KD in CA Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 The Bills big FA signing should be a RB? So much for the hysteria over Spiller's touches.
Stl Bills Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 The Bills big FA signing should be a RB? So much for the hysteria over Spiller's touches. C'mon KD, you know CJ "gets tired" after a 15 yard run.
RyanC883 Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 C'mon KD, you know CJ "gets tired" after a 15 yard run. hahaah.
machine gun kelly Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Does a couple of guys on our board need an "NI from Kindergarten on being nice to each other". This is a silly conversation. SJ is getting older and the least concern the Bills have is bringing in a 29 yr old RB. We need a QB, TE, WR, LB x 2, CB. Cmon. No insults just let's move on. SJ is a cool guy, but not for Buffalo.
BringBackFergy Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Stephen Jackson will be a NY Jet. Shonn Green - GONE. They will take a known commodity in Jackson (rather than Eddie Lacey, RB Alabama at pick #9), and for their pick at 9 they will take the best CB or OLB/DE available.
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 i forgot that Ridley play but I was going to say the same thing about Jackson. Dude is a beast. Shows no signs or little signs of slowing down. Only signs he's got is the fact that he plays on horrible teams. He's also 29, not OVER 30. He will finish his career probably in the HOF, and probably respected in a similar light to Curtis Martin. Nothing spectacular over the course of his career but extremely solid, dependable, and consistant. I also have met him multiple times and can vouch for his character. I also have an official NFL ball signed by him and want to see it worth some cash. Some thought Martin a marginla HOF'er. But Jackson would, in the next 2 seasons, have to rush for 3000 more yards, sore 36 more TDs and have 4000 more all purpose yards just to catch up with Martin. Jackson is a beast but his best was wasted in St Louis.
PaattMaann Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Some thought Martin a marginla HOF'er. But Jackson would, in the next 2 seasons, have to rush for 3000 more yards, sore 36 more TDs and have 4000 more all purpose yards just to catch up with Martin. Jackson is a beast but his best was wasted in St Louis. who exactly thought Martin was a marginal HOFer????
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Jackson will continue to be solid like Bettis, Faulk and Martin were. The guy will play with all his heart and get next to no respect. Id take him over Ridley any day. Jackson has shown he can success on any team. Ridley has shown he can succeed when Brady ia the QB. Those 2 sentences make absolutely no sense at all. First, Jackson has only played for one team. How has he shown he can succeed "on any team"? And Ridley has only been in the league 2 years, on one team, and has only been the starter for part of one season (yet he was was incredibly produvtive). Knocking Ridley for playing with Brady is like knocking him for taking a big hit and fumbling in the AFCC game. Ridiculous.
benderbender Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 We should probably keep debating how awesome the Cheatriots RB is instead of the possibility of landing the person the thread is about.
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 We should probably keep debating how awesome the Cheatriots RB is instead of the possibility of landing the person the thread is about. Why would the Bills want to sign an expensive RB when they already have Spiller and Jackson but huge holes at several other positions? Discussing the Patriots' backup punter situation is more intelligent that discussing the Bills 'landing' Steven Jackson.
The Big Cat Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Why would the Bills want to sign an expensive RB when they already have Spiller and Jackson but huge holes at several other positions? Discussing the Patriots' backup punter situation is more intelligent that discussing the Bills 'landing' Steven Jackson. Let me pose the hypothetical which led me to start the thread in the first place (because if there's one matter at hand, this would be it): Who would you rather have sharing the load with CJ (because I think we all agree, CJ, even with MORE carries, won't come close to the 300 mark)? a.) Fred Jackson b.) Stephen Jackson For me, the answer is b. Hence my interest in starting a conversation. Edited March 8, 2013 by taC giB ehT
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 who exactly thought Martin was a marginal HOFer???? He didn't get in his first year, despite bing history's 4th leading rusher. In his first year, stuff like this was being written (NYT): "An informal poll of five Hall of Fame voters painted a muddled picture of Martin's chances. All five said Martin's career deserved consideration, but none of the five considered his credentials worthy of a slam dunk, and only one believed Martin will be inducted this year." "It's an impressive résumé but some voters felt Martin wasn't spectacular -- at least not with respect to warranting a first-time induction." (ESPN).
