marsadale Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) It makes sense to trade for another CB... The secondary is absolutely dreadful... They need all the help they can get... ridiculous comment, unless it was meant as sarcasm. Edited September 17, 2010 by marsadale
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 ridiculous comment, unless it was meant as sarcasm. Of course it is sarcasm....
Captain Hindsight Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Lynch and Pos for Hawk and a #2. Take out poz and i love it
DarthICE Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Take out poz and i love it Why? Poz is average at best.
VA Bills Fan Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 At this point, Lynch can be considered a lost cause and a wasted # 12 pick I think. Pro Bowl, 24 years old, 2 1K rushing seasons, and a Super Bowl contender wants him. Are they stupid? Yeah let's just trade him and keep a 30 year old from Coe College.
Doc Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 What about Lynch for...QB Matt Flynn? Some were high on him.
VA Bills Fan Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Pro Bowl, 24 years old, 2 1K rushing seasons, and a Super Bowl contender wants him. Are they stupid? Yeah let's just trade him and keep a 30 year old from Coe College. Actually I should have read your whole post. My bad.
Rico Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Maybe add Brohm to the trade, since the Packers were so upset when they lost him to the Bills.
gonzo1105 Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 This is going to sound far fetched, but if this is true maybe the reason the Bills want a corner is that they know of another team in need of a corner that is willing to trade for a player we want at a position of need...... I know it sounds stupid but I just thought I'd speculate I was thinking that if the Bills did receive another CB in the trade that maybe it was because they do not plan on resigning Terrence McGee next year and dont want to replace him via the draft. Maybe they think that McKelvin, Florence could be the starters and Lee could be a nickle or dime guy. Or maybe they want to trade McGee but dont have a guy to replace him for this year.
tonyd19 Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Pat Lee is a CB, i don't see any possibility that he is involved with this trade and leads me to think these are just rumors. That's the first thing I thought too. the last thing we need is another corner.
RocBillsfan Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) Davien, here are the Real facts from ESPN Insider... UPDATE: Whether or not the Packers are ready to pull the trigger on a trade to bring in Marshawn Lynch (see below), it might be a moot point. Chris Brown of BuffaloBills.com reports that the Bills' position has not changed: they plan on keeping their stable of three running backs intact, regardless of the logic of turning one of the extras into a draft pick or starting-caliber player at another position. --- On Wednesday, the football-loving world was abuzz with speculation that Lynch could be traded to the Green Bay Packers to help make up for the loss of Ryan Grant. Packers QB Aaron Rodgers -- Lynch's teammate at Cal -- seems to have greenlighted the idea, given his comments to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Coincidentally, the Pack have a pretty good commodity to send to Buffalo in A.J. Hawk. Hawk doesn't play in the team's nickel and dime packages, thus he was on the sidelines for the entire game against the Philadelphia Eagles in Week 1. While he's not specifically requesting a trade, he'd be open to a fresh start, according to what his agent told Rob Demovsky of the Green Bay Press-Gazette. "A.J. is a pro's pro and wants to do his part to help the team win, and his first priority is to be the best Packer he can," agent Mike McCartney said on Wednesday. "But if some team called and wanted him to play on all three downs, I think he'd be excited about that." The Bills would offer that opportunity, at least initially, given the injury to Paul Posluszny. On the other hand, we're not so sure the Pack are willing to make a trade at all, but especially not before seeing what they've really got in Brandon Jackson. Edited September 17, 2010 by RocBillsfan
RyanC883 Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) Its a fair point. At this point, Lynch can be considered a lost cause and a wasted # 12 pick I think. The interesting aspect is that the guy is a talented RB. I don't doubt he is capable of putting up big numbers if he gets 20 reps a game behind a good O-Line. And no one really expected Fred Jackson to explode on to the scene like he did. I don't any of us can hate on the Spiller pick too much. Nix explained the approach very honestly and said that they were focused on OT, but the two OTs they saw as worth taking at 9 were off the board (Okung and Williams). Which, by the way, seems to have been a fairly accurate assessment. Williams had a great showing against the Cowboys. I don't know about Okung because he has been injured. But, after those two, look what