Best Player Available Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 If Sj feels threatened by a guy who did not make a team in 2011, something is wrong. We signed the guy to be one of 80 guys that comes to training camp and tries to make the team. His situation os so completelydifferent from SJs. Are we supposed to sign no other recievers until SJ is signed? Actually 90 guys will be at training camp.
NoSaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Really? Care to elaborate on why signing a receiver to the roster when you have one with a contract issue would NOT in any send a message to him? Wait, what am I thinking, of course you don't need to be rational with your comment, this is the internet, where sarcastic responses are wicked awesome. The situations are so different that it's almost wrong to list them at the same position because the roles have nothing in common. It'd be like putting a guy on the practice squad and saying he's been brought in as a message to anyone beyond the bottom 3-5 on the 53 and even that would be a stretch in many cases. Bringing in an intern doesn't threaten my job security. Especially when you bring in a bunch every year. Edited January 5, 2012 by NoSaint
Delete This Account Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Really? Care to elaborate on why signing a receiver to the roster when you have one with a contract issue would NOT in any send a message to him? Wait, what am I thinking, of course you don't need to be rational with your comment, this is the internet, where sarcastic responses are wicked awesome. ok, were you being sarcastic then? or you being sarcastic now? or both? i'll stick to what i've said. i can't see any way in how David Clowney agreeing to a deal this week be construed as sending Stevie Johnson a message. Clowney will compete for a job on the team with and/or without Johnson. if Johnson returns, he'll do so under a new contract that will more than likely make him the team's top-paid receiver. if Johnson does not return, it will have nothing to do with the Bills signing Clowney in January. jw Edited January 5, 2012 by john wawrow
Adam Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 ok, were you being sarcastic then? or you being sarcastic now? or both? i'll stick to what i've said. i can't see any way in how David Clowney agreeing to a deal this week be construed as sending Stevie Johnson a message. Clowney will compete for a job on the team with and/or without Johnson. if Johnson returns, he'll do so under a new contract that will make likely make him the team's top-paid receiver. if Johnson does not return, it will have nothing to do with the Bills signing Clowney in January. jw It's more of a message to Parrish. Clowney is a deep threat, Johnson is a possession guy.
Delete This Account Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 It's more of a message to Parrish. Clowney is a deep threat, Johnson is a possession guy. i think that's even a stretch. the Bills aren't sending messages here other than the obvious fact that they're in need of receivers and, upon looking at those currently available, they tabbed Clowney as someone with potential and sent him a contract offer, which Clowney, according to his agent, has signed. that's all. jw
Buftex Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Really? Care to elaborate on why signing a receiver to the roster when you have one with a contract issue would NOT in any send a message to him? Wait, what am I thinking, of course you don't need to be rational with your comment, this is the internet, where sarcastic responses are wicked awesome. Hey MC, if you look, virtually every NFL team whose season ended on Sunday has signed street FA's in the last couple of days. Hell, even the Colts, who fired their front office, are signing free-agents.
Homey D. Clown Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 ok, were you being sarcastic then? or you being sarcastic now? or both? i'll stick to what i've said. i can't see any way in how David Clowney agreeing to a deal this week be construed as sending Stevie Johnson a message. Clowney will compete for a job on the team with and/or without Johnson. if Johnson returns, he'll do so under a new contract that will more than likely make him the team's top-paid receiver. if Johnson does not return, it will have nothing to do with the Bills signing Clowney in January. jw I was being speculative on how a young player might take a signing like this, I was in no way suggesting the Bills were going to look at Clowney as a replacement, but no matter how much this guy is not the same type of player as Johnson, in my opinion of course, I still think it has to send a message to a guy in contract talks that the team is bringing in other talent, especially when they sign another player a few days after the season's end. To me it's clearly a psychological move. I'd rather engage a fellow board member with an intelligent discussion over the possibility this was a head game signing rather than the latter, and I was being serious, but my reply to you was sarcasm, light-hearted, but sarcasm none the less.
Best Player Available Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Good chance Clowney will be working kids birthday parties in 2012 on game days. Sitting on the couch for the entire 2011 season must have got old. I don't think if I had 2 good but flawed seasons, i would feel threatened at all by this dumster signing.
BigBuff423 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 hey, it's not a big deal, but it's something. from what i've been told, Clowney's got speed, and that's something the Bills WR corps really lacked this year, especially after Roscoe went down. it's worth giving Clowney a shot. it's better than not doing anything, eh? jw Very true...it at least shows that the BILLS administration is not willing to sit and wait for things to happen, but are already actively looking to improve. They're not waiting for the proverbial bell to ring, they have decided to look under every rock to try and find something....anything.....that will improve this team! Now, Wannstedt is a much better move in terms of macro level improvements, but Clowney did have one of the best times at the combine when he came out of college and he can be an asset if coached properly and put in the right situation...so, hey, let's see how it goes
artmalibu Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Great!! I dont understand why some people are mad that he was signed. If the staff thinks they have better options he will be cut. It think it might be time for some fans to find a new team to root for.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Great!! I dont understand why some people are mad that he was signed. If the staff thinks they have better options he will be cut. It think it might be time for some fans to find a new team to root for. Some people only know one way to respond. If you don't show scorn and disdain for everything the Bills do then you are a suckup pollyanna. PTR Edited January 5, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 It's more of a message to Parrish. Clowney is a deep threat, Johnson is a possession guy. i think that's even a stretch. the Bills aren't sending messages here other than the obvious fact that they're in need of receivers and, upon looking at those currently available, they tabbed Clowney as someone with potential and sent him a contract offer, which Clowney, according to his agent, has signed. that's all. jw I think it's a message to EldaBillsFan for his staunch support of Stevie Johnson. The Bills are trying to stop the crusading on this forum to reduce the pressure on them to re-sign Stevie. Some people only know one way to respond. If you don't show scorn and disdain for everything the Bills do then you are a suckup pollyanna. PTR You dropped your rose-colored glasses into your pitcher of Kool-Aid.
Adam Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Let's not get carried away here. Johnson is a guy that can make us a better team, especially if he learns self discipline. But, he clearly isn't a #1 guy.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Let's not get carried away here. Johnson is a guy that can make us a better team, especially if he learns self discipline. But, he clearly isn't a #1 guy. How good Steve Johnson is is directly related to whether he resigns with the Bills. PTR
Pete Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Gotta love people overreacting to a signing in January. Should the Bills not sign players? Yes. We should sign Steve Johnson, Byrd, and Levitre. They should of been signed yesterday
Adam Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Yes. We should sign Steve Johnson, Byrd, and Levitre. They should of been signed yesterday Would have happened yesterday, but I think they were tidying up the office.
BringBackFergy Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Quit clowney around… you're mckilluping me. Lol
wnyBacker Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 People need to stop crying cause At least they are doing something....should be a upgrade over ruvell martin rite?
John from Riverside Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 I dont get it....are we trying to better the team or are we not? Deep threat guy....cost next to nothing.....would you rather have Ruvel Martin? This has NOTHING to do with the Stevie Johnston situation.....none
Recommended Posts