Pennsyl-tucky Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Maybe Marv is traveling the country, getting in touch with all the guys from the '99 squad saying, "We're gettin' the band back together!" Your 2006 Buffalo Bills - They're on a mission from God!
erynthered Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 It may be time for some of you to dust off that old PP Jersey. Though, some got tossed away I suspect.
Peter Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 At first, I had to check the calendar to make sure it is not April 1st. After realizing that this is not an April fools joke, my reaction is: why not? I was one of PP's biggest detractors. This is low risk though. He has some talent. Maybe he learned his lesson after being cut by two teams. We shall see.
Rubes Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 I think this is Fairchild's design...he's going to move us to a new style of offense. It will be the 1 center, 3 QBs, and 7 WRs formation. Nobody will know who's throwing the ball, or to whom. We'll need 2 backup WRs for that formation.
Dan III Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 http://www.buffalobills.com/news/NFLNews.jsp?id=7906 1yr deal
IDBillzFan Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 If only we had Bledsoe back. Then we'd be all set.
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Can't be to much worse than the players at the bottom of the depth chart. If he plays well and earns a roster spot and contributes great if not it isn't gonna wreck our season!
Dr. Fong Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 COOL! So I can dust off my Peerless Price jersey and start wearing it again......that is if I HAD a Peerless Price jersey.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Whats so wrong with the signing? 658085[/snapback] Lemme see... 1) he's very unlikely to make the team; 2) if he does make the team, it means we're in even worse shape than we thought; 3) it means we're probably not making a play for Javon Walker; 4) it means we're probably not drafting a WR on Day 1 to replace Moulds; 5) it shows a lack of patience, because other, younger WRs who actually have, I dunno, UPSIDE, may still enter the free agent market (Charles Rogers), 6) anyone who has seen PP play the last few years knows he no longer gets separation and has lost his deep speed (WRs near or over 30 almost never "rediscover" speed - Galloway may be an exception); 7) it means that, of the 9 receivers on the Bills roster, and the 3-4 tight ends, the Bills still have NO ONE who will go over the middle to catch passes (I said "catch" Josh Reed). Other than that, nothing, nothing's wrong with it. FUG.
damaynman150 Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 With Evans, Parrish, Davis and Price all on the team, and presumably our top 4 Receivers (in which order, who knows), it seems like the Bills are going for a much more aggressive style offense. So, does that mean that Holcombs out of the QB race? Id say yes. We all know JPs got a nice arm but im not sure about Nall. Looks like the 3-headed "monster" is already down to 2 by default
booya2 Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 With Evans, Parrish, Davis and Price all on the team, and presumably our top 4 Receivers (in which order, who knows), it seems like the Bills are going for a much more aggressive style offense. So, does that mean that Holcombs out of the QB race? Id say yes. We all know JPs got a nice arm but im not sure about Nall. Looks like the 3-headed "monster" is already down to 2 by default 658107[/snapback] At the very least we know we gots guys who can FLY bab-bay!
mead107 Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 JP then nall , holcomb has been out from the start .
flomoe Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 I can't see this being anything but a decent move. If you look at all the experience, or lack thereof, on the Bills receiver squad, this is a very good move to create competition. Sure PP had his ups and downs here then plenty of downs everywhere else, but bringing in a guy with something to prove is never a bad idea. It doesn't always work but it's worth the shot. I say welcome back Peerless and lets hope that he still has something left in the tank. On a side note, if you look at the offense that Fairchild used in St. Louis, there were numerous times that they used a 4 receiver set to create mismatches against defenses with pretty good success. Sure they had Holt and Bruce but Curtis, Looker and even McDonald were all integral parts of that offense.
Peter Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 If only we had Bledsoe back. Then we'd be all set. 658102[/snapback] I know that you did not mean it this way, but we certainly would be much better off than we are.
smuvtalker Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 JP then nall , holcomb has been out from the start . 658111[/snapback] I hope that's the case, cause Lord knows I'd rather just about anyone under center than Holcomb, but in reading the minicamp report, it says Holcomb got the lion's share of the snaps with the first team offense. I hope they were just being nice....
Simon Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 A fine example of making character a priority. Thanks Marv, for bringing back one of the biggest c---s to ever don a Bills uniform. Maybe he can teach Roscoe a thing or two about rounding off routes, ducking out of traffic, protecting himself before protecting the ball and quitting when he just doesn't feel like playing.
Rubes Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Oh come on now, Mr. Cranky. 1) he's very unlikely to make the team; So what? No skin off our back. 2) if he does make the team, it means we're in even worse shape than we thought; I think most of us already realize this. 3) it means we're probably not making a play for Javon Walker; He's coming off an injury and probably won't be back to form until next year, but I agree that it would be nice to have him on the roster. 4) it means we're probably not drafting a WR on Day 1 to replace Moulds; Good! We need plenty of other positions filled on Day 1. 5) it shows a lack of patience, because other, younger WRs who actually have, I dunno, UPSIDE, may still enter the free agent market (Charles Rogers), Not sure about this one...why would Rogers come on the market at this point? 6) anyone who has seen PP play the last few years knows he no longer gets separation and has lost his deep speed (WRs near or over 30 almost never "rediscover" speed - Galloway may be an exception); We already have our deep threats on the team. Peerless would likely be up against a 3rd or 4th DB, which could be a mismatch regardless if he can run a 4.3 40 at this point. 7) it means that, of the 9 receivers on the Bills roster, and the 3-4 tight ends, the Bills still have NO ONE who will go over the middle to catch passes (I said "catch" Josh Reed). True, but we didn't before his signing, so it doesn't exactly change anything. Cheer up! All's well in Bills Country.
Dr. Fong Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Not sure about this one...why would Rogers come on the market at this point? 658120[/snapback] There's a lot of buzz going around that Detroit is fed up with him and looking to deal him or cut him.
Fan in Chicago Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Shameless self promotion here ..... See my post about 1/4th way down. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=44731&st=20
Recommended Posts