing circumstances they were compiled under.
And how many carries did McGahee have against Jax and Oakland??

[Ed]

McGahee's #'s against Oakland are a little misleading considering one of his runs was a 10 yard loss that got blown up before he even got the ball.

I think taking games where Henry got a decent amount of carries and where McGahee got a decent amount is a better comparison.

[Drewpac]

Exactly. Proves my point that stats like these don't mean anything and are easily manipulated. Sure, Henry was seemingly underperforming against those teams but things didn't drastically change when McGahee was thrown into those games. Also, McGahee was great but remember that he only had around 50 yards leading into the last drive against the Fins. Henry hasn't really had the opportunity yet to finish off a game when we are leading like McGahee did.

[lordofgun]

Exactly. Proves my point that stats like these don't mean anything and are easily manipulated. Sure, Henry was seemingly underperforming against those teams but things didn't drastically change when McGahee was thrown into those games. Also, McGahee was great but remember that he only had around 50 yards leading into the last drive against the Fins. Henry hasn't really had the opportunity yet to finish off a game when we are leading like McGahee did.
The only way to make a fair comparison is to look at the numbers of the starter (or the guy who got the bulk of the carries). I don't see the flaw in this logic. These stats absolutely mean something. It means that McGahee was much more effective than Henry.

What doesn't mean anything is to throw out McGahee's YPC average in the first few games since he had VERY FEW carries.

On a side note, I was at the game (with great seats thanks to dozer :D) and I saw something you don't get to see on TV. The Miami D actually respected the play action like I haven't seen in a long time against the Bills! McGahee was THE reason for that.

[EDS]

I have to agree with Drewpac on this, McGahee looked great against Miami but it was just one game. Plus, if McGahee does not uncork that 20+ yarder on the last drive his yards per cary is 3.X. I am not saying McGahee can't play or one back is better then the other, just that every back has a good game now and then and you can't use that to say someone is better then the other. If that were the case, then the Bills are in trouble against Baltimore because Jamal Lewis is out, which means Chester Taylor, who has a higher average yards per carry is in and will give us fits.

Is Chester Taylor a better back then Jamal Lewis? I doubt it, but it just shows you need more then one game to make a decision.

Again, I want McGahee to succeed and would love it if he turns into a franchise caliber back, but it is way way too early to make generalizations. Henry was arguably the Bills best player the past two years so I am not going to give up on him just yet.

[ArcticWildMan]

Plus, if McGahee does not uncork that 20+ yarder on the last drive his yards per cary is 3.X.



OK, who let WYS in here? :scratch:

[Earthquake Enyart]

Interesting point regarding the Henry/McGahee situation...

Sorry. This isn't that interesting. :z:

[lordofgun]

What is the fascination with taking away a player's longest run/pass/catch??? I don't get it!

[EDS]

What is the fascination with taking away a player's longest run/pass/catch??? I don't get it!

It was mostly to illustrate the point that using Henry and McGahee's ypc so far this season as an indication of their talents is not a fiar representation because the season is still young and the statistical sample too small.

Again I love what McGahee showed against the Dolphins and hope that he can turn into a world beater, but it just seems that people forget too quickly the quality work Travis Henry has done for the Bills over the past several years.

[mybills]

stats schmats.

[lordofgun]

It was mostly to illustrate the point that using Henry and McGahee's ypc so far this season as an indication of their talents is not a fiar representation because the season is still young and the statistical sample too small.

Again I love what McGahee showed against the Dolphins and hope that he can turn into a world beater, but it just seems that people forget too quickly the quality work Travis Henry has done for the Bills over the past several years.
What has Trav done for me lately???

[finsrclowns]

Henry's going to be fine. The coaches have talked him into wearing spikes on his shoes for this week's game. Should make a big difference. :bad:

[Drive 4 Five]

Here is the bottom line. Mcgahee is bigger, faster, stronger, elusive, blocks better, catches balls better. You do not have to look at stats to see why this kid is the better back. When Willis gets the ball, he is a threat to take it to the house everytime. Hello. Did you guys not see this kid literally moving piles or getting attacked several yards behind the line and juking people to pick up five positive yards. This guys has skills that Henry will never possess.
The only reason that this is a touchy subject is because the fact is that Travis has given us his all. He has been our best player over the last few years. He has heart, he is tough as nails...but at the end of the day, Willis is the superior player and EVERYBODY knows it!

