KD in CA Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 He's an old man with stone hands whose only "contribution" would be one last LAMP tantrum. Exactly the kind of player the Bills are NOT looking to add to the rebuilding process. I wouldn't take him for the vet minimum.
bbillyfootballcoach Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 He would help and may have a little bit more to prove this year. did you not watch last season? he sucks! I guess you like players you drop balls and cant adjust to a pass not thrown perfectly, oh and doesnt block at all. Nice post! Hey lets Bring back other stars too like Robert Royal and Peerless Price.
bbillyfootballcoach Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 The results last year are positive proof that there were limits to TO's game. However, pretty difficult to truthfully deny (by anyone who is driven by reality rather their own preconceived notions) is that a significant part of the lack of results were not caused primarily by TO issues but were based in the Bills not running anywhere near an adequate O last year. This is not a claim that TO is a great player. He is not. However, the question which confronts the Bills is simply one of which whether they can get a better player at the cash level they are willing to pay for a #2 WR? The answer to that question right now is pretty clearly maybe or maybe not. It is quite possible that Hardy, Steve Johnson, or even the much maligned Parrish might develop into an acceptable #2. However, none of these players has offered any real world proof that they are capable of producing as a #2. One can easily be also hopeful about Easley, but hope is about the best one can credibly claim for any rookie. TO is not the player he was when he was younger and without a doubt put up HOF worthy #s, but the simple fact is that even a former HOF level receiver who is lucky enough to get older has proven a lot more than any of the Bills developing WRs have. The argument that some seem to want to trot out that by keeping TO around it costs the quality rookies development time seems to be only worthy of the comment that the Bills coaches do not seem to think this way. Competition seems to be what they are all about and Gailey is on record saying that it is impossible to have too many good players on the roster and also has identified instant TD producers as something this team needs. I think TO is done as the #1 WR he used to be but I have few doubts the Bills would sign him if the price was right. The likely perspective is that if Hardy, Johnson, etc are not good enough to force the Bills to give them practice reps over TO then this is proof they are not good enough (yet) to start in games. This strategy of playing losers in hopes that one day they will develop into winners really inly is a guarantee of losing right now. If TO is forced by the market to come down in price I am pretty confident the Bills would sign him and this sets up the good situation that if one of our developing WEs is good enough they will sit TO and if TO throws a hissy fit then like Moulds experienced with the Bills they sit him and then cut him. I have no problem with any of that. nope ! he did suck last year, he isnt better than johnson and maybe even easley but we will see on that. Jauron played him last year, so you trust his decision that TO was the better receiver even last year then? Nice long winded argument but TO was really bad and Id much rather see new guys get chances.
billsfreak Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Time get get TO back for a reduced salary, If he is willing to take a 2 year 7 million deal, do it. No--Don't do it! There is a reason why he isn't on a roster and it isn't because teams don't have money, his skills have diminished to the point where he isn't worth the baggage, especially on a two year deal.
TheChimp Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 He would help and may have a little bit more to prove this year. Agreed.
ndirish1978 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Do they even drug test players not currently on a NFL roster?? Sometimes I feel like we should drug test thread starters here on this board. This is a terrible idea. One that has already been widely condemned on the board 100 times before.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 I love how we debate about players no one wants. PTR
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 nope ! he did suck last year, he isnt better than johnson and maybe even easley but we will see on that. Jauron played him last year, so you trust his decision that TO was the better receiver even last year then? Nice long winded argument but TO was really bad and Id much rather see new guys get chances. What game were you watching last year? What is the objective case you can make for Steve Johnson being an adequate #2 WR? (In fact, what credible subjective case can you make for Lil Stevie I wonder which of his two receptions impressed you the most? In 2008 he did impress by being a good enough player that he merited seeing action in 11 games and even won a start in a game. However, in his quest to be so good a player that he basically forced the Bills braintrust no matter how stupid or forced the QBs be they Edwards, Fitzy, or Brohm to throw to him he actually regressed statistically and only appeared in 5 games and none as a starter. Do you have any objective case to make for Johnson or do you simply hate TO? I think the answer is obvious as there simply is no objective (or really even a credible subjective case to be made for Steve Johnson, I agree it is way to early to give up on him as a player he has looked good at times but it really shows pretty little football knowledge to want to simply give him the #2 slot after he quite arguably regressed in his production last year. Likewise which other WR are you willing to simply give the #2 job too> Did Parrish's season impress you so much? Perhaps it was Hardy's 14 games in 2008 which impressed you so much or instead which of the 2 games he appeared in last year as he recovered from injury which impressed you the most. Is it that there were over 100 chances for folks to choose Easley to be a starting WR which all the teams passed on picking him before the Bills snagged him in the 4th round. I also am quite hopeful that Easley will prove to be a big surprise and merit the #2 slot, but yet no ream saw reason to snap him up but again there is no substantive reason to do more than pray, Did TO suck? Sure to the extent that the Bills O was inadequate. Yet, the simple facts are he easily led this team in receptions, yardage per catch and did finish second to Evans in TDs. Competition is the answer and though the passing game for the Bills sucked over all. TO was pretty close to the best WR we had last year.
bmur66 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Maybe they could get him cheap enough just for the db's to practice against.
Meathead Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 if i thought this team had any chance of a playoff push id say bringing back t.o. would be fine but they dont they should do their best to win games of course, but it would take the biggest miracle ive ever seen involving a bills team since illegal lateral to make the playoffs. improved coaching and great effort simply wont be enough and we will all suffer through a long season with that in mind, and understanding that local fans wont be buying nearly as much t.o. koolaid the second time around, bringing him in this time would be a flat out waste of money thank you and i apologize our sorry ass line slash qb combo ended your consecutive games with a catch streak, but we wont be requiring your services this season
Snorom Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 absolutly not, the guy was a waste of space last season. better to just let the young guys play
DrFishfinder Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 I love how we debate about players no one wants. PTR True, dat. Not only don't the Bills want him, no one else is making any moves to sign him, either. Some team will probably lose a key WR in pre season and make him a lowball offer. Other than that, he can be on the new reality show, "This Old Has-Been."
mjohns85 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 He would help and may have a little bit more to prove this year. If bringing back TO was an option, I am all for it. It looks like most people disagree with you, but I say do it. We have too many question marks and uncertainties at the wr position. I think it is very crucial we bring in atleast one more proven wr with NFL experience before the season starts.
Conch Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Do they even drug test players not currently on a NFL roster?? NFL drug testing is a complete joke. Almost as bad as pro baseball. NBA testing is non existent. Golfers are hitting the ball close to 400 yards but do not need testing. Lance Armstrong is a great example of what drugs can do for you as long as you are extremely careful and know how to avoid detection. Sports in this day and age is a disgrace. But watch out for the drug test when you try to get a job flipping burgers at McDonald's......
West End Stench Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Some of you guys are ridiculous. "I wouldn't take him for the league minimum", "I'm sick of seeing him short-arm passes", "This guy was completely useless". Give me a break. Owens still gave us 6 touchdowns, nearly 1000 yards and put butts in seats despite us having some of the worst quarterbacks in the league! I realize these numbers aren't quite worth the money we paid, but put it in perspective. Lee Evans has had less productive and comparable seasons in the past and received a larger check for it, yet everybody here still loves the guy. Riddle me that. If your reason for not wanting him back is because we don't want an old roster, then I'm fine with that. However, don't claim that you wouldn't want a 1st-ballot HOF Wide Out on our team because he "doesn't produce" when our second best receivers are STEVE JOHNSON and ROSCOE PARRISH, who have combined for 39 catches and 3 touchdowns in the last two seasons!
Thurman#1 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Time get get TO back for a reduced salary, If he is willing to take a 2 year 7 million deal, do it. No, thanks. First, we're going nowhere this year and not much of anywhere next year. He would undoubtedly be the best reciever not named Lee Evans on the Bills. Who cares. We shouldn't. These next two years need to be about bringing in and developing young guys. In 2012, when the Bills are (let's pray) a serious threat, T.O. will be old and gone. So you use this time to either develop or eliminate the new guys. Second, the reason we brought him in on a one-year contract is because he has a history of being an angel in his first year and ripping the team apart in his second. Again, no thanks.
Thurman#1 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Owens still gave us 6 touchdowns, nearly 1000 yards and put butts in seats 829 isn't "nearly 1000".
PromoTheRobot Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 829 isn't "nearly 1000". How many of those TD's and yards came at clutch moments and how many came in garbage time? T.O. was a beast...when nothing was at stake. PTR
Recommended Posts