Filling in for Marshawn Lynch
Whether you're a fan of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's decision to uphold the three-game suspension of Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch, the undeniable truth is that the Bills have to deal with it. It's not that the team hasn't been dealing with it; quite the opposite, in fact. Dominic Rhodes was signed for a reason - the team wanted two capable backs (one to team with Fred Jackson) during Lynch's absence. The team, to their credit, saw this development happening.
Even still, the loss is a blow for Buffalo's offense, even if it's only a temporary loss. There should be no mistake, also, that Lynch will assume No. 1 back duties upon his return to the lineup - he is clearly Buffalo's most dynamic player in the backfield. Here's how Buffalo will cope in the interim.
During Lynch's suspension
This is, strangely, the easy part to figure out. Simply put, Jackson will be assuming Lynch's usual role in the offense, and veteran addition Rhodes will pick up where Jackson left Off as option 1A. In 2008, Lynch touched the ball 297 times in 15 games, a hair under 20 touches per game. Jackson will undertake that workload. Meanwhile, Jackson's 2008 workload consisted of roughly 10 touches per game. Rhodes will now get those touches.
It's really that simple. The idea that Jackson will become a traditional "workhorse" in Lynch's absence is highly unlikely; Jackson has logged double digit carries only seven times in his career, and has only crossed the 20-carry barrier once (in the last game he played, the season finale loss to New England). It's not that Jackson can't be a 20-plus carry per game back, it's that the Bills simply won't ask him to do that. Lynch logged more than 20 carries just four times in 2008. Jackson might not do it once in his three games as the starter.
In short, you'll see a lot of Jackson and Rhodes, just as we saw a lot of Lynch and Jackson last season. The only difference is that without Lynch, the Bills will lack any semblance of a home run dimension from their backfield. There shouldn't be a noticeable drop-off in any other area. There seems to be a public perception that Jackson is Lynch's equal; believe me when I tell you that's not the case. Jackson is an excellent football player. Lynch is, quite simply, just better. He does more for your offense, and he's a much more dangerous threat to put the ball in the end zone.
When Lynch returns
Fortunately for Buffalo, Lynch isn't gone forever. Theoretically, when Lynch returns, he and Jackson could return to their pre-defined roles - but where does that leave Rhodes? He's a capable playmaker, and no matter how deep you are at a position, you can't leave capable playmakers on the bench. Rhodes will see field time, even with Lynch and Jackson seeing field time as well. He's rarely played anything lower than second fiddle in his career; we're talking about a guy who touched the ball 267 times as an undrafted free agent in his rookie season.
One wrinkle the Bills have been playing with is playing Jackson in the slot as a receiver. He has a great set of hands, is a tough matchup for linebackers, and can turn it upfield after the catch. (Rhodes has this ability, too, but Jackson has been getting all the pre-season work in that department.) The team has also experimented with a Wildcat formation in which Jackson takes the snap, flanked by Lynch and Rhodes. The Wildcat is not, however, expected to be a big part of Buffalo's offensive attack, and with Roscoe Parrish the likely "quarterback" in those scenarios, this doesn't seem like a very realistic option to get all three backs playing time.
In reality, however, getting touches for all three players should not be a major concern. Running backs wear down. Lynch has yet to make it through an entire season healthy. Rhodes himself has been dinged from time to time. An abundance of riches is hardly a problem at the running back position. The only thing we know for sure right now, however, is what the rotation will look like while Lynch sits out.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jackson approach or eclipse the 20 carry barrier against the Pats and Saints. I would think Jauron would like to control the clock somewhat and both of those teams have been run on in the past. If the running game gets going in any of the 3 games, Jackson could very well get 20+ carries. That wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Not really sure we can say Lynch has been much of a homerun threat. He has the ability, but hasn’t really done it yet. Of course, since he has the ability to do it, I suppose he is a home run threat. Or something like that…Jackson and Rhodes are not really threats to pick up big gainers on the ground, we know that.
I’m kind of interested by this triple RB wildcat formation. I wonder if they’ll have Jackson faking to one and handing to the other, ala Navy. That would be kind of cool to see, but we need an OL that gets a push and sustains blocks, so who knows if they’ll happen….
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
The way Jackson ran against the Patriots in week 17—when everyone knew Buffalo was going to do almost nothing but run the ball—I can’t imagine him not getting 20+ carries in Foxboro. You’re right that Jauron will maintain his ball control outlook….even if the Patriots score in about 37 seconds every time they get the ball.
Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider students would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation--Seymour Skinner
Where will the touches come from?
I just don’t see how we’re going to keep everyone happy this year. By week 4 we’ll have 3 capable backs who should all see plenty of touches a game. We’re going to have two star wide receivers who should be thrown to frequently as well as a slot man that will in all likelihood thrive this season underneath. We have a couple young receivers that are going to want some playing time this year (or at least one) and we have some TEs that are allegedly receiving options. Finally, we have a disgruntled WR who wants more touches as well and may or may not be running a wildcat formation as one way of getting those extra touches. All in all I just don’t see how Marshawn, Freddy, Rhodes, TO, Evans, Reed, Johnson, Hardy, the Dereks, Nelson, AND Parish are all going to get the touches they deserve or should get or whatever. It’s a good problem to have, but an actual problem nonetheless – as Brian said “no matter how deep you are at a position, you can’t leave capable playmakers on the bench.”
"We want to win immediately. To say you're building is an incomplete sentence. ... You're building for a future coach and general manager."
