Fingon Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Calm down people http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/12/...s-still-a-bill/ Despite rampant rumors and speculation that running back Fred Jackson’s absence from the Bills’ online roster and depth chart arises from the fact that he has been traded to the Chiefs as part of a package that will bring tight end Tony Gonzalez to Buffalo, Bills V.P. of Communications Scott Berchtold tells us that Jackson’s absence from the web site is the result of an internal error. “Fred is very much a part of our team,” Berchtold said via e-mail. Besides, why would the Chiefs want Jackson? They’ve got Larry Johnson, Kolby Smith, and Jamaal Charles at running back. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Bills won’t get Gonzalez. Still, we think his most likely destination is the Giants.
robkmil Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Calm down people http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/12/...s-still-a-bill/ Despite rampant rumors and speculation that running back Fred Jackson’s absence from the Bills’ online roster and depth chart arises from the fact that he has been traded to the Chiefs as part of a package that will bring tight end Tony Gonzalez to Buffalo, Bills V.P. of Communications Scott Berchtold tells us that Jackson’s absence from the web site is the result of an internal error. “Fred is very much a part of our team,” Berchtold said via e-mail. Besides, why would the Chiefs want Jackson? They’ve got Larry Johnson, Kolby Smith, and Jamaal Charles at running back. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Bills won’t get Gonzalez. Still, we think his most likely destination is the Giants. i would love TG. but i think is a big parrt of what we do.
stevewin Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 “Fred is very much a part of our team,” Berchtold said via e-mail. Well - of course he is still a part of the team - up until the deal is finalized....
Tim Anderson's Lunch Pail Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Fred Jackson isn't going anywhere. I will say though, I find it interesting that Bertchtold did not use this platform as an opportunity to dispell Gonzalez rumors. Hmmmm...
lets_go_bills Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Thank God. I love Coe College. I would be glad to have Tony, but not at the loss of Fred. We need him. The drop off from Jackson to Omon is greater than the drop off from Gonzalez to Royal.
Tim Anderson's Lunch Pail Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Thank God. I love Coe College. I would be glad to have Tony, but not at the loss of Fred. We need him. The drop off from Jackson to Omon is greater than the drop off from Gonzalez to Royal. That's not really a fair comparison. I love Fred Jackson, but he is still a great utility man (not starter) whereas Gonzalez is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Royal.
lets_go_bills Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 That's not really a fair comparison. I love Fred Jackson, but he is still a great utility man (not starter) whereas Gonzalez is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Royal. I'm not as down on Royal as others. Also, what I meant was that if we traded Jackson, then we have Omon backing up Lynch, which is not good IMO. Jackson is dynamic and sees a fair share of touches. So the drop off at the RB spot is far greater than the boost we get by bringing in Tony. Nothing against Tony, I just think we would suffer by not having a strong compliment to Lynch. I'm all for getting Tony, but not at the cost of Fred.
True Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Royal is so PAINFULLY slow.. but at 33 is TG what we need.. are we THIS close? Geezus who made week six the trade deadline!!!! Honestly, it's awesome that Jackson made his way onto our team as #2 RB from the PRACTICE squad!!! But IMO.. thats a poo poo trade. That is all.. B.
WellDressed Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 i would love TG. but i think is a big parrt of what we do. What did you say sonny??
/dev/null Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Besides, why would the Chiefs want Jackson? They’ve got Larry Johnson, Kolby Smith, and Jamaal Charles at running back. Because they've heard of him?
DrDawkinstein Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 id rather have fred jackson for the next 5 years than TG for the next 2-3. but thats just my 2 cents.
BUFFALOTONE Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 id rather have fred jackson for the next 5 years than TG for the next 2-3. but thats just my 2 cents. At what cost though? If Fred keeps putting up great numbers and being productive down the line he is going to want to get paid like a #1. And with lynch, trent and peters to secure up for the future there may not be enough money to go around. Now not sure what Gonzo makes because I am too lazy to look it up but if he ok's the trade and restructures a bit I dont see why he couldnt come here. Jackson is great and showing what he can do, but Gonzo is still very effective and TE's like him are 1-million.
DrDawkinstein Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 At what cost though? If Fred keeps putting up great numbers and being productive down the line he is going to want to get paid like a #1. And with lynch, trent and peters to secure up for the future there may not be enough money to go around. Now not sure what Gonzo makes because I am too lazy to look it up but if he ok's the trade and restructures a bit I dont see why he couldnt come here. Jackson is great and showing what he can do, but Gonzo is still very effective and TE's like him are 1-million. not necessarily. plenty of teams in the NFL are using a 1-2 punch at RB and very few of them are demanding "#1 money". dont get me wrong, they need to get paid, but i dont think we will end up with $10mil+/year locked up in the RB position if we kept Lynch and Jackson.
BUFFALOTONE Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 not necessarily. plenty of teams in the NFL are using a 1-2 punch at RB and very few of them are demanding "#1 money". dont get me wrong, they need to get paid, but i dont think we will end up with $10mil+/year locked up in the RB position if we kept Lynch and Jackson. Its bound to happen, Look at lamont Jordan, Rhodes, Turner. these guys played 2nd fiddle until someone said you should be a feature back. then they took off and fizzled (besides Turner). Also, what is LJ's contract situation, he has some mileage and has had some injuries in the past.
The Dean Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Freddie is a RFA at the end of the year, so I think the Bills will be able to keep him. While Fred is very capable, and can be explosive, I don't think teams will see him as an every down back (or even as the primary RB), so I don't expect he will see HUGE offers. But...you never know. He is quite versatile.
LongLiveRalph Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Geezus who made week six the trade deadline!!!! Depending on the system you run, and the player you're bringing over, it may take a month for them to be fully assimilated to what your team does. The trade deadline needs to be that early so teams can actually pick up a player, and give him a few weeks to jive with the system, so they can use him effectively in games that matter. Week 6 is a good time. The teams who are in it pretty much know they will be in it...The teams that are in the doldrums will likely stay there and can look to dump salary.
maryland-bills-fan Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 We need Jackson because there is not much behind Marshawn. Lynch needs to not be the only RB, as he will wear down and get injuried.
The Dean Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Depending on the system you run, and the player you're bringing over, it may take a month for them to be fully assimilated to what your team does. The trade deadline needs to be that early so teams can actually pick up a player, and give him a few weeks to jive with the system, so they can use him effectively in games that matter. Week 6 is a good time. The teams who are in it pretty much know they will be in it...The teams that are in the doldrums will likely stay there and can look to dump salary. So, the trade deadline is there to protect teams from making trades too late, because they won't be able to properly use the players they acquire? Are you suggesting the owners voted in this rule to protect them from themselves?
Recommended Posts