MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Dammit, what was I thinking? I should've remembered we're the only option to any player in free agency. My bad. Nice overstatement. Just saying that coming from NO, anything is an improvement in the "distraction" department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I think that if we got Bentley, the interior OL wouldnt cave in all the time- and that could make our OT's look MUCH better (namely Mike Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 i was ready to post that i thought LeCharles Bentley was too old. then i figured i better check my facts. (yes people...sometimes it is a smart thing to do). i was stunned to find that he is only 26. i thought he had been around forever. 543604[/snapback] Well, I'll admit to something stupider.... When I first heard all the LeCharles Bentley talk, I thought they were talking about LeRoi Glover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I think our problems on the interior OL can be solved with one of these two guys. I would prefer Bentley just because I think it will be easier to sign him. He wants to play close to his NE Ohio home...The Browns will be tough competition for him--but they invested a lot in their OL last year with Andruzzi, Coleman plus they will have to spend to retain LJ Shelton and they seem impressed with him...Right now MIKE PUCILLO is the starting center for the Brownies so they have a need == Jeff Faine is out for the year after starting the first 14 games (torn bicep) and his history of injuries could cause them to look at Bentley... So my moves would be: 1) Sign Bentley-- 2) Don't resign Teague or sign him cheap (2years - 2.5 Million range)and make him the swing back-up Tackle 3) cut Mike Williams-- 4) draft an OT high--but realize that Rookie OT's rarely play, so give this draftee a year to develop and then replace Gandy in 2007. 5) Keep Gandy and Peters at T (extend Peters this year when he is an EFA) 6) Let Preston and Anderson compete at LG, 7) get one more year out of Chris V at RG... what we sacrifice is another year of keeping the TE into block on most passing plays--which really limits the Offense...but buying a veteran anchor will shore up this line quickly...I have seen us get crushed again on the interior this year too many times...our percentage of first downs on third and short has to be abysmal... 543530[/snapback] Both will cost Top Dollar, and as a Michigan Fan I'd rather have Hutch... I doubt the Bills will sign either because neither one is an OT...And the likelyhood is both will be overpaid no matter how good they are...And they are both very good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Bennie Anderson is a POS....cut him at the end of the season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I would love it if we could get Hutchinson. He's the player I wanted the Bills to take in the 2001 draft. He was there for the taking when it came time to pick, but as we know they traded down, and drafted Nate. I like Bentley a lot too, but I get the feeling the Bills want to go with Preston at center. As good as Hutchinson is, it seems more likely that the Seahawks will do whatever they can to keep him. Unless the Seahawks are in cap trouble. Does anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 As good as Hutchinson is, it seems more likely that the Seahawks will do whatever they can to keep him. Unless the Seahawks are in cap trouble. Does anyone know? 543826[/snapback] I don't have a link, but there was an article about 3 months ago that said Seattle was either going to get a long term deal done with Alexander or he would be gone because their franchise tag was going to Hutch. True or not, there is on way Hutch sees free agency. Seattle knows where their talent is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I don't have a link, but there was an article about 3 months ago that said Seattle was either going to get a long term deal done with Alexander or he would be gone because their franchise tag was going to Hutch. True or not, there is on way Hutch sees free agency. Seattle knows where their talent is. 543839[/snapback] I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. What does give us SOME hope is that the Seahawks spent a ton of money this year locking up Jones and Hasselback. The "Franchise Tag" for Hutch would count fully toward their cap. I don't remember any team using this tag on a Guard, but NE used it on a kicker, so anything is possible. Big Contracts On The Seahawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Nice overstatement. Just saying that coming from NO, anything is an improvement in the "distraction" department. 543695[/snapback] No, I do get your point. I'm only saying that it's natural to want to steer clear of ANY drama once you've gotten yourself out of some. If some abused wife is finally able to get free of her husband, she probably won't go looking for another abusive drunk to latch onto, would she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts