Willis McGahee to the Giants?

**noa** · 02-24-2007, 05:08 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, 05:31 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??

**noa** · 02-24-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRR

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.

TRR · 02-24-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noa949

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, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRR

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, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StcChief

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.

Eleazar · 02-24-2007, 05:38 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.

Ebolapox · 02-24-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

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)

Eleazar · 02-25-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H5N1

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, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

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, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

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.

Ebolapox · 02-26-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

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)

Deberg_1990 · 02-24-2007, 05:49 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, 06:34 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, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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.

02-24-2007, 05:08 PM	Topic Starter
noa Band Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $1635453	Willis McGahee to the Giants? 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.
Posts: 8,302

02-24-2007, 05:38 PM	#7
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	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.
Posts: 80,659

02-24-2007, 05:49 PM	#13
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	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. __________________ Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made.
Posts: 66,914

02-24-2007, 06:34 PM	#14
Valiant Valiant 'The Thread Killer' Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6452380	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...
Posts: 18,351

02-24-2007, 05:31 PM	#2
TRR The Priest and I Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CO Casino cash: $9870185	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??
Posts: 7,260