YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) I am assuming it would not have been a NEED but could have been a nice add if the right guy fell to them in the right spot. Losing our backup RB makes it a NEED now instead of a luxury. not really - because they have Jwill and Tolbert and could add one of the vet FAs still out there as well. I know many are afraid of what's behind door #2 but remember this is a new offense including a new blocking scheme. Alynn liked to line up MG in the wildcat and he got a lot of yards like that (against Belichik as I'm sure he remembers well). Doubt Dennison and Castillo will roll with the wildcat. Edited April 20, 2017 by YoloinOhio
PaattMaann Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 not really - because they have Jwill and Tolbert and could add one of the vet FAs still out there as well. so your first point was "it was a need to draft a RB before losing Gill", and now your point is "we dont need to draft a RB because we have Jwill and Tolbert and can add a vet FA".....soooooooo which is it? lol
John from Riverside Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 not really - because they have Jwill and Tolbert and could add one of the vet FAs still out there as well. You do wonder about the obvious move of signing Tolbert for cheap and not tendering the high tender for TD Mike. They might not match....I hope they do.
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) so your first point was "it was a need to draft a RB before losing Gill", and now your point is "we dont need to draft a RB because we have Jwill and Tolbert and can add a vet FA".....soooooooo which is it? lol no, I said they would have drafted one regardless whether it was considered a "need" or not. You seemed to think they would not have drafted one if they kept MG. I think they would have, but no way to know for sure. Edited April 20, 2017 by YoloinOhio
Doc Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 I think many are laboring under the delusion that you can easily replace 9 TDs and a 5.7 YPC average simply because MG was able to replace Karlos. The difference is that MG averaged 5.7 YPC in 2014 and had a similar TD%. Are any of you willing to bet that any other backup on the roster or in the draft would be able to do that? I wouldn't. Bush certainly couldn't and JWill didn't show he could. As for what Vic said, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. His information has been bad, to put it kindly. But even if it what he said were true, I'd say that it would apply if it had been any other team than the Cheaters giving him the offer sheet. Do you think they want to have another player go there and (falsely) make them look foolish, again?
Chris66 Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Yeah because NE obviously will run a feature back. Lewis is the starter there (if healthy) Take the pick. Take the pick. Take the pick. no he's not. Lewis will line up at receiver more than rb. Pats dont have a no.1 at any skill position. To easy to defend. They found that out with Moss and Welker. They much rather have a bunch of guys who are good than 1 great.
oldmanfan Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 so your first point was "it was a need to draft a RB before losing Gill", and now your point is "we dont need to draft a RB because we have Jwill and Tolbert and can add a vet FA".....soooooooo which is it? lol Long term vs. short term planning. They don't have to draft a guy for short term as they have things covered, but they could look at a guy more for the long term assuming Shady has maybe another couple years.
iinii Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 no he's not. Lewis will line up at receiver more than rb. Pats dont have a no.1 at any skill position. To easy to defend. They found that out with Moss and Welker. They much rather have a bunch of guys who are good than 1 great. Outside of Brady you are right about their approach to skill positions. BB proves again it depends on team first and how good is you 53rd player?
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) I think many are laboring under the delusion that you can easily replace 9 TDs and a 5.7 YPC average simply because MG was able to replace Karlos. The difference is that MG averaged 5.7 YPC in 2014 and had a similar TD%. Are any of you willing to bet that any other backup on the roster or in the draft would be able to do that? I wouldn't. Bush certainly couldn't and JWill didn't show he could. As for what Vic said, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. His information has been bad, to put it kindly. But even if it what he said were true, I'd say that it would apply if it had been any other team than the Cheaters giving him the offer sheet. Do you think they want to have another player go there and (falsely) make them look foolish, again? i don't think they should care how it makes them "look" - though Vic insinuated the same. It's a good "trade" for both sides based on where each team is at (obviously very different systems and rosters) and where they need to go with those. Jmo of course. I think MG will be good there in their RBBC and we will draft a good, young RB to add to our team (maybe even with that draft pick) who fits the new scheme. . Edited April 20, 2017 by YoloinOhio
boyst Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Not signing him to a 2nd round tender and the patriots waiting until now to do so what a great move. Tactically sound to leave us in a position of need heading in to the draft a week away not thinking RB could be a need. We messed up what he said
dave mcbride Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Why raise this? It's an excellent, active thread with lots of great comments by passionate Bills fans willing to dive into the details. Making fun of long threads because they aren't about, say, a coaching hire or a QB isn't a good use of one's time, in my opinion.
Simon Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Why raise this? It's an excellent, active thread with lots of great comments by passionate Bills fans willing to dive into the details. Making fun of long threads because they aren't about, say, a coaching hire or a QB isn't a good use of one's time, in my opinion. I think he was more focused on the number of pages at the time......
John from Riverside Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 what he said Ok...now I am starting to worry about you fellow bills brethren
boyst Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 You could sign 3-4 rbs to play the role of McCoy. This is something I favor to McCoy. He foes down and your entire offense goes down. And its cheaper to pay 2 vets and a few young dudes or rookies. I'd rather have one's backfield than our own some days.
Watkins_deep Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Hes ok but i actually think we can improve there jmo
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Long term vs. short term planning. They don't have to draft a guy for short term as they have things covered, but they could look at a guy more for the long term assuming Shady has maybe another couple years.right - it isn't a "new" need like they would re-do their board or anything. If somehow the draft fell to where they didn't take one, they aren't lacking for options but I'm sure they "want" one and have wanted one ever since they started scouting this class.
John from Riverside Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 You could sign 3-4 rbs to play the role of McCoy. This is something I favor to McCoy. He foes down and your entire offense goes down. And its cheaper to pay 2 vets and a few young dudes or rookies. I'd rather have one's backfield than our own some days. You mean the one that had the number 1 rushing offense in the NFL? I mean.....really?
Figster Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Hes ok but i actually think we can improve there jmo I don't know, I think we should debate this for a couple hundred more pages,
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 I think the biggest thing they need to do with the offense is become more balanced. I don't care if they gave the #1 rushing offense or the #10 rushing offense. I do care if they score when they need to score to win games, and that didn't happen enough last year. They piled up a lot of yards and points in blowouts and not when they had to score to win close games. There is a lot going on behind the scenes with the staff as they work toward that. I don't care really if they replace MG's ypc, it didn't lead to the end result and just looks pretty on the stat sheet. Same for Shady - he's a weapon other teams must game plan around which is huge, but he's needed as a game changer in the W-L column, not to win the rushing title (which he keeps saying he's after).
John from Riverside Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 I think the biggest thing they need to do with the offense is become more balanced. I don't care if they gave the #1 rushing offense or the #10 rushing offense. I do care if they score when they need to score to win games, and that didn't happen enough last year. They piled up a lot of yards and points in blowouts and not when they had to score to win close games. There is a lot going on behind the scenes with the staff as they work toward that. I don't care really if they replace MG's ypc, it didn't lead to the end result and just looks pretty on the stat sheet. Same for Shady - he's a weapon other teams must game plan around which is huge, but he's needed as a game changer in the W-L column, not to win the rushing title (which he keeps saying he's after). Agreed.....this happens by improving the guys that actually catch the ball..playmakers make plays
Recommended Posts