BeastMode54 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I know his name has been exhausted in threads for a while now, but after reading so many posts on who we should take at 11 I think it's worth a question. If we had signed B. Johnson, if even for a year, we would have been able to take the top CB or DE at 11 and then a TE or WR in the 2nd round and so on. I feel like we are going to take Malcolm Kelly at 11, but obviously that's just my opinion. I think, had we signed Johnson, it would have alleviated some of the pressure to upgrade the offense. We didn't want to give him a multi year deal of the magnitude he wanted, however, I still would have given him a one year deal. Had he had a good year and left as a FA, then at least the WR we drafted would have had a year of study and room to get better without the pressure of being "the man", or at least the "#2 man". This topic has probablt been spoken about, but I just needed to vent. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 If the Bills truly believed in this guy they probably would have considered rolling the dice with this guy. But then again, if he only wanted to be here one year , he wasn't showing that he believed in the Bills. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Ya know, I watched a replay of one of the Cards game from last year on NFL Network. Cards run several 3 wideout sets with Fitzgerald, Boldin & Johnson. Rarely did I see Johnson make any plays against the defense. He made maybe 1 solid catch over the middle. But when you have talent like Fitzgerald & Boldin on the field you should be open alot more then normal.......he wasnt......... I still think our best option is drafting a WR or 2 this year and roll with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I would have liked to see us get him even if it was for a year. Immediately gives us a #2 who has a number of years under his belt while allowing a rookie to develop for a year. Now our hands are tied and we'll basically be forced to start a rookie at WR. Sure it's possible we pick up a guy who comes in and makes an impact right away but I think if we had gotten Johnson, it would have at least reduced our last glaring ? for the upcoming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I don't think not getting Johnson is the one that we are going to regret getting away but more so Ernest Wilford. I won't blame the FO for not getting it because I have a sneaky suspicion that it had more to do with staying and playing in Florida and for Parcells' boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Long Beach Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I would have liked to see us get him even if it was for a year. Immediately gives us a #2 who has a number of years under his belt while allowing a rookie to develop for a year. Now our hands are tied and we'll basically be forced to start a rookie at WR. Sure it's possible we pick up a guy who comes in and makes an impact right away but I think if we had gotten Johnson, it would have at least reduced our last glaring ? for the upcoming season. I wouldn't have cried if we signed him. But I'm also not crying that we didn't. The guy has been given many opportunities to step up as a number 2 receiver and he hasn't. Yet. or maybe never. With him not willing to sign for more than one year, it was clear that he was looking solely at getting a new chance at another team if it wasn't working out to him, or a big payday (from another team) if it was. I don't think we missed out on much other than signing a "name" that's well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 It's not like the Bills are on the verge of being a Super Bowl team in 08. That is all 1year rent a players are good for, helping a team get to the big show. The rookie they get will be better next year with the experience he gets this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 If the Bills truly believed in this guy they probably would have considered rolling the dice with this guy. But then again, if he only wanted to be here one year , he wasn't showing that he believed in the Bills. Good riddance. Johnson decided to roll the dice and by signing only a one year deal, he'll get to do the same thing next year. It's obvious that he (his agent?) played their hand in hopes of a big payday next year. One must wonder though as to why he went to the 49ers, being that they're currently suffering from their own QB issues and a putrid offense as well. Seems he didn't exactly end up in a good place to showcase his talents, which clearly was all he was willing to accept (unless some fool was willing to fork over big bucks). Sadly for him, there is only one Oakland and Al "I'm senile" Davis.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 77 games played. ZERO 100 yard games. Not signing him was not a big deal. It's still early and hopefully the Bills F.O. has a plan for the WR position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The Bills were right to look elsewhere. The bottom line is that a 1-year deal means exactly that -- a 1-year deal. Either Johnson sucks and we don't want him back for a longer term -- or he plays well, becomes a free agent again -- and signs to the highest bidder. The team is looking for continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What would Al Davis do?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Ya know, I watched a replay of one of the Cards game from last year on NFL Network. Cards run several 3 wideout sets with Fitzgerald, Boldin & Johnson. Rarely did I see Johnson make any plays against the defense. He made maybe 1 solid catch over the middle. But when you have talent like Fitzgerald & Boldin on the field you should be open alot more then normal.......he wasnt......... I still think our best option is drafting a WR or 2 this year and roll with that. Nice pic! You the guy on the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I know his name has been exhausted in threads for a while now, but after reading so many posts on who we should take at 11 I think it's worth a question. If we had signed B. Johnson, if even for a year, we would have been able to take the top CB or DE at 11 and then a TE or WR in the 2nd round and so on. I feel like we are going to take Malcolm Kelly at 11, but obviously that's just my opinion. I think, had we signed Johnson, it would have alleviated some of the pressure to upgrade the offense. We didn't want to give him a multi year deal of the magnitude he wanted, however, I still would have given him a one year deal. Had he had a good year and left as a FA, then at least the WR we drafted would have had a year of study and room to get better without the pressure of being "the man", or at least the "#2 man". This topic has probablt been spoken about, but I just needed to vent. Any thoughts? Even if we had picked Johnson on a 1 year deal, I would pick a tall WR in the 1st round...either Kelly or Sweed......WRs take a year or two to have a coming out party or at least 1/2 a season...We could have used Johnsons service for the year and then decided whether to extend him.... The Bills are looking at the long term future and don't want a stop gap arrangement on the offense...They want to build this offense for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewy23 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 It would have been nice to have Bryant Johnson, but there's no need to be upset that he signed elsewhere. He wanted a 1 year deal so that IF he played well, he could jump ship and get a nice payday next year. I understand why he wanted it that way, but that isn't the type of guy you bring in if you are also looking to bring in a rookie at the same position. He would not have been the type of guy to teach anybody anything. He's looking to come to work, prove himself and move on to chase the big paycheck. Oh well. It would have been nice to have him, but if a 1 year deal was all he wanted, we're better off without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 It's not like the Bills are on the verge of being a Super Bowl team in 08. That is all 1year rent a players are good for, helping a team get to the big show. The rookie they get will be better next year with the experience he gets this year. That's exactly what I think too. I'd like to see Buffalo take a first round WR, optimally after trading down but that's harder than people think. I'd also like to see them take another WR too a little later. I think a team needs three very good receivers to put out on the field. Especially when potential injuries are considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I would have liked to sign him for the one year deal, which would have allowed us to not put the high draft pick WR into a "we-need-you-to-immediately-produce" position. Then he would have a year under his belt when Johnson likely went elsewhere. It wouldn't have cost much (he signed for $2m), it would have made us a better team, and tougher to play against. In the unlikelihood that he played lights out, we would have as good a chance as other teams or better to keep him (as he would have obviously liked playing with the Bills given the fact he played "lights out"). That said, I recently heard second hand, and I know it to be true (only because I trust the source 100%), that Kurt Warner didn't really think Bryant Johnson was all that good. He called him "a good player" that was good because of the other players around him and would never be a #1 WR. And Warner is not the kind of guy to badmouth anyone. The other player he mentioned in that category was Peerless Price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 no. The Bills know who they want at WR in the draft IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts