Henry for Shelton trade agreed in principle.

[JeffGollin]

This certainly smells like a done-deal. But a word of caution: Cardinal fans assuming that a deal was done have been burned in the past.

Let's not jump the gun here.

 

[Russ Smith]

This certainly smells like a done-deal. But a word of caution: Cardinal fans assuming that a deal was done have been burned in the past.

Let's not jump the gun here.

The Bills message board says the same thing, it's all over it's a done deal just waiting until March 2nd.

But of course 2 years ago we signed Kordell Stewart, we all know it.

 

[ajcardfan]

Personally, I am not too concerned with these issues for one reason: Denny Green. I would be shocked if Henry missed any camps or workouts. Stuff doesnt fly here in AZ anymore.

A-Bomb

Yeah, sounds like dozens of players we've had here who moved onto other teams and played well.

 

[jerryp]

With all due respect Jerry I asked you to elaborate because I was talking about a specific thing, sacks allowed, and you responded with the defense got better and the special teams. Yes I understand that field position and turnover margin play a big role in winning games. I was talking about one specific aspect of that team, that when Henry was the starter they got sacked about 3.5 times as often as when he got benched.

I've never bashed FO I like the site, but they don't factor in blitz pickups into their numbers and if you follow the Cards for 3 years now we've been told one of the biggest reasons Shipp doesn't play more is blitz pickups.

Talk about a strawman, I make a statement, you attack it, I ask you to elaborate and you jump all over me for things I haven't said.

i fully realize Buffalo had a great defense, a weaker schedule(during the hot streak) and I can think of lots of reasons why that would cut sacks down, playing with a lead, in better field position so you can run more, things like that. But if you just want to vent and attack statements I haven't even made feel free.

I think your take on the entire exchange is warped. SWD said he didn't think 99% of the people posting had ever even seen Henry play. I agreed. I responded in saying so and that it didn't help that ESPN and other sports writers don't give a very accurate portrayal of what is really happening. Because they want to sell the controversy of a running back feud. So they just assume he lost out to McGahee.

At no point was I responding to you. I have no idea how you got that I was responding to anything you said since I quoted SWD.

You then asked me to elaborate on how Henry was a good pickup. Again, no idea where that came from. But I responded in saying I never said Henry was a good pickup, or better than McGahee, but that the reason for the turnaround was not because of a switch at running back. I then threw in some sarcastic statements about looking past anecdotal evidence and old school football stats being the crutch of most football viewers. Which it is. 90% of the stuff in the forum is predicated on crap we simply don't have the numbers for. Your sacks under Henry as a starter stat is a perfect example of such. There are so many factors as to if he was responsible for a sack or not it's pointless to try without the game tape. Let's take McGahee as an example. You say Bledsoe was sacked 14 times in his starts. You then, without ever considering any factors, credit them to McGahee and random line improvement. Let's see, do we even know if McGahee was on the field for those 14 sacks? Nope. Do we know if McGahee was even SUPPOSED TO BLOCK ON THOSE PLAYS? No, we do not. Do we know how many of those sacks McGahee did block his man but somebody else made it through due to line mistake or simply more blitzers than blockers? Again, we are woefully ignorant. Do we know how many of the sacks were caused through no fault of the line/backs but because Bledsoe simply held on longer than the play was designed to last? No we don't. Then why are we using how many sacks occurred when McGahee was listed as #1 on the depth chart as some proof of his blocking ability? That's why I'm not interested in a Henry vs. McGahee debate. Because it will be 99% filled with stats like that one taken completely without context with those using them to make their point completely unable to let go.

That's what I was talking about when I said I could elaborate but won't. Because most people have no interest in losing their kung-fu grip on crap like yards per carry and the like. I can give an even longer list of reasons why the almighty 4.0 YPC is a joke, even to the teams. But who's interested in that? Certainly no one here. That's all I was saying.

But just to re-iterate. I was never responding to you until you specifically asked me to defend a statement I didn't make. You're the one that asked me to defend things I didn't say, there is no discussion on this. Go back and read everything I wrote. None of it was directed at you till you asked for it to be directed at you.

In conclusion, anyone who believes the record Buffalo garnered in the 2004 season was due in larger part to the switch from Henry to McGahee and not the most dominant defense in the league and the most dominant special teams in the league is a clown that shouldn't even be discussing football.

 

[Russ Smith]

In conclusion, anyone who believes the record Buffalo garnered in the 2004 season was due in larger part to the switch from Henry to McGahee and not the most dominant defense in the league and the most dominant special teams in the league is a clown that shouldn't even be discussing football.

your post was directly below mine and given the timing of it I assumed you were talking about me when you made the comment about 4 yards per carry being all people cared about. Since I had just mentioned above that he'd only done that twice, seemed to me your reply was at least in part directed at me.
If it wasn't I apologize for assuming it was. You also responded to a post by SWD echoing the statement that Henry was a great pickup, and you apparently were agreeing with SWD, which is why I assumed YOU too were saying Henry was a great pickup.If you re-read you'll see I asked you, Pariah and anyone else more familiar with Buffalo to elaborate on your comments. You then responded with the attack about how your points weren't getting through so you wouldn't take the time to elaborate.

Hey I'm one of the few people that WOULD read such an elaboration. My problem with your comment was your whole take on why Henry was benched is the fans wanted to see McGahee play because the team took such a risk picking him. Again Mularkey had NO stake in that, he didn't pick McGahee, he simply decided at some point that the offense needed a spark and he thought McGahee was a guy who might give it to them. I seriously doubt after 6 games Mularkey decided jeez if we're going to suck I ought to at least play the guy the fans want. Especially knowing how tough their opening schedule was.

I've never said changing RB's was the reason Buffalo got better last year. I merely pointed out that there WAS a reason why they made the switch and it's a bit naive to assume that Mike Mularkey knows nothing and made the switch to justify a pick on McGahee, a guy he had NOTHING to do with picking since he was in Pittsburgh when they picked him.

Again I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your posts. I don't know where you got the idea I would attack FO's numbers hell if anything they support my case Henry doesn't come off as anything special in any of the years they did their rankings.

He's simply not the type of RB Green has had success with in the past so it seems an odd choice to me now.

Believe it or not I asked you to elaborate because I WANTED to see your opinion since you apparently live in Buffalo and know quite a bit about the Bills.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

have I heard LJ say he didn't want to be here! Nothing from his agent indicated that either. All references that were made, were made to playing time.
It seems to me LJ was will ing to play anywhere he was asked, he just wanted a chance to start and wasn't getting it from Green. even though there was'nt anyone who was "out performing" him.
I've heard the same thing from others. They want playing time, but Green is palying who he wants, not necessarily who is the"better" player be any means.
I'm just sorry that a guy, who plays hurt, give the team everything he has, knows he's probably not going to get a fair shake, ASKS if he can test the waters, told to go ahead ( confirming his beliefs about the staff), is now the "Guy Who Wanted Out"!
Don't start B.S, rumors.
This isn't meant for you DJ.

"Green is [playing] who he wants . . . " - LOL, yeah, green's not playing the players he thinks will give him the better opp to win. he just wants to play the players he wants. ridiculous.

oh, and if a player wants to "test the waters" he pretty much wants out.

 

[Pariah]

SWD said he didn't think 99% of the people posting had ever even seen Henry play. I agreed.

Citing SWD to help prove a point is like giving a guy who can't swim a lead bathing suit.

 

[Renz]

He's a good RB but if the market for Shelton was as good as we all are hearing, I'm not sure we got the best value for him.

He's a good player I just thought we'd get a better deal for LJ than Henry.

If it's true that teams like Chicago, TB, St. Louis and Miami all showed interest in Shelton then maybe this was the best deal we could get.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

OMG WildBB we agree 100%. This "draft a RB" is crap. Roll a 100 sided die and pray it lands on 1-10 thats about the same odds as drafting a back like henry. Why risk it.

This is great. Now we can draft/aquire a solid RG (not all 5 spots have to be filled by #1 picks) then Id be happy with Clement with a great RG next to him.

But w ewill finally have a back!!!!!

I can tell by the posts 99% here have never seen him play. He is very good.

you're totally right. it seems a lot of peeps on this board only watch cards games and are not that familiar with the rest of the league. henry is a stud. a top-notch runningback. is he shawn alexander or priest holmes (when healthy)? no. is he a legit running/receiving threat? hell yeah. he'll be the best back we've had in az.

and to give up shelton, who, though he may be jstadvl's best friend, was part of a perennially bad offensive line and nada else for a top notch rb? my friends, we do this in a heartbeat.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

"Green is [playing] who he wants . . . " - LOL, yeah, green's not playing the players he thinks will give him the better opp to win. he just wants to play the players he wants. ridiculous.

Well said. And when you consider that Green gets a $1 million bonus if he takes this team to the playoffs, the notion that Green plays worse players as a result of his personal preferences gets even more far-fetched.

 

[Russ Smith]

If it's true that teams like Chicago, TB, St. Louis and Miami all showed interest in Shelton then maybe this was the best deal we could get.

That's the part we'll probably never know. For example I'd take Surtain over Henry any day of the week, Surtain is a pro bowl level player and on our defense would be a huge addition since we have questions on Starks health and Hill's contract. Chicago supposedly the offer being rumored was McQuarters and Rex Tucker for Shelton. That's a starting CB(similar to Macklin) who can return punts if needed, and a starting Guard. St Louis I just don't see any point in trading Shelton within our own division, unless they were offering Steven Jackson .

Does anybody know was the ligament tear in his ankle on the same leg that he had the hairline fracture on?

 

[Redheart]

I like the Henry trade.

Two years ago, Henry was my FF RB. I did not know very much about him, but picked him up because of his draft ratings.

That year, Henry led the Redhearts to a runner-up finish. The single thing that I remember about Henry was that his was so consistant. Every game he put competative, if not winning, numbers. This was the season he play injured.

Henry will do his part of the job, IMO. I also believe he will provide the big-plays that will make him so much more valuable to us than a under-performing Offensive Lineman.

 

[SECTION 11]

Did somebody mention Steven Jackson?

 

[CaptTurbo]

Did somebody mention Steven Jackson?

Henry = proven
Jackson = unproven. albeit a great looking prospect.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Did somebody mention Steven Jackson?

go to your room

 

[TheCardFan]

OMG WildBB we agree 100%. This "draft a RB" is crap. Roll a 100 sided die and pray it lands on 1-10 thats about the same odds as drafting a back like henry. Why risk it.

This is great. Now we can draft/aquire a solid RG (not all 5 spots have to be filled by #1 picks) then Id be happy with Clement with a great RG next to him.

But w ewill finally have a back!!!!!

I can tell by the posts 99% here have never seen him play. He is very good.

Totally agree SWD. Henry is a legit top 10 back in the NFL...you can't get those very often. I also think Clement will be a solid RT if he comes to camp in shape and ready to work...if not, he won't be on the team.

 

[SuperSpck]

Another upside to Henry is that he consistantly put up great numbers behind an offensive line soaked with talent, but who typically underachieved (sound familiar?). He has his flaws (fumbles) but is an excellent reciever out of the backfield, has a quick opening step, rarely dances at the hole, and has good top speed. He's possesses all of Shipp's abilities with more natural speed.
I've seen him play many times, and if he does come here than he will be the best running back AZ has had in a long long time.

Shipp or Hambrick should stick around to backup, my loyalty is with Shipp, but we all know he wants to be a starter so if he'd like to roam I'd understand. Hambrick seems to have come to terms with following Emmitt around, let's see how he adjusts to a new lead man. For a third down back I'd like to nominate Sproles of K State.

 

[red desert]

Two years ago, Henry was my FF RB. I did not know very much about him, but picked him up because of his draft ratings.

That year, Henry led the Redhearts to a runner-up finish. The single thing that I remember about Henry was that his was so consistant. Every game he put competative, if not winning, numbers. This was the season he play injured.

Henry will do his part of the job, IMO. I also believe he will provide the big-plays that will make him so much more valuable to us than a under-performing Offensive Lineman.

That's exactly when and how I discovered Henry. And I can attest to everything you said.

 

[red desert]

Now let's bring in his buddy Drew.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Now let's bring in his buddy Drew.

 

[jstadvl]

The popint is

IF two players are of fairly equal ability and Green thinks higher of one than another, he'll play the one he likes! That's a fairly good point.
Second-because a player asks to test the waters, after being viewed as something they're not, DoesNOT lead to anything conclusive about them wanting out.
Explain that conclusion to me ouchie.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

IF two players are of fairly equal ability and Green thinks higher of one than another, he'll play the one he likes! That's a fairly good point.
Second-because a player asks to test the waters, after being viewed as something they're not, DoesNOT lead to anything conclusive about them wanting out.
Explain that conclusion to me ouchie.

first, if two players are of fairly equal ability, why not trade one of these fungible goods for something we don't have, like a good rb?

second, and i'm not sure i understood your second sentence - but i'm gonna give this a shot - if a player wants to stay and they are under contract, they do not, i repeat DO NOT, ask to see if they can drum up a trade.

(btw, what is LJ being viewed as that he's not - i don't get that part)

 

[jstadvl]

Ok

I didn't say the trade wasn't a good one. I said we'll see. Then my response to someone else was that Shelton never asked for a trade, he was never a malcontent. That was the indication given by the person in the thread.
The other point is in answer to Green playing who he likes. ( The ability part).
Shelton is a better right tackle and all around lineman than AC.
He still isn't going to get the playing time and indications were he was trade bait for Green. His agent suggested they look into other options so he might at least have a chance to go where he has a good chance of starting.
My point is simply two things 1-Shelton wanted to be here but is being told he can go elsewhere-not his fault. 2-Green will play someone he likes over an equally gifted player.
He's got 4 years to make his bonus money.
If Henry works out for us, great, but don't try to make it sound like it's Shelton's fault. Green admits having no patience-except with the players and personnel he wants to. TE's for example, line coaches, QB's, etc.