Beerball Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 S. Jackon = blood.bumble F. Jackson = sweat.stumble Spiller = tears.winded Sorry, couldn't help myself
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Not sure the Falcons will get Jackson. Talk down here is they will wait and see if Jackson lasts a week. Then his price will come down a lot. Falcons do not have a ton of cap room and they need to fill some pretty big holes on D.
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Let me pose the hypothetical which led me to start the thread in the first place (because if there's one matter at hand, this would be it): Who would you rather have sharing the load with CJ (because I think we all agree, CJ, even with MORE carries, won't come close to the 300 mark)? a.) Fred Jackson b.) Stephen Jackson For me, the answer is b. Hence my interest in starting a conversation. You appear to ignore the reality that the Bills are only going to spend a certain amount of money on FAs. Therefore the more pertinent question is, would you rather sign: A) A starting LB (or WR or CB). B) Another RB who will get 10 carries a game when we already have a perfectly good #2. I'll go with A.
BobbyC81 Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Stephen Jackson in the right situation is still quite valuable. I don't understand comparing him to AP in a positive sense just to knock Ridley for a fumble in the Championship game. If you follow that train of thought to conclusion then how do you judge AP's atrocious fumbles in the Vikings Championship game a few years back with Favre. In that light Ridley's CG performance should not be a paraphrase of his current and future value either. 'Stephen' Jackson plays for the San Antonio Spurs. Steven Jackson was the Rams running back.
boyst Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Sorry, couldn't help myself I think fumble would fit FJax more... Those 2 sentences make absolutely no sense at all. First, Jackson has only played for one team. How has he shown he can succeed "on any team"? And Ridley has only been in the league 2 years, on one team, and has only been the starter for part of one season (yet he was was incredibly produvtive). Knocking Ridley for playing with Brady is like knocking him for taking a big hit and fumbling in the AFCC game. Ridiculous. Each year it's a new team is what I am going by. In the length he has played there it's not all been the same and he has adapted and succeeded in each new year with every team changing. Jackson showed success with the Rams every year. Ridley has shown success only when Brady was his QB. Let him leave the Pats and see what he does, I would bet Jacksons numbers will be better in the long run, still.
The Big Cat Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 You appear to ignore the reality that the Bills are only going to spend a certain amount of money on FAs. Therefore the more pertinent question is, would you rather sign: A) A starting LB (or WR or CB). B) Another RB who will get 10 carries a game when we already have a perfectly good #2. I'll go with A. Well, that's not what we're talking about, soooooooooooooooooooo...
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I think fumble would fit FJax more... Each year it's a new team is what I am going by. In the length he has played there it's not all been the same and he has adapted and succeeded in each new year with every team changing. Jackson showed success with the Rams every year. Ridley has shown success only when Brady was his QB. Let him leave the Pats and see what he does, I would bet Jacksons numbers will be better in the long run, still. Brady hands him the ball. And we are talking about the two players as they are right now--not how their careers ultimately shake out. Anyway, by your logic, we can conclude that Emmett Smith was only successful with/because of Aikman was handing him the ball. And Thruman Thomas could only run because of Kelly (he sucked in Miami, so why is he even in the hall of fame?!?). And Jim Brown was only great because his QB was Frank Ryan. Or Franco Harris becuase of Bradshaw. Or Davis because of Elway. E James because of Manning. See how silly this is? I like Jackson. But would I add a cheap 2nd year up and coming stud RB or an aging, end of career guy like Jackson (don't we still have Freddie on the roster?). I would add the young guy to CJ. I don't care who is handing them the ball.
Recommended Posts