BeastMode54 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-jacksonvikings090110 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonestake Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! http://sports.yahoo....onvikings090110 We've been over this. He is suspended to start the season. Way too much to give up for him AND we would have to RE-SIGN him. Good thought and good player but not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! Now if we could have them include Rivers in that trade....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Yeah, except we said the same thing last year sans Spiller, look where that got us. You're going to pay two WR's top dollar? For a run-based offense with a mediocre-at-best QB, one who still hasn't even been named the starter? Bad idea. Why not develop your players? There are two hundred WR's on the roster right now, will one of them not develop into a #2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 we need to see how the offense settles in this year before committing to any high profile / high dollar acquisition. that's more of a next year thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I'd be leery of tying up to much salary in one or two players. Seems to me that a team built on depth has a better chance of success than a team built on stars and scrubs. The Bills already appear to have a stable of solid, though not spetacular, receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-jacksonvikings090110 You must be confusing this team with the New York Yankees. Going out and effectively buying established stars is not the way to build a winner in the NFL. Nor is it even respectable. I'm all for adding talent at reasonable prices (I think Adalius Thomas would be a great addition), but develop your superstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode54 Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 You must be confusing this team with the New York Yankees. Going out and effectively buying established stars is not the way to build a winner in the NFL. Nor is it even respectable. I'm all for adding talent at reasonable prices (I think Adalius Thomas would be a great addition), but develop your superstars. I agree with you on this one. Adalius would be a great addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-jacksonvikings090110 This is guy is over rated based on his contract demands. He does not have the resume worthy of the contract he is demanding. He is not Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson. He hasnt been consistent with high production over his career. Yes, he has had some good seasons, but the guy wants a rediculous contract. Proof in the pudding is that all the teams who inquired about trading for him immediately withdrew from talks as soon as they heard his contract demands. More importantly, we would not get the production out of him that his contract would imply based on how this team is built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A second next year and a third in 2012. Not bad. His salary demands are a drawback. But imagine a lineup with Evans, Jackson, Roscoe, Jackson, Spiller. Thats ridiculous! http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-jacksonvikings090110 Think about how much money would be tied up at the WR position between Evans and V.Jackson. Pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Spending lots of $$ at WR is not a turnaround formula. It may put a solid playoff team into the super bowl, but does not turn around a franchise. I am very optimistic about the crop of young receivers on the team, I would be happier seeing other spots helped out a bit more. League wide, the gap between the best of the best, and the rest continues to close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section444 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Well, let's say you do trade for him, you'd still have to make him one of the highest paid WR's in the game. Think that would happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgrid Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) I'd be leery of tying up to much salary in one or two players. Seems to me that a team built on depth has a better chance of success than a team built on stars and scrubs. The Bills already appear to have a stable of solid, though not spetacular, receivers. agree completely. If we the Bills were current contenders, and only had a hole at WR, then sure. but thats not where we are, obviously. and besides, look what TO did for us. Edited September 2, 2010 by dgrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 BAD IDEA. With a capital BAD. No way is ONE player worth all that. For all the reasons stated. Move along. Nothing to see here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Didn't TO last year show people that regardless of how much talent you have at WR, you need a decent QB to have a successful passing game? Vincenzo's a very good player, but he's not going to turn Edwards into Rivers. Now, if the Vikings went and got him, that would be a pretty good move for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The asking price for Vincent Jackson was......Roscoe Parish.....taken six picks ahead of Jackson in the 2005 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts