John from Riverside Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Gross. Move on already, need guys that can play a full season. Like who I certainly want to hear your opinion....Kerley is gone....so whats next?
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Like who I certainly want to hear your opinion....Kerley is gone....so whats next? Larry and Moe?
Maury Ballstein Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Like who I certainly want to hear your opinion....Kerley is gone....so whats next? Pull up the list of FA WR's. Any of them or any of the top 12 wr's in the draft will do.
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 My exact concern. @thadbrown7 Not about money. Worry is #Bills commit to Harvin as 2nd/3rd WR, then he gets hurt, misses 10 gms again. Leaves hole
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I think I'm the only one who hopes he is back. Even if it's not a full time role. They can't pay him a lot so it certainly be on the cheap. Still draft one obviously but he's a good talent to have in the arsenal. He's fast, versatile, experienced and had chemistry with Taylor right off the bat. Clearly injury prone which is why, if he is back, it would be cheap/incentive laden. You're not the only one who wants him back. Like you said, we should obviously draft a replacement but I would prefer that we have Harvin. We wouldn't miss a beat on offense, and we can focus on fixing the defense.
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 You're not the only one who wants him back. Like you said, we should obviously draft a replacement but I would prefer that we have Harvin. We wouldn't miss a beat on offense until he gets hurt yet again, and then we're ****ed! FTFY
Fan in Chicago Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Yup. Extreme injury prone player on a cap stricken team is never a good idea. Incentive laden or not. Agreed. If we were stacked at the WR position, a deal for a game breaker is a risk worth taking. The Bills don't have that luxury Edited March 21, 2016 by Fan in Chicago
Fan in Chicago Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 My exact concern. @thadbrown7 Not about money. Worry is #Bills commit to Harvin as 2nd/3rd WR, then he gets hurt, misses 10 gms again. Leaves hole Yup. Wish the Bills would move on. Sometimes I wonder what's going on in Whaley's head
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Yup. Wish the Bills would move on. Sometimes I wonder what's going on in Whaley's head What was that quote about the definition of insanity?
4merper4mer Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 My exact concern. @thadbrown7 Not about money. Worry is #Bills commit to Harvin as 2nd/3rd WR, then he gets hurt, misses 10 gms again. Leaves hole Exactly. I couldn't care less about any contract he might get expensive or cheap. The real cost of Harvin is the roster spot. Might as well call it a 52 man roster if you sign him. Other potential receivers, although probably less talented, get pushed down a rung and we are less attractive a landing spot for other potential acquisitions. If we could somehow be guaranteed that he would stay healthy for say 14 of 16 games, we should probably sign him.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I don't see the downside of a cheap deal. If he plays 8 games even, he helps the team in those 8 games. He was good when he was out there last year.
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I don't see the downside of a cheap deal. If he plays 8 games even, he helps the team in those 8 games. He was good when he was out there last year. Initially he was. But he became less effective and explosive as the season wore on.
CommonCents Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 It's a bad idea. Goodwin and Harvin will wreck any teams depth, they are hurt more than they are available. Sure you can make an argument that he will be on a cheap deal but it's the roster spot and ignoring other more viable options that is the problem. Iv said it over and over again bring in Boldin if your going to sign a veteran. I bet Whaley doesn't wear a seatbelt and texts while he drives after drinking ...he loves the excitement and ignores the obvious. You made this mistake last year, less track stars more football players please.
machine gun kelly Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 So I looked up the veteran minimum for a 7-9 veteran and it is $885,000. I am not going to read all 17 pages of this thread, but I read the last couple, and a recurrent theme I keep reading is there is somewhat of an agreement if the guy was healthy, and based on what he did early last year, a consensus he is an impact player. The argument not be captain obvious is can he stay healthy. Well the vet minimum for an undrafted rookie is $450,000. Do you want to risk basically $435,000 if a guy stays healthy? We're going to draft whoever we're going to draft, and the WR class this year is weak except maybe Treadwell. The only incentive I'd give the guy over the minimum is he has to play a minimum of 12 full games. That allows for twice getting minority knocked up and sitting for 1-2 games. He was dynamic early last year and you could see the difference when he left. Next point, is Rex likes and wants not necessarily the possession guys like Hogan, but the speed demons with excellent change of direction. For a $435,000 investment, and a thorough inspection by the docs, why not? So I'm in the camp to take a chance if cleared. Basically we're going into the season with who we have otherwise, as the only player on offense Whaley will most likely pick is an OL. Everything else will probably be defense. It would be good for Harvin as well as the incentives to next year could be decent, and he's still in the NFL, auditioning for us or someone else. He's not that old. Otherwise he's done.
John from Riverside Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Pull up the list of FA WR's. Any of them or any of the top 12 wr's in the draft will do. Really? OK
Kirby Jackson Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Initially he was. But he became less effective and explosive as the season wore on. My point is though 8 games of Harvin and then 8 games of Salas/Boykin/Little/Thompson is better than 16 games of Salas/Boykin/Little/Thompson. There really is little to no downside if the contract is cheap.
YoloinOhio Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Reason I like him is he draws coverage. I don't want Sammy and bunch of guys who don't scare anyone. I want the play to go to Sammy, not to the guy who is left open as all the coverage rolls toward 14. Anytime you are throwing it somewhere other than Sammy the percentage of the play being positive goes down. He is your best chance and knowing that they only throw 25x a game as it is, there is a bigger need for high percentage pass plays. I'm ok with anyone who the defense is scared enough of to make sure he's covered because it takes some, any, focus off of Watkins. There are only so many WRs available that can do that IMO. Not sure if there are any in FA. There might be a couple in the draft but clearly they are raw. I guess you'd say I want him out there if healthy. Whether he does anything but draw coverage, attention and game planning is irrelevant to me. I want the ball going to one guy most of the time. If he's not healthy, it doesn't matter, because they won't be signing him. (Per K-9) He just fits this offense really well. You can draft Braxton and he has a similar skill set... But you don't know how the draft will fall. Edited March 21, 2016 by YoloinOhio
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts