makbeer Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I love how people are so obsessed with his character that they ignore that we just dropped 75 million on an offensive line and don't have a back to run behind it.
Billsjunkie Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Go back to your cave Makbeer. Willis is rubbing the Bills face in the mud right now. Anyone who sides with Willis sides with the devil.
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I love how people are so obsessed with his character that they ignore that we just dropped 75 million on an offensive line and don't have a back to run behind it. Better to have a line with no RB than a RB with no line. You also have to consider these factors: - Willis didn't seem like he wanted to be here, and would have been gone after next season. All this trade means is that the Bills have to find his replacement a year early. - Willis's replacement doesn't exactly have to be the next Jim Brown to replace what McGahee gave us. - RB is one of the few positions where a rookie player can make an immediate impact.
Sketch Soland Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Better to have a line with no RB than a RB with no line. You also have to consider these factors:- Willis didn't seem like he wanted to be here, and would have been gone after next season. All this trade means is that the Bills have to find his replacement a year early. - Willis's replacement doesn't exactly have to be the next Jim Brown to replace what McGahee gave us. - RB is one of the few positions where a rookie player can make an immediate impact. Exactly. Well said.
makbeer Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 So we go out and get a RB with an early round pick that should have been used to shore up our horrible DL/LB positions...now what? We can run (Maybe - high draft picks aren't certain top notch runners...*cough* J.J. Arrington *cough*) the ball, but teams will still destroy us up the gut. I still hate the idea of taking a team with plenty of holes to fill, and creating NEW holes.
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 So we go out and get a RB with an early round pick that should have been used to shore up our horrible DL/LB positions...now what? We can run (Maybe - high draft picks aren't certain top notch runners...*cough* J.J. Arrington *cough*) the ball, but teams will still destroy us up the gut. I still hate the idea of taking a team with plenty of holes to fill, and creating NEW holes. Look at it this way. The Bills would need maybe a 2nd round pick to replace McGahee's production as a pure runner. Over the course of his career, this hypothetical second round pick could become a more complete back than McGahee was. So you can look at this as trading away our second round pick (if used on a RB) in exchange for two thirds. And as a result of this trade, the Bills will have gotten younger and potentially better at RB, with a more favorable contract situation to boot. I haven't agreed with everything Marv's done, but I do like this trade.
HelloNewman Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Anyone who sides with Willis sides with the devil. You sound like a typical Republican....are you sure you are on the right board? (just kidding)
Paup 1995MVP Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 It will be interesting how WMG does there. Having McNair (who of course gets written off every year) should be a plus for Willis - McNair being a maddening QB to defend against, with his skill in making something out of nothing. You mean the same Steve McNair who who drove the Ravens to ZERO offensive touchdowns against the Bills in our final game? And the same Steve McNair who drove the Ravens to ZERO touchdowns and had the following stats of 18 for 29 for 173 yards, two picks and a QB rating of 49.9 in their playoff game against the Colts? I had would much rather have JP at the helm than McNair who has been on the decline for the past 5 years. Geese, he put up numbers in the playoff game that would make Rex Grossman proud.
Recommended Posts