-Marv Levy
We will run more plays
No-huddle will allow us to do so. The old bills seldom won time of possession but still ran 65 plays a game
Imagine we will no huddle early then, given DJs proclivity for playing it close to the vest, sit on the ball using the 3 RBs and short passing game to eat some clock late in the game with the lead
Let’s just say that if we are winning, I don’t think anyone will be complaining.
Delightfully Ignoring The Truth since 1995.
by NeverendingOptimism on Aug 4, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Kurupt and Ron that Fred most definitely – barring an injury of course – will run the ball at least 20 times against the Pats, because that’s one of the best ways to beat the Patriots – control the clock and be patient. Everybody knows we have some of the best playmakers on our offense in the entire league, but the best and most effective way we can get those playmakers involved is – in my opinion – by making sure that the defense pays attention as well to our running game. Our tactic in the game against the Patriots should on paper be set up the pass by running the football. Of course that plan would actually require that we could run the football against the Patriots, which is no dance around the maypole (due to them having the best D-line in football). If we aren’t capable of that, then we’ll be in trouble, because Trent and the rest of the offense would then have to do the opposite, which for a number of reasons is more challenging.
In regards to Rhodes, then I have a lot of utter confidence in his ability as a RB. I particularly like his ability to catch the football, which is going to be rather essential for us in the first three games (i.e. being Trent’s safety valve against the blitz). His experience is going to prove very useful this season, I’m sure.
by BillsfanfromDenmark on Aug 4, 2009 4:30 AM EDT reply actions
Am I the only one who thinks that Dominic Rhodes isn’t all that great? He averaged 3.5 yards per carry last year and if you combine his last 4 seasons, his ypc is still only 3.5. And don’t blame Oakland because the one year he spent there was his best yards per carry total (4.0) since 2004. He’s been a backup, and a mediocre one at that, since he missed his 2nd season due to injury.
Rhodes is going to get a handfull of touches per game (few carries and a few catches) when Marshwn is out and will/should be a non-factor when both guys are healthy. He’s a great good insurance policy, not the 3rd RB in a three headed monster. How many teams actually use three RBs? And which ones actually do it well? The 8 teams that ran the ball 30 times per game were Baltimore, Atlanta, Minnesota, New England, Tennessee, Carolina, Washington and the Giants. Baltimore used three because they didn’t really have a number one, NE used a million due to injuries and because Belichick can do whatever he wants. Ahmad Bradshaw got 63 carries for the Giants and no other team gave their 3rd RB more than the 15 carries that Jason Snelling got. Rhodes is an insurance policy.
Am I the only one who thinks that Dominic Rhodes isn’t all that great?
for a 3rd RB I think he is great. Good experience – good production. He’s not Xavier Omon back there – he’s done the no huddle – can help bring Lynch and Jackson along in that dept. I think in that regard he is great.
I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word of what I am saying
by J2 on Aug 4, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree that he’s an excellent third RB. I guess I’ve just been surprised how many people have been talking about Rhodes as if he’s a significant addition or that adding him gives Buffalo one of the best groups of RBs in the league.
yup i’m just happy we have a proven/reliable 3rd RB – which is all he is.
I’ve probably said my praises about Rhodes just because we’ve got good depth there. I don’t expect him to get 600 yds or anything like that. But good spot duty to take the load off of Lynch and Jackson plus his experience are good things for us.
Like you said – a good insurance policy
I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word of what I am saying
by J2 on Aug 4, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
No Rhodes isn't great
but he’s the 3rd RB and is solid enough. I don’t believe the team is going to try to get him touches once Lynch returns. Maybe here and there, but Lynch and Jackson are better players and Rhodes isnt’ a big play guy. It doesn’t really benefit the O all that much to find him touches.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
He’s a great insurance policy and a mediocre RB. He’s well rounded enough that he can handle full time duty if Jackson gets dinged up when Marshawn is suspended, or he can fill any role should either of teh two backs ahead of him miss time during the regular season. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Rhodes is inactive for some games this season.
The main reason why I like Rhodes, is because he is our third RB, which is much better then our RB situatioin in the past. Plus he definitely has the best catching ability out of all 3 and we all know Trent likes to check it down. Lastly he has shown a greater tendency to get in the end zone then Jackson. I like Jackson more, but I like touchdowns the most…
I disagree that Jackson isn't a home run threat.
Lynch is a between-the-tackles runner who isn’t going to break away from most NFL defenders. He’ll bowl them over, like a thinner Bettis, yes. I seem to recall Fred Jackson doing this in the red zone near the end of the year, plus he’s got speed to get to the edge.
Fred Jackson (to me) is as much a home-run threat as Lynch is.
Twitter: helping to make anti-social people anti-socially social.
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 4, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Rhodes
Even if his ground game isn’t all that impressive, his hands are and he’s a threat to catch the ball. He was the Colt’s leading scorer last year, the team with the MVP, Marvin Harrison, Reggine Wayne, A. Gonzalez and Addai…either that says something about the overall Colt’s offence or Rhodes didn’t do too badly. He also ran up 100+ yards and a TD in the Super Bowl so it’s not like he can’t play in the big game if he has to.
Freddy Jack is the man......
all will be well.
Godspeed Nick - RIP - 1986-2009
by norcaliangelsfan on Aug 4, 2009 4:31 PM EDT reply actions

by 