[Mr. Cynical]

Here is the bottom line. Mcgahee is bigger, faster, stronger, elusive, blocks better, catches balls better. You do not have to look at stats to see why this kid is the better back. When Willis gets the ball, he is a threat to take it to the house everytime. Hello. Did you guys not see this kid literally moving piles or getting attacked several yards behind the line and juking people to pick up five positive yards. This guys has skills that Henry will never possess.
The only reason that this is a touchy subject is because the fact is that Travis has given us his all. He has been our best player over the last few years. He has heart, he is tough as nails...but at the end of the day, Willis is the superior player and EVERYBODY knows it!
Bingo. :up:

[Mr. Cynical]

The only way to make a fair comparison is to look at the numbers of the starter (or the guy who got the bulk of the carries). I don't see the flaw in this logic.Another bingo. :up:

Without the RB getting the bulk of the carries, two things happen:

1. Statistically you are using a rubber yardstick
2. The RB in question doesn't have a chance to get into a groove.

[Nighthawk]

People, fact is that Henry is NOT the better back this year...period! He does not give us the best chance to win and isn't what it is all about...winning?!?!? Yes, Henry has done great things in the past, but guess what...he's not doing it this year. He's falling all over the field, he's not picking up the short yardage plays and he isn't catching the ball well. Please tell me why he helps the team win this year? Football is all about winning now and he does not add any value to the team. On the other hand, McGahee has looked good when given the ball on short yardage plays, he's caught the ball well on screens and he has a 100 yard game in 1 start...Henry has 0 in 4 starts. Again, please tell me how any sane person can tell me that Henry is better for the team "right now?" Don't give me last years numbers or the year before that, I'm talking about what he has done for me recently! OK, I'm done ranting... :blush:

[RedEyE]

Wait a minute. To be fair, they haven't run behind the same line either. It was quite obvious that the OL played better against Miami than they had all year. Price had an amaizing game against Taylor. Jennings was out with injury and Tucker pushed center.

So, without a little more time, it's difficult to say that McGahee did it all by himself and Henry screwed it up all by himself. Henry deserves the same chance burning behind a better performing OL. He's proven his abilities in the past. In all honesty, I'm hoping that this is a sign that the OL is now getting it's **** together.

[Kenny]

But was it really a better line? Or was it because there was a better back in there making it look better?

First off, it was pretty obvious the passing game was much better when McGahee was in there just based purely on the fact that the guy can block. Simply put, Henry is a liability whenever he's on the field during a passing play.

And about McGahee's running? It's not as if he had huge lanes to run through. How many times did we see him get hit or run into the defenders in the backfield and then somehow push through, spin, and move the pile a couple more yards? Heck, there's something about McGahee when you think the play's dead, and it looks like he's under the pile, he manages to somehow slither under everyone and get that extra 3-4yards (did the samething against JAX).

So far put in the same situation this year with Henry, he would just run into a defender and the play would die... With McGahee, we got extra yards.

[G. Host]

Did you guys not see this kid literally moving piles or getting attacked several yards behind the line and juking people to pick up five positive yards.

McGahee was not moving piles - it was the offense linemen, same one bashed by many people, who were pushing him through those piles. Don't know why they weren't doing so in other games aside from Jacksonville and Oakland having very good linemen.

[Drive 4 Five]

McGahee was not moving piles - it was the offense linemen, same one bashed by many people, who were pushing him through those piles. Don't know why they weren't doing so in other games aside from Jacksonville and Oakland having very good linemen.

Dude just read what kenny wrote just before your post. Don't trip....

[lordofgun]

But was it really a better line? Or was it because there was a better back in there making it look better?

First off, it was pretty obvious the passing game was much better when McGahee was in there just based purely on the fact that the guy can block. Simply put, Henry is a liability whenever he's on the field during a passing play.

And about McGahee's running? It's not as if he had huge lanes to run through. How many times did we see him get hit or run into the defenders in the backfield and then somehow push through, spin, and move the pile a couple more yards? Heck, there's something about McGahee when you think the play's dead, and it looks like he's under the pile, he manages to somehow slither under everyone and get that extra 3-4yards (did the samething against JAX).

So far put in the same situation this year with Henry, he would just run into a defender and the play would die... With McGahee, we got extra yards. Great post. I agree 100%.

And like I said earlier, the Miami D respected the run like no other team I've seen recently against the Bills, so the play action was extremely effective.

