PDA

View Full Version : Willis McGahee to the Giants?


noa
02-24-2007, 04:08 PM
I think he would be a good fit. I don't think Brandon Jacobs can carry the whole load by himself, and he and McGahee would make a great one-two punch.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2778174


INDIANAPOLIS -- The Buffalo Bills are using part of their time here at the NFL scouting combine this weekend to apprise teams that starting tailback Willis McGahee is available via trade, and it appears they have attracted the interest of at least one potential suitor.

Jerry Reese, the first-year general manager of the New York Giants, acknowledged Saturday morning that his team has some interest in McGahee, a four-year veteran who has twice posted 1,000-yard seasons.

"There is some talk about Willis out there," Reese said. "We'll investigate Willis. We'll investigate everybody out there with trade talks. We'll leave no stones unturned."

The Giants are seeking to bolster a tailback depth chart thinned by the retirement of star Tiki Barber, and where two-year veteran Brandon Jacobs is now the nominal starter. The Giants feel Jacobs has a strong upside, but Barber's former backup has logged just 134 carries in two seasons.

Jacobs carried 96 times for 423 yards in 2006, but he posted double-digit rushing attempts in only three games and will have to demonstrate in camp that he is able to assume the workhorse load that Barber once shouldered. The ideal situation, Reese allowed, would be for Jacobs to win the starting job and for the team to have a complementary back, maybe a veteran, on hand as well.

"We're looking for Brandon to probably carry the ball 20 times and for another running back [to carry] 15 times," Reese said. "[Jacobs] will carry the maximum amount of the load for us, I'm assuming, if everything goes like we expect it to."

In truth, though, McGahee is a more accomplished back than Jacobs, and he certainly would compete hard for the No. 1 job if the Giants acquired him. It is not believed that there have been any substantive trade discussions yet between the Giants and the Bills. But officials from other teams confirmed that the Bills are actively pursuing trade partners for McGahee, the team's first-round choice in the 2003 draft.

Buffalo officials seem to have soured on McGahee, who has not asked to be traded, but who is entering the final year of his contract in 2007. McGahee could depart as a free agent after the 2007 season and the Bills, wary of the possibility he could exit with them getting nothing in return, have taken a active stance in trying to find him a new home.

It is not known if any other teams have indicated an interest in McGahee. The former University of Miami standout has appeared in 46 games, including 40 starts, and carried 868 times for 3,365 yards and 24 touchdowns.

McGahee, 25, missed his entire rookie campaign as he recovered from the catastrophic knee injury that ended his college career, then rushed for over 1,000 yards each in 2004 and 2005, before running for 990 yards last season.

In an unrelated move, the Giants reached agreement with two-year veteran linebacker Chase Blackburn on a four-year, $3.5 million contract. Blackburn is expected to vie for a starting job in the Giants' revamped linebacker corps in 2007.

Senior writer Len Pasquarelli covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

TRR
02-24-2007, 04:31 PM
If anyone is big enough to carry the load at RB, it's Brandon Jacobs. Why would he not be able to carry the load??

Cochise
02-24-2007, 04:38 PM
If I were a GM in the NFL, I would never give up anything in trade for an existing running back.

For one thing, if the guy is available he's usually damaged goods anyway.

Secondly, it's just not that hard to develop a serviceable running back if you have moderate talent in place around them.

And you also never know when they are going to break down. It seems to be the most injury prone position among those where players consistently command first-day draft picks. It doesn't taken an injury prone guy to go down for the year when you're the most punished player on the field.

It's not like a quarterback where you need a guy to read defenses so much and make decisions. Running backs need to have the measurables and be taught patience.

Maybe that 'vision', like Priest Holmes had, is an intangible that can't be taught, but I'm not convinced that there aren't 4 or 5 guys in the draft every year who would be fine as starters in the NFL and several more who go undrafted who could be too. I think the talent at that position leaving the college ranks still exceeds by a good deal the number of positions available to them in the NFL.

Running backs have star power, and get huge contracts, and teams hang onto them a lot longer than they should I think, because they are one of the more replaceable positions on the field.

noa
02-24-2007, 04:45 PM
If anyone is big enough to carry the load at RB, it's Brandon Jacobs. Why would he not be able to carry the load??


I guess its not a question of size. The team doesn't seem to be convinced that he is agile or versatile enough to be the #1 guy. Maybe he will prove himself next year, but it seems that the Giants think Brandon Jacobs main value is in short yardage situations. Jacobs can run between the tackles, but I'm not sure how good he is as an outside runner or a receiver out of the backfield.

Deberg_1990
02-24-2007, 04:49 PM
I wonder why the Bills are looking to dump McGahee? Hes not awful even though hes never really turned out to be the explosive back everyone thought he was going to be.

Valiant
02-24-2007, 05:34 PM
I'm sorry I guess I don't understand how you don't think Jacobs could sustain that workload, if Tiki could do it there...

I am going to get shot, but since LJ just moved to NewYork, I would trade him there for Jacobs and thier 1st round pick...

RJ
02-24-2007, 05:43 PM
I'm sorry I guess I don't understand how you don't think Jacobs could sustain that workload, if Tiki could do it there...

I am going to get shot, but since LJ just moved to NewYork, I would trade him there for Jacobs and thier 1st round pick...


I don't think that would be so crazy, myself.

Crashride
02-24-2007, 05:54 PM
I don't think that would be so crazy, myself.

I do. All this talk of trading Larry needs to stop. Dont listen to Whitlock.

Cntrygal
02-24-2007, 06:27 PM
It wouldn't break my heart at all if he were to vacate Buffalo tonight.

HMc
02-24-2007, 07:46 PM
I'd trade LJ and our 1st for a top two pick.

StcChief
02-24-2007, 08:18 PM
SIU guy - Jacobs can carry the load

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Jacobs

didn't get really pounded in college.

TRR
02-24-2007, 08:39 PM
I guess its not a question of size. The team doesn't seem to be convinced that he is agile or versatile enough to be the #1 guy. Maybe he will prove himself next year, but it seems that the Giants think Brandon Jacobs main value is in short yardage situations. Jacobs can run between the tackles, but I'm not sure how good he is as an outside runner or a receiver out of the backfield.


I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to step in and carry the load. The guy is 260 pounds, runs a 4.5 40 yard dash, and has shown decent hands as of yet. I thought he was probably the best backup RB in football last season IMO. He seemed to always be breaking long runs.

StcChief
02-24-2007, 08:41 PM
I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to step in and carry the load. The guy is 260 pounds, runs a 4.5 40 yard dash, and has shown decent hands as of yet. I thought he was probably the best backup RB in football last season IMO. He seemed to always be breaking long runs.

Giants want an Insurance policy in McGahee??? or spell back.

I think Jacobs will start and would be a good FF sleeper.

Mecca
02-24-2007, 08:46 PM
Giants want an Insurance policy in McGahee??? or spell back.

I think Jacobs will start and would be a good FF sleeper.

You don't trade for a Willis McGahee and then make him a backup.....

The Bills like to create holes they didn't have before that's real smart. It'd be one thing if the Chiefs did it because they are old, the Bills on the other hand aren't so this makes little sense other than they are just stupid.

Ebolapox
02-24-2007, 08:52 PM
Secondly, it's just not that hard to develop a serviceable running back if you have moderate talent in place around them...

the chiefs teams of the 90's say you're full of it... we had an over the hill marcus allen (great, but no feature back) and screwed up greg hill's career, but we never truly developed that running threat in the 90's... hell, we even tried to trade for corey dillon for the longest time (heh, here comes cody/vanilla thunder)

Chief Roundup
02-24-2007, 09:51 PM
SIU guy - Jacobs can carry the load

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Jacobs

didn't get really pounded in college.

He might not of gotten pounded a lot in college but he sure got his knee blewn up.

I never did understand why the Bills drafted McGahee, with a surgicaly repaired unproven knee, when they had Henry. It was a waste of thier 2cd 1st round choice.

Deberg_1990
02-25-2007, 08:24 AM
He might not of gotten pounded a lot in college but he sure got his knee blewn up.

I never did understand why the Bills drafted McGahee, with a surgicaly repaired unproven knee, when they had Henry. It was a waste of thier 2cd 1st round choice.

They also passed on LJ to draft McGahee...im sure they kick themselves over that one.

jspchief
02-25-2007, 08:33 AM
Jcobs size might suggest that he can carry a big NFL load, but being a big upright runner suggests that he's going to take a lot more hard hits too.

Many of the most durable backs in the league are durable because they can slip off of the big impacts. Meanwhile the Mike Alstott types lower their head and absorb 100% of every impact.

Battering rams may knock doors down, but if they hit enough doors they eventually break themselves.

Cochise
02-25-2007, 09:06 AM
the chiefs teams of the 90's say you're full of it... we had an over the hill marcus allen (great, but no feature back) and screwed up greg hill's career, but we never truly developed that running threat in the 90's... hell, we even tried to trade for corey dillon for the longest time (heh, here comes cody/vanilla thunder)

1999 - #4 in rushing yards
1998 - #23
1997 - #5
1996 - #4
1995 - #1
1994 - #11
1993 - #20
1992 - #23
1991 - #3
1990 - #10

Average rank over that time, #10. Top third of the league. Not exactly crap.

milkman
02-25-2007, 09:11 AM
1999 - #4 in rushing yards
1998 - #23
1997 - #5
1996 - #4
1995 - #1
1994 - #11
1993 - #20
1992 - #23
1991 - #3
1990 - #10

Average rank over that time, #10. Top third of the league. Not exactly crap.

Those numbers are the result of outstanding O-Line play rather than talent at RB.

That is why I've always said the 90s O-Line was a highly underrated group, and that they were probably the second best unit in that era, behind the Cowboys.

The RBs we had were for, the most part, over the hill has beens or no talent never weres.

HMc
02-25-2007, 04:22 PM
Those numbers are the result of outstanding O-Line play rather than talent at RB.

That is why I've always said the 90s O-Line was a highly underrated group, and that they were probably the second best unit in that era, behind the Cowboys.

The RBs we had were for, the most part, over the hill has beens or no talent never weres.

Which demonstrates you don't need asuperstar RB to run well.

milkman
02-25-2007, 04:41 PM
Which demonstrates you don't need asuperstar RB to run well.

True.

But a superstar RB behind an outstanding O-Line can make your offense much more productive.

He can make a core group of chump WRs seem almost respectable.

Douche Baggins
02-25-2007, 06:52 PM
I'm interested in tuning into Giants games next year just to watch a 264-pound RB carry it 20 times...

Cntrygal
02-25-2007, 07:45 PM
WM doesn't want to be in Buffalo. He also plays when HE wants to play. He also dances around the damn backfield too much (he seems to have something against running "north & south" instead he likes to run "east & west"). If the Bills can get something out of trading him before he's a FA next season.... "woohoo".

Demonpenz
02-25-2007, 11:10 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSySFNv9xNE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSySFNv9xNE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

noa
02-25-2007, 11:12 PM
That clip is painful. I remember watching when it happened.

Short Leash Hootie
02-26-2007, 12:38 AM
you all need to get a life

Ebolapox
02-26-2007, 08:32 AM
1999 - #4 in rushing yards
1998 - #23
1997 - #5
1996 - #4
1995 - #1
1994 - #11
1993 - #20
1992 - #23
1991 - #3
1990 - #10

Average rank over that time, #10. Top third of the league. Not exactly crap.

as milkman's already said, those are a product of our offensive line play--which was beyond stellar

barry sanders is my alltime favorite nfl player... there were rumors of him being traded to the chiefs (mostly made for delusional chiefs fans) a few times in 95 or 96... could you have imagined barry sanders behind our offensive line(s) of those years??

seriously--a good offensive line will make an average RB (or RBs in our case) put up good stats

a superstar back ADDED TO a superb offensive line is a recipe for playoff success--something we NEVER had in the 90's (montana notwithstanding)

Pushead2
02-26-2007, 08:40 AM
Jacobs is good enough in terms of running the ball but what he doesn't have is out of the backfield type of playing. Unforutnately being in NYC they would put him in to pound and grind on 3rd downs and goaline alot but would break nice yardage off of the runs, kind of like Turner on SD.