DFITZ1 Posted November 26, 2010 Author Posted November 26, 2010 How about instead of trading away top 10 talent picks...you allow for the bills to get more draft picks to rebiuld this team...... As much as people cant stand it....the bills needed a year like this where they end up not running middle of the road and get a top 5 pick. They will draft well enough next year that they will be able to get players to help on the defensive side of the ball. What you are posting is nonsense. First, unless you post nonsense (or wild ideas), you get little response from this forum so what's the use in posting something logical? Also, are you saying we need a losing year? I think we need better talent scouts. Teams are doing better drafting in 3 and 4th rounds than the Bills in rounds 1 & 2 (the Pats drafted some decent TE's in rounds 3 and/or 4, and we haven't had a credible TE since Riemersma). Hey, if no team is going to give anything good for Spiller, then don't take the deal. As for my post being nonsense, it's less nonsensical than the drafts and player moves I've seen from the PAID front office experts.
Zulu Cthulhu Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 Unless you can answer those questions, then what you presented isn't really a "possible option" now, is it? And if Nix just as bad as Donohoe, Modrak and the rest, what makes you think that IF he traded Spiller for some tight end, lineman, whatever, that player would be any good?
lets_go_bills Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. It's a two back league. Jackson is a beast but he's also 29. While he does have low mileage, he won't be around forever. Spiller is dynamic and offers you more options in both the pass and return games. We're not gonna draft a guy ninth overall then trade him after one season. A they knew Jackson was good. We all do. And we wouldn't get anywhere close to fair value. Dumb post. No offence.
DFITZ1 Posted November 26, 2010 Author Posted November 26, 2010 Without even checking I'll bet it was Bob Matthews that wrote that gem. If Its not horse racing or soccer he's lost. Spiller was drafted for the future. He is a weapon that will come into his own when the O-line improves. You want Nix to build a team but can't understand when things don't pop instantly. PTR You build a team in the trenches. That's how Parcells does it. And in Bills history, it wasn't until Lou Saban brought in solid lineman that OJ went from wash out to all-pro. Actually, the writer was Sal Maiorana(sp) who continues to question the Spiller pick. Hey - I like Spiller, but there were more important needs, and RB could've waited. It's a two back league. Jackson is a beast but he's also 29. While he does have low mileage, he won't be around forever. Spiller is dynamic and offers you more options in both the pass and return games. We're not gonna draft a guy ninth overall then trade him after one season. A they knew Jackson was good. We all do. And we wouldn't get anywhere close to fair value. Dumb post. No offence. I won't take any offens©e. However, after watching this team front office follies for the last 10 years, I can always take consolation that my dumb ideas are better than they're smart ideas (I'm talking mainly pre-Nix, he hasn't been around long enough, but I hope he's more right than I'll ever be).
Big Turk Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. Jackson is on the wrong side of 30 and for a running back that spells the beginning of the end. Next year at this time we likely will be asking what happened to Jackson as he is averaging 3.5 Yards Per Carry and can't seem to get through the line like he normally does... When it goes for a RB, it goes quickly...just ask LT
1B4IDie Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 I thought drafting an RB was madness. No it wasn't a luxury pick. Fred Jackson is 30. Please move on nothing to see here.
BigBuff423 Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. Okay, first, the trade deadline passed for this season so that would mean trading for a player next year....that's just freakin stupid. Take your Prozac and go back to bed......
BillsMan75 Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. WTF are you smok'en because I want some! There is no way I do this if I am Nix.
snamsnoops Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. You cant be serious or that dumb
BillsMan75 Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 this is crazy talk. fred is 30 and probably has 2 more seasons in him at this kinda level[max]. spiller is a young guy who will be the feature back. Could not agree more 808! You dont trade your #9 draft pick when the Pony in your stable is 30 years old, I don't care how great he is playing. Even if he has 3 or 4 good years left, you still need a dynamic backup that can fill in when needed for breaks when he is tired or god forbid Freddy gets hurt.
aristocrat Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 we would never get any value for spiller although we have more needs on the team. you can always find rb's and we should not have drafted him last spring but thats all hindsight. if someone were to give us a first in 2012 for him i would take it and run...maybe a team like new orleans, green bay who will be good and will draft late that year. this would be a complete dream scenario though as i doubt anyone would give us more than a 2nd and even then its doubtful.
