John Cocktosten Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I am confused Rex Ryan says the team is not better without Fred Jackson. The rest of the organization says we are in "win now" mode. Those seem like conflicting views. Because it makes no sense and lacks any logic. But just fall in line.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I don't think he would, kids will be starting school, it would be a lot to ask them. He'll just probably live in Seattle temporarily and fly back when he can. I expect it depends on the deal he's offered. I'm sure kids want to watch Dad play. We're getting ahead of ourselves, I just want them to sign him.
DrDawkinstein Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I expect it depends on the deal he's offered. I'm sure kids want to watch Dad play. We're getting ahead of ourselves, I just want them to sign him. They can watch on TV or fly out on the weekends. If I were one of those kids, Id rather stay in my school with my friends than move right now just to watch my dad work at his job. They've seen it all before. JMO.
birdog1960 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) some unbiased observers believe the bills could have done better for Jackson: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/31/fred-jackson-would-have-done-anything-to-retire-with-bills/ I agree. "Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Jackson would have “done anything” to retire with the Bills. Jackson, however, wasn’t given that chance" Edited September 1, 2015 by birdog1960
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Now that I've had a chance to sleep in it I still don't like it. I know a lot of people only care about the jersey, but it's kind of hard for me to get as into it when the only player on offense that's been around for more than 2-3 years is a lineman. I'm with you. I fail to see where anyone else has proven themselves in matters of pass protection and in terms of their general value to the Bills community.
DrDawkinstein Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 some unbiased observers believe the bills could have done better for Jackson: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/31/fred-jackson-would-have-done-anything-to-retire-with-bills/ I agree. "Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Jackson would have “done anything” to retire with the Bills. Jackson, however, wasn’t given that chance" Already covered. He certainly had the chance to retire as a Bill, and still does! He could retire today if that's what he really wanted to do.
NoSaint Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 some unbiased observers believe the bills could have done better for Jackson: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/31/fred-jackson-would-have-done-anything-to-retire-with-bills/ I agree. "Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Jackson would have done anything to retire with the Bills. Jackson, however, wasnt given that chance" well, he could have retired monday. if they wanted the guys they wanted and he wasnt one of them, thats all that would be left.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 No, it says, "give your all to the team and we'll keep giving you well-paid extensions for 10 YEARS before we look to move on as part of the business you already know exists." They were decent extensions but I'd hesitate to call them market rate. Fred never got one of the giant signing bonus deals. That's not a huge deal, as I'm get the impression that he didn't / doesn't live super-irresponsibly. That said, never being "overpaid" likely meant that the Bills never had to make a painful decision like this until now.
birdog1960 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 well, he could have retired monday. if they wanted the guys they wanted and he wasnt one of them, thats all that would be left. it apparently removes the cap angle from the argument. so that leaves only talent. intangibles clearly weren't factored in. I guess will see who was correct on the talent determination by watching the seahawks.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I am confused Rex Ryan says the team is not better without Fred Jackson. The rest of the organization says we are in "win now" mode. Those seem like conflicting views. I think it makes more sense if you look at the whole quote: "A lot of times you are restricted by your limitations, with several limitations that you have, you know as a team," Ryan told reporters. "Sometime you can’t keep everybody you want to keep. If that was the case we certainly would have kept Fred." Asked how the Bills got better by releasing Jackson, Ryan responded, "I am not going to say that. We are not as good as we were. I mean that is a given. There is a lot of guys, there are some we cut. We are not as good as we were because we let a lot of good players go and I said that. So I think that is kind of how I feel. But I am not going to say that we are a better team because Fred Jackson is not here. I certainly don’t believe that. But it is part of the process I mean it is what happens." Rex is simply paying tribute to the football chops of the guys he had to cut: they're good players, and it's a given that a team that cuts good players, didn't just get better by cutting them. But every team also operates within limitations of only being able to keep 53 players + practice squad (young guys only), so they have to cut good players and take the hit to team quality they get by cutting good players. Because he's Rex Ryan, he's not going to say "well of course, we think the guys we kept are better players or at least as good but better for us in some way". He expects you understand that, and it would detract from his (sincerely) giving props to the guys he had to cut.
John Cocktosten Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I will miss Fred as much as anyone. The guy personified Buffalo's Rocky-Balboa-lift-yourself-off-the-mat ethos, and it's sad that he will not be on the roster if (when!) we make the playoffs this year. However -- not to knock any other posters -- I find very odd the comments that Fred was waived to keep Bryce Brown on the roster so that Doug Whaley can "save face". Whaley strikes me as a guy earnestly trying to improve the roster. But more to the point, the Bills traded their 2015 4th round pick for Brown. Lost in the tumult of the last two days is that the Bills also waived Ross Cockrell. Cockrell was a 4th round pick in 2014 -- i.e., he cost the Bills the same as Bryce Brown. If Whaley was trying to save face over a 4th round pick, shouldn't he also have clung to Cockrell? Anyhow, I hope Fred has a good season with whomever he ends up. And I hope nobody on the Bills wears #22 for a while ... 4th round picks are cut all the time. However, a new GM in charge of rebuilding picks a bust QB in the first rd, then trades another 4th for a RB that's done nothing and blows another one on a guys who cant last a full two seasons looks way worse. Not hard to understand at all when it's not cherry picked to fit your narrative.
NoSaint Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Already covered. He certainly had the chance to retire as a Bill, and still does! He could retire today if that's what he really wanted to do. yea, that quote should change to "id do anything to keep playing for the bills," simply for accuracies sake
thebandit27 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 4th round picks are cut all the time. However, a new GM in charge of rebuilding picks a bust QB in the first rd, then trades another 4th for a RB that's done nothing and blows another one on a guys who cant last a full two seasons looks way worse. Not hard to understand at all when it's not cherry picked to fit your narrative. Let me get this straight: you're discussing 3 picks out of 3 whole drafts, and then accusing others of cherry-picking? Also, your argument still lacks the context of the situation. What should they have done with the #8 overall pick in 2013, knowing then only what they knew at the time? Maybe trade down, add an extra 2nd, and take a shot at a QB? What about all of the other picks in the 2013-2015 drafts? Woods Kiko Goodwin Duke Gragg Watkins P. Brown Henderson As you so appropriate put it: not hard to understand at all when it's not cherry picked to fit your narrative.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Nothing more than a hunch based on others' informed opinions. Karlos Williams is on a nice trajectory to be sure. I'm not sure he's at Dixon's level yet. Yes, we can line up 11 guys on special teams and they will play it, but there are those like Dixon and Easley, for example, who take it to another level. Both Karlos W and Boobie are not healthy though, so that may impact things moving forward. We both know that Dixon is highly regarded in the room, too; a real "glue" kind of guy, too. I think that counts for something, too. GO BILLS!!! Yeah, I agree with all of that. To me, if they keep three, and it is Boobie over Brown, the leadership issue will be what put him over the top, and went into the thought process of releasing Fred.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I'm surprised that Ryan, who once gave LaDainian Tomlinson a second life with the New York Jets, didn't go to the mat for Jackson instead of caving into "the process.'' He has instead created a wayward home for players with rap sheets and questionable character and the only message he sent with the cutting of Fred Jackson is that there was no room on his team for a player who was the epitome of class and leadership — and who can still play. Why are we shocked? Maybe Jackson should've broken Tyrod Taylor's jaw. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/columnist/roth/2015/08/31/rex-ryan-fumbled-letting-fred-jackson-go/71460372/ The above quote pretty much sums it up.
John Cocktosten Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Let me get this straight: you're discussing 3 picks out of 3 whole drafts, and then accusing others of cherry-picking? Also, your argument still lacks the context of the situation. What should they have done with the #8 overall pick in 2013, knowing then only what they knew at the time? Maybe trade down, add an extra 2nd, and take a shot at a QB? What about all of the other picks in the 2013-2015 drafts? Woods - 699 5tds @ 10YPC is hardly special for a a second rd pick. Kiko - Very good pick Goodwin - LOL Duke - LOL Gragg - 3rd string TE Watkins - top 4 picks should be good P. Brown - Solid pick Henderson - Rated the the 2nd worst tackle by PFF. As you so appropriate put it: not hard to understand at all when it's not cherry picked to fit your narrative. Not sure what you're saying here but he's hit on very few players Dareus, KW, Mario, Bradham, Gilmore were all here. Edited September 1, 2015 by John Cocktosten
PromoTheRobot Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Cutting Fred reminds me of when we cut Thurman, Bruce, and Andre in 2000 coincidentally, the same year the drought began.No worries there.
Snorom Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 The Ax grinders club is mid season form fans of this team never disappoint with their blatant over reactions and incomprehensible emotional tirades.
K-9 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/columnist/roth/2015/08/31/rex-ryan-fumbled-letting-fred-jackson-go/71460372/ The above quote pretty much sums it up. I stopped at Roth's assertion that Boobie's only advantage is age and cheaper contract. That tells me Roth doesn't really have a clue about Dixon's role on this team. GO BILLS!!!
ALLEN1QB Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 After giving it some thought keeping Fred would mean getting rid of one of the younger players. We would be looking for another RB next year when he retires. Makes perfect sense business decision.
Recommended Posts