JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 cause he sucks as a qb and is a has been Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 And why would DB threaten to retire when there's a bunch of teams who will sign him? 240885[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 240895[/snapback] Willing to place another bet that, if DB is indeed cut, that he'll wind up signing on with another team? (I'm using you as my retirement plan! ) CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Willing to place another bet that, if DB is indeed cut, that he'll wind up signing on with another team? (I'm using you as my retirement plan! )CW 240897[/snapback] No, I think the Cowboys look like a safe bet... I really doubt that there will be much competition for his services, otherwise TD would probably have been able to make a trade instead of dumping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 How can you say WM didn't take the job due to injury? TH started the season. TH got hurt. WM played... very well. TH never got to start again. Hell, even TH is saying the job was taken from him! Henry's injury was certainly not severe enough to warrant McGahee getting the full time job. Henry would have been ready to start the week after his initial injury, and if he was deserving the job, he would have had it. While Henry's injury gave McGahee the opportunity to get more air time, it was also a convenient excuse for the coaches to elevate McGahee based on the obvious. And why would DB threaten to retire when there's a bunch of teams who will sign him? That doesn't make any sense. 240885[/snapback] The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe Bills got the short end of David Dunn's stick last year. Although NFL rules prohibit players negotiating contracts with other teams, it's probable that Dunn had a deal in hand with another team if Bills had cut ties with Bledsoe last year. I cannot think of any other explanation of why TD would cave to give a very favorable deal to Drew after a horrible 2003 and an opportunity to cut ties with the QB with zero cap impact. Instead, Bills signed Bledsoe to a rich deal for his performance, and added an onerous cap hit if he were to be cut after '04. Adding insult was the timing of the March bonus, effectively forcing the Bills to pay Bledsoe or cut him. The timing of the bonus would not give Bills an opportunity to shop him around. The likely reason that the Bills are cutting Drew is that Dunn probably has a deal in hand with another team, and the field of mediocre QBs looks to be plentiful this March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Willing to place another bet that, if DB is indeed cut, that he'll wind up signing on with another team? (I'm using you as my retirement plan! )CW 240897[/snapback] You should see if you can get paid for being both wrong and sarcastic - it's worked out fairly well for Jerry Sullivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 You should see if you can get paid for being both wrong and sarcastic - it's worked out fairly well for Jerry Sullivan. 241057[/snapback] Where was I wrong? That DB will be signed on with another team? I'll make a bet with YOU that he will if you want. Or that TH was injured? Because he was (maybe it wasn't severe, but it was severe enough to keep him out of the game long enough for WM to play). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Where was I wrong? That DB will be signed on with another team? I'll make a bet with YOU that he will if you want. Or that TH was injured? Because he was (maybe it wasn't severe, but it was severe enough to keep him out of the game long enough for WM to play). CW 241072[/snapback] (Notice you didn't deny the sarcasm... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Willing to place another bet that, if DB is indeed cut, that he'll wind up signing on with another team? (I'm using you as my retirement plan! )CW 240897[/snapback] DB will indeed be signed by an NFL team this year and start...they'll soon see why he was traded by NE and now released by the Bills. DB is a nice guy who is no longer a good NFL QB. I am happy he is leaving One Bills Drive but wish him good luck. Go Bills in '05 and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (Notice you didn't deny the sarcasm... ) 241079[/snapback] Why would I? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I'm really arguing with myself here (which is very ICE-esq, I suppose), but I have to wonder: why cut Drew? why even tell him he's being demoted? why not go into camp with an "open" competition, making Drew think he has a chance to win the job, then name Losman the starter right before the season starts? then, at least, you have an experienced backup QB. Drew's under contract, IMO it's not worth cutting him just to do him a favor... the team should come first. Perhaps there is something else going on, I don't know - it just doesn't make sense to me. The guy signed a contract. You get almost no cap relief by releasing him - might as well force him to be a backup, it's not like he's known for creating QB controversies. Also, now JP is gonna think the job is his and he doesn't have to win it. Hmm.... EDIT: Nevermind, something Rico said triggered the answer for me: Drew simply threatened to retire if he was forced to stay as the backup. 240784[/snapback] It is pointless to have a backup QB who can't run the offense teh starter will be running. It's a joke that the offense had to be dumbed down so Drew wouldn't embasrass himself, but people are worried about the rookie mistakes from JP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Where was I wrong? That DB will be signed on with another team? I'll make a bet with YOU that he will if you want. Or that TH was injured? Because he was (maybe it wasn't severe, but it was severe enough to keep him out of the game long enough for WM to play). CW 241072[/snapback] I believe you were dead wrong in saying there's a bunch of teams who will sign him... particularly when taking into account that he doesn't want to be a back-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 It's a joke that the offense had to be dumbed down so Drew wouldn't embasrass himself, but people are worried about the rookie mistakes from JP. 241106[/snapback] Please show me *ONE* article that states the offense was "dumbed down for Drew." The way I remember it (and I could be wrong, so show me the article) is that Gilbride had one of the most complex offenses in the league and that we simplified that, not because Drew was stupid, but because there were 500 hot reads that everyone had to make and all of the players had to make the same read or the play would blow up. Nowhere did I read, "We only have 6 plays because our QB is an idiot who can't run more than those 6." CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I believe you were dead wrong in saying there's a bunch of teams who will sign him... particularly when taking into account that he doesn't want to be a back-up. 241113[/snapback] I can't find the post right now, but one poster gave a possible list of seven teams that were potentially interested in DB. That's a bunch. I think four of them were: Baltimore Cleveland Dallas Miami Can't remember the other three, but that's a bunch. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col_forbin Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I'm really arguing with myself here (which is very ICE-esq, I suppose), but I have to wonder: why cut Drew? why even tell him he's being demoted? why not go into camp with an "open" competition, making Drew think he has a chance to win the job, then name Losman the starter right before the season starts? then, at least, you have an experienced backup QB. Drew's under contract, IMO it's not worth cutting him just to do him a favor... the team should come first. Perhaps there is something else going on, I don't know - it just doesn't make sense to me. The guy signed a contract. You get almost no cap relief by releasing him - might as well force him to be a backup, it's not like he's known for creating QB controversies. Also, now JP is gonna think the job is his and he doesn't have to win it. Hmm.... EDIT: Nevermind, something Rico said triggered the answer for me: Drew simply threatened to retire if he was forced to stay as the backup. 240784[/snapback] Something called class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Please show me *ONE* article that states the offense was "dumbed down for Drew." The way I remember it (and I could be wrong, so show me the article) is that Gilbride had one of the most complex offenses in the league and that we simplified that, not because Drew was stupid, but because there were 500 hot reads that everyone had to make and all of the players had to make the same read or the play would blow up. Nowhere did I read, "We only have 6 plays because our QB is an idiot who can't run more than those 6." CW 241115[/snapback] when you have a 11 year vet "Hall of Fame" QB and the only time you throw more than 10 yards downfield is on gadget plays, then you are running a rookie offense designed to not make mistakes. In a year when the league opens up offenses and you are only 1 of 2 teams to not have a single 300 yard passing game, you are running a dumbed down offense. watch the games to see what kind of offense the Bills were forced to run with Drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 when you have a 11 year vet "Hall of Fame" QB and the only time you throw more than 10 yards downfield is on gadget plays, then you are running a rookie offense designed to not make mistakes. In a year when the league opens up offenses and you are only 1 of 2 teams to not have a single 300 yard passing game, you are running a dumbed down offense. watch the games to see what kind of offense the Bills were forced to run with Drew. 241290[/snapback] And what makes you think the offense was setup because of Drew? Everyone here seems to say that, but nowhere has anyone shown evidence that it wasn't because it was an entirely new sceme, because that's just what the coaches wanted to run (ie: smash mouth, remember?), because the receivers were all young, etc, etc. That doesn't prove that they dumbed it down because of DB at all. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shameless Homer Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 And what makes you think the offense was setup because of Drew? Everyone here seems to say that, but nowhere has anyone shown evidence that it wasn't because it was an entirely new sceme, because that's just what the coaches wanted to run (ie: smash mouth, remember?), because the receivers were all young, etc, etc. That doesn't prove that they dumbed it down because of DB at all. CW 241322[/snapback] Particularly in light of the fact that he threw for 4300+ yards his first year here. Then they lost Price; 100 catches, Josh Reed proved to be a bust, Moulds was out for 4 games and was ineffective for 2003 and they tried a rookie this year, who while tremendously gifted, knows 4 pass routes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I'm really arguing with myself here (which is very ICE-esq, I suppose), but I have to wonder: why cut Drew? why even tell him he's being demoted? why not go into camp with an "open" competition, making Drew think he has a chance to win the job, then name Losman the starter right before the season starts? then, at least, you have an experienced backup QB. Drew's under contract, IMO it's not worth cutting him just to do him a favor... the team should come first. Perhaps there is something else going on, I don't know - it just doesn't make sense to me. The guy signed a contract. You get almost no cap relief by releasing him - might as well force him to be a backup, it's not like he's known for creating QB controversies. Also, now JP is gonna think the job is his and he doesn't have to win it. Hmm.... EDIT: Nevermind, something Rico said triggered the answer for me: Drew simply threatened to retire if he was forced to stay as the backup. 240784[/snapback] I thought it had to do with money.....I wouldn't pay a 1 million dollar bonus to somebody I know I am going to cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 And what makes you think the offense was setup because of Drew? Everyone here seems to say that, but nowhere has anyone shown evidence that it wasn't because it was an entirely new sceme, because that's just what the coaches wanted to run (ie: smash mouth, remember?), because the receivers were all young, etc, etc. That doesn't prove that they dumbed it down because of DB at all. CW 241322[/snapback] yeah - I guess Moulds is young - when compared to Jerry Rice. We'll see what the coaches allow JP to run, then make your comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts