The Dean Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 No need for this, Dean. The rookie salary cap possibility is interesting, although I don't buy it myself. Maybe, if there was a plausible QB to take at #9, the rookie cap might have been an possible reason the Bills didn't take one at #9. But why would you speculate about a "hidden" reason when no early 1st round-worthy QB was available? Had another QB been drafted in the top 15 I likely wouldn't have accused the OP of being a troll, or a moron.
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. what a trollish and moronic comment on your part! lol!
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 what a trollish and moronic comment on your part! lol! Yes, it's much more likely the Bills didn't draft a QB, like say Levi Brown, at #9 because they are cheap. Not because Levi Brown didn't warrant being picked at that spot. Based on your posts so far, it's easy to see how that kind of logic might make sense to you.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Either way you spin it, your post was very rude and inappropriate.
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Either way you spin it, your post was very rude and inappropriate. It may have been rude, but it was very appropriate, IMO.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 It may have been rude, but it was very appropriate, IMO. That's where you and I differ. Being rude whether your right or not is not acceptable or appropriate in my book. CLASSLESS!
kasper13 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 2010 Plan: Edwards/Fitzpatrick/Brohm= Epic Fail. 2011 Plan: 1st Overall-Jake Locker + Rookie Cap= Franchise QB & Future success.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 If some of you with posts like this would stop and use a little common sense and think about what you are about to post you would realize how rediculous it is and not post it. There is 100% definitive proof that what you just posted is not remotely true. Do you even realize that? Did you watch the draft past the#9 pick? The ONLY QB who seiously had a chance to go top 10 was Cluassen. Buffalo chose not to take Claussen and go with who they viewed as the best player in the entire draft, especially on offense (our weakest unit). Then we chose NOT to draft Claussen AGAIN in the 2nd round where we could have had a price that would still be MUCH cheaper than what a first round QB would cost next year no matter what happens with the CBA. So there you have it...definitive proof that passing on Claussen at 9 was not a financial move. However, there is even MORE definitive proof...we also know that we had offers to trade DOWN which Nix and Chan both said they were not interested in. So, if it was REALLY about money then we would have moved down and grabbed someone else. The bottom line is this...At QB, we already had a highly regarded prospect just 2 years removed from college in Brohm and another QB that the staff was intrigued by in Trent. You cant fill every hole on a team like this in one offseason. So they decided to bring guys in at other spots first and see what we have in our QB crops when a real offense is installed. Why is this such a hard concept to understand, I mean its even been publicly stated numerous times by Chan, Nix, etc. Maybe, I missed something? When were there accurate accounts that we could have traded down?
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 That's where you and I differ. Being rude whether your right or not is not acceptable in my book. Like I said CLASSLESS! Sometimes, in the good fight against stupidity and trollish behavior feeling can get hurt. Do you HONESTLY think the OP believes the reason the Bills didn't pick a QB at #9 is because of the $$ involved? He/she never even mentioned who they should have considered, there. I thought (and still think) it was a trollish attempt to bash the Bills FO, this time for no reason whatsoever.
BillsFanInLV Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 We all know that drafting a QB in the top 10 costs a team a ton of money, especially upfront money. We know that are owner isn't the most free-spending owner in the world. We also know that there will be a new CBA come hell or high water, that will adjust rookie salaries. Could it be that the Bills are waiting for the new rookie cap in order to go get their QB? Just a thought I had, knowing what we know. BTW 5-11 this year... oh well If you are trying to get to the coveted '100th post' ---just post these on a daily basis, No need to come up with a ridiculous conspiracy theory post like this one.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Sometimes, in the good fight against stupidity and trollish behavior feeling can get hurt. Do you HONESTLY think the OP believes the reason the Bills didn't pick a QB at #9 is because of the $$ involved? He/she never even mentioned who they should have considered, there. I thought (and still think) it was a trollish attempt to bash the Bills FO, this time for no reason whatsoever. Dean, you seem to be very "micro" with your thinking process. Point being who cares what his intent was. Your response back was inappropriate, uncalled for, and unwarranted. Two wrongs don't make a right. You could have responded a 100 different ways w/o being rude. The only reason why I am saying this is because on several instances I have been wrongly implicated in my post.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Maybe, I missed something? When were there accurate accounts that we could have traded down? Nix stated they had people contact them about trading into our place but we were not interested.
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 who cares what his intent was Clearly I do. As you seem to care about the intent of my post. I have no problem calling a troll "a troll". If that bothers you, sorry (not really). I believe the board gets cluttered with posts, especially thread starters, that are flat out stupid and/or really are meant to cause trouble (trollish). You seem to care more about my tone in slapping a troll than you do the troll posting on our board. So be it.
eggsinatruck Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Let's see. The logic in the post is the Bills didn't take a QB in the top 10 due to contract considerations. In other words. "Ralph is cheap!" If the poster was something other than a troll, he/she just might have noticed the only QB picked in the top half of the first round was Bradford at #1. The only other QB picked in the 1st round was Tebow, and that was a surprise to most and is being roundly criticized by many. So, maybe it isn't a troll post. Maybe it's just a post from a moron. Point out the flaws in the idea, then kindly disagree. At no point is it necessary to be a dick.
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Point out the flaws in the idea, then kindly disagree. At no point is it necessary to be a dick. Well. Probie, maybe this will explain it to you. NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-owXgAvb6qM...feature=related
dave mcbride Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Maybe, if there was a plausible QB to take at #9, the rookie cap might have been an possible reason the Bills didn't take one at #9. But why would you speculate about a "hidden" reason when no early 1st round-worthy QB was available? Had another QB been drafted in the top 15 I likely wouldn't have accused the OP of being a troll, or a moron. My point isn't that the poster is right; it's that calling him a "moron" is, well, kinda d**kish. What's the point of it? EDIT: I posted this before I even saw the next post. You should just probably admit the point, no?
Pirate Angel Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Or, just maybe, there wasn't a QB available that was worthy of a #9 selection. Freakin trolls. no no its some other strange conspiracy...
The Dean Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 My point isn't that the poster is right; it's that calling him a "moron" is, well, kinda d**kish. What's the point of it? EDIT: I posted this before I even saw the next post. To be fair, Dave, I called him "a troll" first. I won't apologize for calling a troll out. I only suggested he might be a moron when someone suggested he might not be a troll.
Simon Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Being rude whether your right or not is not acceptable or appropriate in my book. Says the guy whose sole purpose seems to be to piss on everybody else's parade.
mpl6876 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Clearly I do. As you seem to care about the intent of my post. I have no problem calling a troll "a troll". If that bothers you, sorry (not really). I believe the board gets cluttered with posts, especially thread starters, that are flat out stupid and/or really are meant to cause trouble (trollish). You seem to care more about my tone in slapping a troll than you do the troll posting on our board. So be it. That's where your wrong Dean. It has nothing to do with you calling him a troll. It has everything to do with you personally attacking him. The personal attacks were flat out inappropriate. (ie) MORON They are two separate issues. I repeat CLASSLESS.
Recommended Posts