Arkady Renko Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/201...%28BillBoard%29
H2o Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Surprised about Incognito with the uncertainty of Wood's return.
tennesseeboy Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Not tendering Incognito seems a pretty stupid move. He played well in the few games in which he started and would have been a nice backup even if Wood did return. I'm hoping this isn't the first of a string of stupid personnel moves.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 H2o said: Surprised about Incognito with the uncertainty of Wood's return. Perhaps Wood's return is more certain than we though. One could assume Scott might want to move on.
Pirate Angel Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 neither are irreplaceable but damn we have a hard enough time getting FA to come here and we only have so many draft picks.
Philo Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 johnnyb said: http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/201...%28BillBoard%29 Klopfenstein and Hamdan not too surprising at all. As for Incognito and Scott, I would have at least kept Incognito for depth/insurance. Scott not so much, he didn't impress me last season, but any help on the O-line would have helped. I just don't understand why they let 2 O-lineman go.
manbeast Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Baby Joe Mesi said: Perhaps Wood's return is more certain than we though. One could assume Scott might want to move on. Why not tender the guy low and get a 5th for him.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 tennesseeboy said: Not tendering Incognito seems a pretty stupid move. He played well in the few games in which he started and would have been a nice backup even if Wood did return. I'm hoping this isn't the first of a string of stupid personnel moves. Agreed 100% Incognito is a good player, played well, wanted to be here, and we're otherwise thin at the interior line spots. This doesn't make sense to me.
Spiderweb Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Tendering Incognito seemed like a gimme. I guess the "new regime" feels we can get O-lineman anywhere, like the moron Jauron. This does not appear to be a sound decision by the Bills Brass. Scott, on the other hand, played well at SS, and unless his injuries are worse than we know, he too appeared to be a shoe-in for a tender.
dgrid Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Spiderweb said: Scott, on the other hand, played well at SS, and unless his injuries are worse than we know, hetoo appeared to be a shoe-in for a tender. Wrong Scott. I thought it was B Scott at first too.
Beerball Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 tennesseeboy said: Not tendering Incognito seems a pretty stupid move. He played well in the few games in which he started and would have been a nice backup even if Wood did return. I'm hoping this isn't the first of a string of stupid personnel moves. Yeah, I don't see any 'upside' to not tendering him. Matter of fact I'm perplexed.
fairfaxbill Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Yeah surprised Incognito and Scott not tendered. I know its a back handed compliment, but I thought Scott was the best OT on our team after Butler retired. I guess whoever the Bills sign/draft on the Offensive line we can immediately pencil in as starters no matter what round or level they are picked/signed. On the upside, we don't have to worry about any Incognito/Mitchell battles in the Locker Room.
Philo Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Spiderweb said: Scott, on the other hand, played well at SS, and unless his injuries are worse than we know, hetoo appeared to be a shoe-in for a tender. As dgrid pointed out, wrong Scott. I believe he is a UFA anyhow.
stuckincincy Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 tennesseeboy said: Not tendering Incognito seems a pretty stupid move. He played well in the few games in which he started and would have been a nice backup even if Wood did return. I'm hoping this isn't the first of a string of stupid personnel moves. Well - he does have a reputation. I've worked in places where a fellow was competent at his job - but you always were uneasy that he was a ticking time bomb, and wondered about how his next explosion would manifest itself.
Never NEVER Give-up Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 He must be a real jerk! Doing this with Incognito seems just like the Peters situation. I think Mark Gaughn is making an assumption about Wood, because Wood hasn't been that optimistic. Although he is targeting camp, he realizes it may take longer. I think the safer assumption is that he will miss this year and we should plan to be without him and keep Incognito. Perhaps not tendering any of these guys is a way of saving $$ and being able to offer them less at a later date - not sure -just a guess (& maybe a little hope)!!!
Arkady Renko Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 Maybe they just do not think Incognito is worth the amount of the tender. It is like $1M or so, right?
Bring Back Kelly Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 tennesseeboy said: Not tendering Incognito seems a pretty stupid move. He played well in the few games in which he started and would have been a nice backup even if Wood did return. I'm hoping this isn't the first of a string of stupid personnel moves. I agree. We need all the Offensive lineman that we have. He may be unpopular, but he is good.
davefan66 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Surprised about Incognito. Seemed like a no brainer. I would have tendered him just for depth purposes. I wonder if the FO at OBD knows they can get some specific guys. I hope so.
Bob in STL Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 H2o said: Surprised about Incognito with the uncertainty of Wood's return. Maybe we trade down and pick up someone like Iupati?
Recommended Posts