[Hemlepp53]

But was it really a better line? Or was it because there was a better back in there making it look better?

First off, it was pretty obvious the passing game was much better when McGahee was in there just based purely on the fact that the guy can block. Simply put, Henry is a liability whenever he's on the field during a passing play.

And about McGahee's running? It's not as if he had huge lanes to run through. How many times did we see him get hit or run into the defenders in the backfield and then somehow push through, spin, and move the pile a couple more yards? Heck, there's something about McGahee when you think the play's dead, and it looks like he's under the pile, he manages to somehow slither under everyone and get that extra 3-4yards (did the samething against JAX).

So far put in the same situation this year with Henry, he would just run into a defender and the play would die... With McGahee, we got extra yards.

:shocked: Good Post.. I see your new.. Welcome aboard The Zone.... :clap:

[askabry]

It's impossible to argue a negative; knowing whether or not Henry would have or wouldn't have done this or that given the same situation.

But here's what we DO know: Henry will get you about one run a game for 20 yards, about five games a year and other than that he's a grinder. That's a simple fact. The reason for this is simple, in that he has never been fast. Classic example was last year's game ... He goes 64 yards on a single scamper ... but is caught from behind, from a DB running across the field to catch him. That drive ends in a field goal, and we go on to lose by 2 points.

McGahee is fast. In fact, the dude's been clocked at sub-4.2 speeds in the forty ... people, that's faster than just about anybody on this squad. He jumps 41 inches. Can lift 500 pounds. That 31 yard run was a classic; he was deep into a compressed secondary before anyone could react to it, and then just ran over people.

Screw the draft pick. You want a #1 pick for Travis? Fine. Combine Travis with a #3 and a #5 (or Sam Adams) and you get your first rounder and all this blather about his trade value is meaningless. What do we need with a third round pick and fifth round pick? Tom apparently doesn't know what to with them anyways.

[HenryRules]

The only way to make a fair comparison is to look at the numbers of the starter (or the guy who got the bulk of the carries). I don't see the flaw in this logic. These stats absolutely mean something. It means that McGahee was much more effective than Henry.

These stats prove nothing ... the sample set is way too small.

Using your logic, if I flip a coin 10 times and get heads 6 times, I'm incredibly talented and can actually influence the coin toss to come up heads. Obviously that's false, 6 heads is a fairly common occurence and expected to happen. Same in the RB case ... McGahee and Henry have been really close to the expected results for playing against another team - statistically, they've both been average against each team. The smaller the data set, the bigger the ranges for an expected result and the less significance that can be associated with large differences. For example, if I toss a coin 3 times and come up with 1 head (only 33% of the time), does that mean I've lost all that talent I had from the time that I tossed it 10 times and got heads 6 times (60% of the time)? Nope, it's still a fluky result and insignificant.

Just because the data is the only data available does not mean that it is enough to truly evaluate anything.

If you want to say that McGahee deserves more carries to see if he can duplicate what he's done, fine, that could make some sense.

But if you want to use those numbers to say that McGahee is better than Henry, it's a lost cause. There is no need for a counterargument because you've presented nothing (and actually you've weakened your position by demonstrating ignorance in statistics - demonstrating ignorance is not a good way to look convincing).

You say that stats become meaningless if you throw away the best/worst (which they do), yet you don't see the fact that you're doing the exact same thing with Henry's career? You've got 3 years worth of data and you're saying that 3.5 games is more accurate?

What you posted is not an interesting point ... in fact, it's not a point at all.

[lordofgun]

These stats prove nothing ... the sample set is way too small.


Using your logic, if I flip a coin 10 times and get heads 6 times, I'm incredibly talented and can actually influence the coin toss to come up heads. Obviously that's false, 6 heads is a fairly common occurence and expected to happen. Same in the RB case ... McGahee and Henry have been really close to the expected results for playing against another team - statistically, they've both been average against each team. The smaller the data set, the bigger the ranges for an expected result and the less significance that can be associated with large differences. For example, if I toss a coin 3 times and come up with 1 head (only 33% of the time), does that mean I've lost all that talent I had from the time that I tossed it 10 times and got heads 6 times (60% of the time)? Nope, it's still a fluky result and insignificant.

Just because the data is the only data available does not mean that it is enough to truly evaluate anything.

If you want to say that McGahee deserves more carries to see if he can duplicate what he's done, fine, that could make some sense.

But if you want to use those numbers to say that McGahee is better than Henry, it's a lost cause. There is no need for a counterargument because you've presented nothing (and actually you've weakened your position by demonstrating ignorance in statistics - demonstrating ignorance is not a good way to look convincing).

You say that stats become meaningless if you throw away the best/worst (which they do), yet you don't see the fact that you're doing the exact same thing with Henry's career? You've got 3 years worth of data and you're saying that 3.5 games is more accurate?

What you posted is not an interesting point ... in fact, it's not a point at all.
TOUCHY! Is Henry your daddy or something? :D

McGahee is more talented. Anyone who objectively watched the game on Sunday could see that. Just going by your name, I can see that you are not objective.

What's important is that we rushed for over 100 yards for the first time in 7 games and it just happened to be against a very good Miami defense.

BTW, you want a larger sample size? I've seen a few YEARS worth of Henry and I've seen him enough to know he's not the answer.

[Mr. Cynical]

BTW, you want a larger sample size? I've seen a few YEARS worth of Henry and I've seen him enough to know he's not the answer.Apparently TD saw him enough as well and decided to use a #1 pick on an injured RB. If that doesn't put the writing on the wall I don't know what does.

[HenryRules]

TOUCHY! Is Henry your daddy or something? :D

McGahee is more talented. Anyone who objectively watched the game on Sunday could see that. Just going by your name, I can see that you are not objective.

What's important is that we rushed for over 100 yards for the first time in 7 games and it just happened to be against a very good Miami defense.

BTW, you want a larger sample size? I've seen a few YEARS worth of Henry and I've seen him enough to know he's not the answer.

Ok ... read something before commenting. Not once did I say that we shouldn't start McGahee (I think a reasonable case can be made for that). However, your case is ridiculous. Why not quote my post and argue my points instead of making up this Henry bias. I was/am a big Henry fan from when he started (I think he's the next Curtis Martin) ... however, I think McGahee could be the next Bo Jackson, and I was a huge Bo fan and always will be, so my loyalties are more with McGahee right now. Don't try and change things just because your post was ignorant.

Just going by my name ... once again, you're showing your lack of consideration for sample size. Who were our running backs when my name was registered? Hmm ... Henry, Bryson, and Morris. McGahee? Nope, not there. You can make your opinion based on my decision over 2 years ago ... but once again, it has as much credibility as your statistical analysis.

Anyone who objectively watched the game on Sunday realized one thing ... it was ONE ****ING GAME!!! As I have said (and in my last post even), you can say that McGahee deserves more time to prove it wasn't a fluke, but one game proves nothing. If you're saying that one game proves anything ... then I suppose Mark Rypien, Desmond Howard, and Larry Brown (all Super Bowl MVP's) are HOFers.

If you've seen a pro bowl running back in his first three years and determined that Henry isn't the answer ... then congratulations, you're an incredibly brilliant GM who has discovered a different way to build a team. I have never said that Henry is/will be better than McGahee (although he has proven a lot more than McGahee), I have only said that Henry is a solid enough back to win with and if he continues will be a HOF back. My comparison for Henry has always been Martin and if you think that comparison is inaccurate, then you haven't been watching Henry his first three years.

Oh, and by the way ... our 100 yards against Miami's defense ... again, it is ONE ****ING GAME!!! Before you quote a statistic as signifcant, you should learn the odd thing about statistics.

When the hole gets too deep ... please ... stop digging, don't try and make yourself look more ignorant.

My beef is not with your idea to start McGahee ... hell, I was saying to give McGahee a shot in the preseason ... my problem is that you do it in such an ignorant and poorly educated manner that you make it look like a foolish idea.

[HenryRules]

Apparently TD saw him enough as well and decided to use a #1 pick on an injured RB. If that doesn't put the writing on the wall I don't know what does.

So now you respect Donahoe's opinion? I used to respect you because you gave a different point of view and didn't object to disagreeing with the norm. However, after having some time to look at your opinions, it seems that you devise your opinion on what is the least popular fan's opinion, not anything else.

Either you respect someone's (Donahoe's) opinion or you don't ... you can't say he's stupid at some times and then brilliant at others.

I now have only a little bit more respect for you than Philster ... at least you understand 1-4 means 1-4.

[Mr. Cynical]

Normally I usually agree 99% with all your posts but not this one.