McBeane Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely. You just took the title of the dumbest person on TSW. Congrats.
DFITZ1 Posted November 26, 2010 Author Posted November 26, 2010 WTF are you smok'en because I want some! There is no way I do this if I am Nix. Same stuff OBD and RW have been smokin' for the last 10 years and they're paid to build a team. Not to forget Modrak since he spends most of his time down south. You just took the title of the dumbest person on TSW. Congrats. I really don't care. Go back to your barstool.
John from Riverside Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 I think someone is just looking for a little attention by posting foolish stuff
joejoebills Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 And the winner of the dumbest post goes too.... A Rochester D&C article alluded that Nix/Gailey drafted Spiller because they didn't realize how good Fred Jackson is (I presume they knew Lynch was going to go). Assuming we have more need positions than draft or FA signings can fill, would it make sense to trade Spiller? Naturally, it would have to be the right deal, but considering we need a DT, OT, LB, TE, QB (franchise, that is), it might be a viable option. If we could get a #1 or #2 pick, or perhaps a player for player swap for one of the need positions, it might get us one step closer to playoffs in 2011. Trading for a quality TE would help the offense immensely.
DFITZ1 Posted November 26, 2010 Author Posted November 26, 2010 I think someone is just looking for a little attention by posting foolish stuff Foolish? - you want to know what I think is foolish? It's listening to the news media and posters on TSW act like the enlightened ones declaring that OBD has failed to rebuild the o-lines and d-lines; yet, I've been saying that FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, and only now these "experts" divine what I've said for the last 10. I'm dumb?, I'm foolish? Bull#$^%!!! Dumb and foolish is drafting TWO RB's in round 1 the last 10 years and then trading them for peanuts after they didn't pan out BECAUSE THE O-LINE COULDN'T OPEN ANY HOLES. Add to that, the only 1st rounder for a lineman was a bust! The 2 o-linemen signed by Levy as FA's were CUT!! Not to mention the one LT that we developed we traded for essentially nothing (Jason Peters, who at his worst is better than what the LT's we were left with. And I haven't even touched the D-line or LB's. Did I suggest we let Pat Williams walk? No! Our run defense has never been the same since. I could go on and on. So my idea might be crazy or out of the box, but I can rest easy knowing those who were PAID to make the right choices consistently made the wrong ones, and more often than not, I saw it coming. I've always said football games are won and lost in the trenches and have been proven right over and over again. If we keep drafting/signing high for skill positions and going cheap for "trench" positions, your best bet for watching a Bills winning season will be in the CFL (no offence Canada).
McBeane Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 Foolish? - you want to know what I think is foolish? It's listening to the news media and posters on TSW act like the enlightened ones declaring that OBD has failed to rebuild the o-lines and d-lines; yet, I've been saying that FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, and only now these "experts" divine what I've said for the last 10. I'm dumb?, I'm foolish? Bull#$^%!!! Dumb and foolish is drafting TWO RB's in round 1 the last 10 years and then trading them for peanuts after they didn't pan out BECAUSE THE O-LINE COULDN'T OPEN ANY HOLES. Add to that, the only 1st rounder for a lineman was a bust! The 2 o-linemen signed by Levy as FA's were CUT!! Not to mention the one LT that we developed we traded for essentially nothing (Jason Peters, who at his worst is better than what the LT's we were left with. And I haven't even touched the D-line or LB's. Did I suggest we let Pat Williams walk? No! Our run defense has never been the same since. I could go on and on. So my idea might be crazy or out of the box, but I can rest easy knowing those who were PAID to make the right choices consistently made the wrong ones, and more often than not, I saw it coming. I've always said football games are won and lost in the trenches and have been proven right over and over again. If we keep drafting/signing high for skill positions and going cheap for "trench" positions, your best bet for watching a Bills winning season will be in the CFL (no offence Canada). You just keep getting dumber. We got a 1st and another two picks (can't recall what rounds right now) which netted Eric Wood. And you are suggesting trading a rookie RB that was picked #9 overall for a 1st OR 2nd. Do you use logic? And it's offense.
Recommended Posts