you have: -Anthony Davis who was responsible for two sacks, a forced fumble and a false start as RT against the Seahawks last week. -Bulaga isn't even starting and might not even end up playing as a OT -Saffold seems to have had a good game. But, there is 0 chance he was going as a top 10 pick, so its not really worth debating -Beadles struggled with penalties against the Jags and had the expected rookie troubles with speed rushers, but wasn't even penciled in as a OT. Was playing LG until an injury forced him to RT. -Ducasse, we've all seen hard knocks and know the answer to his poor transition -Charles Brown isn't starting, but he is on the Saints, so its hard to tell what he could have brought to the table. Saints have a good O-line as it is. Those are the OTs drafted in the first 2 rounds. Certainly not saying these guys will be busts. In fact most of them will probably put together very solid careers. I'm just staying, none of these guys were ready to step in at LT on day 1 and provide the Bills what they need most. I wouldn't have taken any of them over Spiller. Throw me Trent Williams and I might feel differently, but otherwise, all indications point to the Bills making the right call. Great post. Spiller was the right pick, unless there was a NT who would have been worth takign at 11. Also, anyone know if nevergiveup is still around? Would love his insight on this potential trade. Edited September 17, 2010 by RyanC883
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 I don't know. We might have to throw Cornell Green in on that deal. LOL. For Aaron Rodgers I would be willing to accept seeing our prized FA acquisition go. http://joeslockerroo..._Sidelines.html This is Exciting. I am not a Lynch hater If they can get a couple quality players for him, it’s a worthwhile move. Trade assets form a strength to bolster a weakness. I was always under the assumption his baggage would prevent him from being moved. He would be an asset to that Packers, and have a hell of a year but sometimes you have to trade something good to get something good. As long as there is a moratorium on Packers back up QB’s. Both Nall and Brohm have disappointed. I think Aaron Rodgers connection to Lynch will help boost his value in the Packers eyes which makes them a great trading partner. And of course a deal could get done before the game you just stipulate that they effected players can’t be activated for the game in the deal.
dpberr Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 IMO, I think Lynch is available for trade. However the Bills are working another deal. Announcing Lynch is available removes leverage and potentially scares away the other team from the table. Right now, the Bills trade partner is exclusive, and that has benefits for both teams. My guess for the other team: Minnesota.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Leave it to the Bills to move Lynch for a CB... I mean they only have 10 DBs on the roster (11 if you count the practice squad) and their 5th best CB was a high draft pick who should be in the prime of his career.
eball Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 To borrow from the hockey lexicon, I foresee Lynch being a "healthy scratch" on Sunday. Don't want to risk damaging the goods.
Captain Hindsight Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Why? Poz is average at best. And Aj Hawk doesnt start whats your point? Plus our LB Depth is really deep right now right?
Tsaikotic Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 That makes sense. If Lynch does not suit up this weekend, we'll know he's history. Can't imagine they would play him, especially vs. Green Bay, if there was a deal in place or imminent. maybe, just maybe, if a deal is in the works...we run ML and the Packers coaches tell the players to not touch him cuz they don't want him hurt...ML runs for 300 yards and 4 TD's and never gets hit to hard...Bills win and then trade ML on Monday..hehe...ok I'll shut up now
KOKBILLS Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 And Aj Hawk doesnt start whats your point? Hawk is a starting ILB when the Pack is in their base package. He comes off the field when they go to Nickel...They played Nickel or Dime the entire Philly game. His HC, D Coordinator, and Position Coach still refer to him as a starter...This whole "Hawk is not a starter" thing is 100% message board/blog created because the Packers have explained it already and stated Hawk is still a starter...GB Head Coach Mike McCarthy said it best...“I will not apologize for having more than 11 good defensive football players on our team." The GB Defense at LB is a million times deeper in REAL talent than the Bills...So even if Hawk is not a starter in GB is still does not mean he would not be a HUGE upgrade here... Now...The Packers know the Bills want to run the ball so IF Hawk is not on the field for the 1st play this Sunday then maybe he's not the Starter any longer or a trade is in the works...But right now to say Hawk does not start is technically incorrect...The correct statement would be Hawk did not start vs Philly in week #1... Just saying...
Recommended Posts