 

[jerryp]

Russ,

I was agreeing with SWD's statement about most people haven't seen Henry play. Yet there are no shortage of opinions on him despite this ignorance. When I say I could elaborate but I won't what I mean is that in order for me to convince people I'm right, I have to go against years worth of media disinformation and football stats that are worshipped as being the end all be all of player rating when they are not.

I can't have a discussion with you Russ, because you'll throw out crap stats like sacks given up as a starter. I've explained how those numbers don't mean anything because we have no context for them other than who was named starter for the game in which they occurred. You and others want to argue yards per carry like it means anything. I'd spend the entire time explaining why four yards per carry is so arbitrary and flies in the face of logic that there would be no actual discussion on the running backs. The only thing I can do is point them at FO, to which most people go look at the individual player rankings, see they don't match exactly what they think they should be, then trash them and use it proof that four yards per carry really is the true god. I've seen it happen on this board.

The media contributes to all this. They have to package the information in such a way that the casual fan and drunkards at the stadium can understand. So it's easier to say McGahee's play caused the turn around because anecdotally, it's correct. In reality it's not, but to see why means setting aside all the conventional stats and talking head hype. No one's willing to do that. The media has created the make a statement then back it up by finding stats that prove it mentality, even if you have to rely on numbers that are fundamentally unsound for showing what your trying to. It's all over this board dude.

I don't have any interest in convincing people otherwise because it's too much effort for a goal that in the grand scheme isn't that important. I'll just have to settle for the most part being able to actually understand what I see during the games and laughing at trade threads that look straight out of Madden 2005 and comparisons of running backs based on the number of sacks their lines gave up without ever factoring in formation/substitutions/assignments.

All you have to do is look at the offensive, defensive, and special teams efficiency tables of footballoutsiders.com to see just how much the Bills defense/special teams outclasses their offense. Then look at the offensive line ratings and notice they rank there where they do for offense, in the bottom half of the league. Then look at drive stats. Look at how the Bills are 25th in yards per drive and how they are number one in starting field position. Seems to back up my statements that the offense isn't that great and that the defense and special teams repeatedly gave them great field position. But in order for any of that have to any meaning you have to accept the metrics as valid which most won't do because it either conflicts with what ESPN has told them or because the system thumbs it's nose at conventional stats/wisdom. That's why I don't care to elaborate.

 

[joeshmo]

Russ,

I was agreeing with SWD's statement about most people haven't seen Henry play. Yet there are no shortage of opinions on him despite this ignorance. When I say I could elaborate but I won't what I mean is that in order for me to convince people I'm right, I have to go against years worth of media disinformation and football stats that are worshipped as being the end all be all of player rating when they are not.

I can't have a discussion with you Russ, because you'll throw out crap stats like sacks given up as a starter. I've explained how those numbers don't mean anything because we have no context for them other than who was named starter for the game in which they occurred. You and others want to argue yards per carry like it means anything. I'd spend the entire time explaining why four yards per carry is so arbitrary and flies in the face of logic that there would be no actual discussion on the running backs. The only thing I can do is point them at FO, to which most people go look at the individual player rankings, see they don't match exactly what they think they should be, then trash them and use it proof that four yards per carry really is the true god. I've seen it happen on this board.

The media contributes to all this. They have to package the information in such a way that the casual fan and drunkards at the stadium can understand. So it's easier to say McGahee's play caused the turn around because anecdotally, it's correct. In reality it's not, but to see why means setting aside all the conventional stats and talking head hype. No one's willing to do that. The media has created the make a statement then back it up by finding stats that prove it mentality, even if you have to rely on numbers that are fundamentally unsound for showing what your trying to. It's all over this board dude.

I don't have any interest in convincing people otherwise because it's too much effort for a goal that in the grand scheme isn't that important. I'll just have to settle for the most part being able to actually understand what I see during the games and laughing at trade threads that look straight out of Madden 2005 and comparisons of running backs based on the number of sacks their lines gave up without ever factoring in formation/substitutions/assignments.

All you have to do is look at the offensive, defensive, and special teams efficiency tables of footballoutsiders.com to see just how much the Bills defense/special teams outclasses their offense. Then look at the offensive line ratings and notice they rank there where they do for offense, in the bottom half of the league. Then look at drive stats. Look at how the Bills are 25th in yards per drive and how they are number one in starting field position. Seems to back up my statements that the offense isn't that great and that the defense and special teams repeatedly gave them great field position. But in order for any of that have to any meaning you have to accept the metrics as valid which most won't do because it either conflicts with what ESPN has told them or because the system thumbs it's nose at conventional stats/wisdom. That's why I don't care to elaborate.

I find this whole post very odd. You say you wont elaborate about your ideas on stats yet you will elaborate on why you wont elaborate by writting a book on why you wont elaborate.

Holy Crap I think I just confused myself.