If you've seen a pro bowl running back in his first three years and determined that Henry isn't the answer ... then congratulations, you're an incredibly brilliant GM who has discovered a different way to build a team.Well, we've all pissed on TD alot (myself included) so I guess you are saying TD sucks as a GM. (not that I disagree) Since you are mocking LoG, then you are implicitly mocking TD because he made the same assessment and thus drafted WM in the first round.


My comparison for Henry has always been Martin and if you think that comparison is inaccurate, then you haven't been watching Henry his first three years.I couldnt' disagree more. Henry has hands of stone. Henry has no moves. The only thing they are similar on is their "workhorse" ability to carry the rock. That's it.

[Mr. Cynical]

So now you respect Donahoe's opinion? I used to respect you because you gave a different point of view and didn't object to disagreeing with the norm. However, after having some time to look at your opinions, it seems that you devise your opinion on what is the least popular fan's opinion, not anything else.

Either you respect someone's (Donahoe's) opinion or you don't ... you can't say he's stupid at some times and then brilliant at others.

I now have only a little bit more respect for you than Philster ... at least you understand 1-4 means 1-4.Have you been drinking or something? First you arrogantly attack LoG with a condescending tone I've not seen on these boards for a long time. Then you attack me which is also COMPLETELY uncalled for. People who just lash out like that deserve NO respect, which is now what I have for you. I really have to say I'm greatly disappointed but it is what it is I guess.

[HenryRules]

Well, we've all pissed on TD alot (myself included) so I guess you are saying TD sucks as a GM. (not that I disagree) Since you are mocking LoG, then you are implicitly mocking TD because he made the same assessment and thus drafted WM in the first round.

Read what you want into the post ... I am not saying McGahee is horrible .. I'm saying that LoG's analysis is ridiculous. McGahee may, and hopefully will, be decent, but LoG's post provides no reasons to believe so.


I couldnt' disagree more. Henry has hands of stone. Henry has no moves. The only thing they are similar on is their "workhorse" ability to carry the rock. That's it.

The running game is the only thing I find similar between the two. I liked Thurman .. but if a running back's claim to fame is his pass-catching ability ... well, that's what you have receivers for. Thurman was an amazing runner and that's why he's considered one of the best. The receiving game is a bonus. Larry Centers was a great receiver and that's why he's not considered one of the best RB's IMO.

[HenryRules]

Have you been drinking or something? First you arrogantly attack LoG with a condescending tone I've not seen on these boards for a long time. Then you attack me which is also COMPLETELY uncalled for. People who just lash out like that deserve NO respect, which is now what I have for you. I really have to say I'm greatly disappointed but it is what it is I guess.

Sorry, but I view these just as condescending ...


What is the fascination with taking away a player's longest run/pass/catch??? I don't get it!

It's obviously because McGahee is too fragile. He's a very small back at only 6'0" 228. :rolleye:

And you know this because....?

[Mr. Cynical]

Sorry, but I view these just as condescending ... I don't think it is even close. Log was sarcastic, but in your posts, you accuse LoG of being ignorant and poorly educated. Big difference.




...and actually you've weakened your position by demonstrating ignorance in statistics - demonstrating ignorance is not a good way to look convincing.

When the hole gets too deep ... please ... stop digging, don't try and make yourself look more ignorant.

...my problem is that you do it in such an ignorant and poorly educated manner that you make it look like a foolish idea.

[Dozerdog]

:movie:

[finsrclowns]

Let's see...we've played 5 games. Henry's started 4, played poorly, and we lost them all. McGahee's started 1, played well and we won.

Do we have to make a "case" for Willis to start? The only "sample size" of any relevance is this season, since we need to make the best choices we can to win games and at 1-4 that means NOW. You don't need to see a movie 100 times to know whether it was funny. Willis gave us a spark last week. We won. He was part of the reason. IMO he has more to offer than Henry. Does it have to get more complicated than that?

[lordofgun]

HR,

I assumed you were a huge Henry fan not only because of your username, but also because you obviously take anything negative directed at Henry as a personal insult. Why else would you lash out at me personally? Doesn't make sense unless you have some personal feelings for the Henry.

You're right...McGahee's stats are a small sample size, but that wasn't the point. The point was that I've seen enough of Henry (a much larger sample size) to know he's not the RB I want handling the bulk of the carries. I saw more from potential from McGahee in Sunday's game than I've seen from Henry in three years.