FLFan Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 every article i see says different knees. why some people want to believe it was the same escapes me Injuries have been an issue for Alonso. He missed all of 2010 at Oregon with an ACL injury and missed all of last season with the same injury on a different knee. [/size]Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/03/03/eagles-wake-call-kiko-alonso/#ijh2wv8pKshoPiXR.99[/size] Whatever. So he has two bad knees, not just one. It does not change he fact that your campaign is boring.
BillsBackersChicago Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Whatever. So he has two bad knees, not just one. It does not change he fact that your campaign is boring. I find it amusing that the MD got details of the injury wrong. Assuming that stands for Maryland, though. In case you can't tell, I have nothing intelligent to say on this topic (not that that stops most posters on this board). Anyways, just trolling. Move along.
dave mcbride Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 It was not. And by the way, I thought crusading was against the rules of this forum but I guess not. This must be your 50th post that in one way or another is based on only one point - you don't like the trade of Kiko for McCoy. I think we get it by now. Move on or go away. To be fair to JTSP, there's a helluva lot of crusading against his critique, which - agree or disagree - is at least arguable. Kiko was expendable because of Bradham and Brown. Harris would have played a different position, and having Kiko wouldn't have helped, unless we couldnt find another ILB. Since when did certifiably good players on cheap rookie contracts with years left become "expendable"? The trade has merits, but let's not go all Baghdad Bob here. Losing Alonso is not a good thing on its own, and he's not a JAG.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 To be fair to JTSP, there's a helluva lot of crusading against his critique, which - agree or disagree - is at least arguable. Since when did certifiably good players on cheap rookie contracts with years left become "expendable"? The trade has merits, but let's not go all Baghdad Bob here. Losing Alonso is not a good thing on its own, and he's not a JAG. My definition of expendable doesn't at all imply it is a good thing on its own. The Bills would be better with Kiko without question. I meant it didn't kill us like you would think losing a player of that caliber would. I also wasn't talking about contract in any way. The fact is, Kiko and Bradham would be fighting for the same position and playing time, one of them would win the job or they would split it, and the other would be off the field, which would be a waste when you could have Shady frigging McCoy instead of one of them on the bench.
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Brandon Spikes CBF me too. I wanted to keep Kiko though. and spikes> some folks forget it was not many years ago we had NO linebackers worth a poop. and it killed us!! kiko was never going to play MLB he would be in on nickel because he could cover very well I think he's the main reason they made the trade actually. Rex and Thurman by now have studied every play the defense had, and saw how good he was on a consistent basis, on all three downs. I'm sure Rex would have loved to coach Kiko but Bradham knocks the snot out of people, and Rex loves guys like that. And I think that if he didn't before, Rex knows by now, that guns don't kill people, Nigel Bradham kills people. I am on board with this. It was not. And by the way, I thought crusading was against the rules of this forum but I guess not. This must be your 50th post that in one way or another is based on only one point - you don't like the trade of Kiko for McCoy. I think we get it by now. Move on or go away. I think it was different knees. and i did not like like the trade either. I like McCoy a plenty !! but unless Bills trainers know something i think it was unwise to lose him. Surely Chip Kelly is no fool ?? and now we are in need again, since we are talking about Harris. My definition of expendable doesn't at all imply it is a good thing on its own. The Bills would be better with Kiko without question. I meant it didn't kill us like you would think losing a player of that caliber would. I also wasn't talking about contract in any way. The fact is, Kiko and Bradham would be fighting for the same position and playing time, one of them would win the job or they would split it, and the other would be off the field, which would be a waste when you could have Shady frigging McCoy instead of one of them on the bench. what if we lose Hughes? does having Kiko allow Bradham to remain on the field as a pass rusher, he can blitz pretty nicely and will only improve?
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 what if we lose Hughes? does having Kiko allow Bradham to remain on the field as a pass rusher, he can blitz pretty nicely and will only improve? Neither of them play the same position Hughes does. If we lose Hughes we will sign another edge rusher to play what is essentially a DE position like Hughes. Kiko nor Bradham play that and wouldn't.
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Neither of them play the same position Hughes does. If we lose Hughes we will sign another edge rusher to play what is essentially a DE position like Hughes. Kiko nor Bradham play that and wouldn't. But Rex as you know doesnt play like schwartz. He does not bring pressure from he edges and fold it in a la wide nine concept. he brings the pressure from everywhere and that why it works. Kiko and Bradham are very quick off the ball and Brown is a thumper. Lawson is well Lawson , ( no disrespect Manny )
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 But Rex as you know doesnt play like schwartz. He does not bring pressure from he edges and fold it in a la wide nine concept. he brings the pressure from everywhere and that why it works. Kiko and Bradham are very quick off the ball and Brown is a thumper. Lawson is well Lawson , ( no disrespect Manny ) I agree. But Rex, on the right side of the defense, like Pettine, and like Schwartz, is going to have a guy line up on the end, on the outside of the LT, and rush the passer virtually every play, or hold the edge if it's a run. That guy is Hughes. If it's not Hughes it will be a different guy we sign, but it's not going to be Bradham or Kiko. They don't play that position. If we don't have Hughes Rex will likely blitz Bradham a little more, like he would have with Kiko. But he's going to send 5-6 guys all the time regardless. The point is only that Hughes and Kiko were not dependent on each other and not having Kiko really has nothing to do with signing or not signing Hughes. Where as having Bradham has a very direct affect on trading Kiko, because they play the same position.
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) I agree. But Rex, on the right side of the defense, like Pettine, and like Schwartz, is going to have a guy line up on the end, on the outside of the LT, and rush the passer virtually every play, or hold the edge if it's a run. That guy is Hughes. If it's not Hughes it will be a different guy we sign, but it's not going to be Bradham or Kiko. They don't play that position. If we don't have Hughes Rex will likely blitz Bradham a little more, like he would have with Kiko. But he's going to send 5-6 guys all the time regardless. The point is only that Hughes and Kiko were not dependent on each other and not having Kiko really has nothing to do with signing or not signing Hughes. Where as having Bradham has a very direct affect on trading Kiko, because they play the same position. agreed. They were pushing for similar work And i am not going to keep beating that drum that Alonso Brown and Bradham would have found plenty of time on the field. But suggesting to bring in Harris tells me we lost something important. ps Lawson played that role before btw Edited March 7, 2015 by 3rdand12
NewEra Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 I agree. But Rex, on the right side of the defense, like Pettine, and like Schwartz, is going to have a guy line up on the end, on the outside of the LT, and rush the passer virtually every play, or hold the edge if it's a run. That guy is Hughes. If it's not Hughes it will be a different guy we sign, but it's not going to be Bradham or Kiko. They don't play that position. If we don't have Hughes Rex will likely blitz Bradham a little more, like he would have with Kiko. But he's going to send 5-6 guys all the time regardless. The point is only that Hughes and Kiko were not dependent on each other and not having Kiko really has nothing to do with signing or not signing Hughes. Where as having Bradham has a very direct affect on trading Kiko, because they play the same position. And that's all folks.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 agreed. They were pushing for similar work And i am not going to keep beating that drum that Alonso Brown and Bradham would have found plenty of time on the field. But suggesting to bring in Harris tells me we lost something important. ps Lawson played that role before btw In essence Harris would have been brought in to replace Spikes. Also little to do with Kiko. We didn't want to play kiko in the middle as a rookie. He's undersized. But we had to because we had no one else. Now we do. Last year we had two.
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 In essence Harris would have been brought in to replace Spikes. Also little to do with Kiko. We didn't want to play kiko in the middle as a rookie. He's undersized. But we had to because we had no one else. Now we do. Last year we had two. He was undersized. and a rookie. and not much around him at that point. I am still feeling the adjustment of having no linebackers as to being flush with them. So we should bring back Spikes? he has seemed willing ! that would make me feel a little better i guess. : )
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 He was undersized. and a rookie. and not much around him at that point. I am still feeling the adjustment of having no linebackers as to being flush with them. So we should bring back Spikes? he has seemed willing ! that would make me feel a little better i guess. : ) I want them to re-sign Spikes. Definitely, seeing as Harris is gone. I think Spikes was extremely important last year. Spikes wants to come back, but he also wants to be a three down guy. The Bills think of him as a run down guy. I doubt other teams think of him as a three down guy, although he wasnt burnt for a lot of plays and yards in the pass game last year. But the fact other teams likely aren't going to pay him big bucks makes his return a possibility. I would like it a lot. Rex knows what he is doing though. Our defense is going to rock.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 KtD i think we should agree on the bolded bit Which bolded bit? "Where as having Bradham has a very direct affect on trading Kiko, because they play the same position." We already agreed.
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 I want them to re-sign Spikes. Definitely, seeing as Harris is gone. I think Spikes was extremely important last year. Spikes wants to come back, but he also wants to be a three down guy. The Bills think of him as a run down guy. I doubt other teams think of him as a three down guy, although he wasnt burnt for a lot of plays and yards in the pass game last year. But the fact other teams likely aren't going to pay him big bucks makes his return a possibility. I would like it a lot. Rex knows what he is doing though. Our defense is going to rock. oops
3rdand12 Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Yup. We agree. aint much that can t be fixed by sharing a beer or two !!
Kelly the Dog Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 aint much that can t be fixed by sharing a beer or two !!
Recommended Posts