Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I KNOW this is just speculating and is unlikely to happen, but what else do we have to do right now but speculate and wonder about possibilities right, even unlikely ones...lol What if we offer AZ Lynch for Boldin in trade this offseason? Given Boldins conract situation, the money they have in Fitz, and the emergance of Breston, the Cards may look to trade Boldin. Plus, Boldin has stated he would not sign again in AZ as he has felt lied to. Don't know if he still feels the same way now, but that was earlier this year and not that long ago. AZ has a glaring hole at RB going into next year with Hightower having the worst YPC in the league and not looking like an everydown back and Edge on his last legs and likely gone next year. We need a Boldin type WR badly and have 2 stud RB's...so, would it make sense to offer AZ Lynch for Boldin? I think Lynch is great, but we also have Jackson who I think is capable of being a really good everydown back too. What line up would look better...Evans, Boldin, Jackson...or Evans, Reed/Johnson, Lynch? Its a win win...AZ gets a proven young stud RB, we get a proven stud WR in his prime...fills huge needs with both teams and neither team loses too much given they have capable replacements for the departed players...We can handle Boldins contract demands too given how far under the cap we likely are.
stinky finger Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 No thanks. I like Boldin, but we'll have to figure out another way to get him.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 No thanks. I like Boldin, but we'll have to figure out another way to get him. So, does that mean you think Evans, Reed/Johnson, and Lynch is a better lineup than Boldin, Evans, and Jackson?
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I'd do it in a minute. Boldin, Evans, Reed, Jackson, and Edwards > Evans, Reed, Parrish, Lynch and Edwards Love Marshawn, but RB's are the easiest to replace, especially if the Bills would address the line.
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I love Boldin and this trade is a feasible one considering how long running backs last. But this is Buffalo. Let's build a team for Buffalo. Right now, we have a top 5 running back combo. Let's finish the line, run the ball 60% of the time (and a 60-40 split with Lynch and Jackson), and run play action with at least a shot every quarter down field. That's how we can become a good team again.
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I'd do it in a minute. Boldin, Evans, Reed, Jackson, and Edwards > Evans, Reed, Parrish, Lynch and Edwards Love Marshawn, but RB's are the easiest to replace, especially if the Bills would address the line. I even have to reply to myself here......lol......if you added a Free Agent, pass catching TE, to the Boldin, Evans, Reed, Jackson and Edwards offense....I would almost dare to say that would be a damn near unstoppable pass offense to cover.
The_Real Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Depends if they'd leave him on the field in critical situations and whether or not he'd argue with our OC.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 It seems like it's creating a hole for the sake of filling another hole. Boldin is a fantastic talent, and pure #1 receiver. Would be a great addition. However Lynch/Jackson can be a rb duo on par with Jacobs/Ward Williams/Stewart etc etc. If it's not broke don't fix it. Bring in Amani Toomer, a receiving tight end, and work on becoming a power running team.
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I love Boldin and this trade is a feasible one considering how long running backs last. But this is Buffalo. Let's build a team for Buffalo. Right now, we have a top 5 running back combo. Let's finish the line, run the ball 60% of the time (and a 60-40 split with Lynch and Jackson), and run play action with at least a shot every quarter down field. That's how we can become a good team again. If you had defenses worrying about covering that offense, the running game would open up immensely. Offense is offense, it can be built many different ways. I think it has snowed and has been just as sh------- in NE over the last few years than in Buffalo, and they built an unstoppable passing game two years ago. We could do the sa,me.
Beerball Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Just thinking out loud here. A running back for a top tier WR? yes, I can look past his tantrum Boldin will be 29 next season Lynch is a Mack truck and will miss games each season Boldin is likely to be highly productive for another 4-5 years Lynch has that certain something that really makes you want him to succeed Boldin's receptions the past 3 years 83, 71, 89 Boldin 40 career TDs Boldin missed 4 games each of the past 2 years Yeah, I would do that.
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I wouldn't want that. While Jackson has been great, I'm not sure how I feel about him starting the entire season. What if Jackson goes down? The combination of Lynch/Jackson completely addresses the RB position with both quality and depth. I would, however, be willing to give up our 2nd rounder for him.
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 It seems like it's creating a hole for the sake of filling another hole. Boldin is a fantastic talent, and pure #1 receiver. Would be a great addition. However Lynch/Jackson can be a rb duo on par with Jacobs/Ward Williams/Stewart etc etc. If it's not broke don't fix it. Bring in Amani Toomer, a receiving tight end, and work on becoming a power running team. BS.....Jackson is already capable. Boldin is a stud. Evans would be better, and Reed would be the Wes Welker type. Unstoppable combo there. Jackson would handle the load and we could find the backup RB, much easier than adding another crappy medicore WR. Since this would be a trade, the Bills could still spend money on a pass catching TE, and this offense would be explosive. This is actually a great deal for both teams.
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 If you had defenses worrying about covering that offense, the running game would open up immensely. Offense is offense, it can be built many different ways. I think it has snowed and has been just as sh------- in NE over the last few years than in Buffalo, and they built an unstoppable passing game two years ago. We could do the sa,me. I agree in theory. In practice, however, I'm not sure how much of an impact boldin would have on this offense. We rarely ever go deep, and Trent at times has shown that even when WRs are wide open, he still won't throw to them. Boldin would be a waste of talent in this offense until Trent improves significantly IMO.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 I wouldn't want that. While Jackson has been great, I'm not sure how I feel about him starting the entire season. What if Jackson goes down? The combination of Lynch/Jackson completely addresses the RB position with both quality and depth. I would, however, be willing to give up our 2nd rounder for him. Look at what Roy Williams fetched...you think AZ trades arguably one of the top 4 or 5 WR's in the game for a 2nd after the fleecing Det did with Roy? I would say a 1st and some change would be the min. Last year, Wash offered Cincy 2 1st rd picks for that head case Chad Johnson, and Anquan is a far better teammate and a way better WR than Ocho Cinco who I wouldnt even list in the top 10 at WR.
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 BS.....Jackson is already capable. Boldin is a stud. Evans would be better, and Reed would be the Wes Welker type. Unstoppable combo there. Jackson would handle the load and we could find the backup RB, much easier than adding another crappy medicore WR. Since this would be a trade, the Bills could still spend money on a pass catching TE, and this offense would be explosive. This is actually a great deal for both teams. How exactly do you know if Jackson is capable? Jackson isn't like Turner was in San Diego (in terms of experience/attempts), and isn't built like Turner (short/stocky/powerful). I love Jackson, don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure about saying automatically that Jackson is "ready" to be the feature back for an entire season. I also love Boldin..however, I'm just not sure that diminishing one critical position to improve another critical position makes this offense that much better.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 I agree in theory. In practice, however, I'm not sure how much of an impact boldin would have on this offense. We rarely ever go deep, and Trent at times has shown that even when WRs are wide open, he still won't throw to them. Boldin would be a waste of talent in this offense until Trent improves significantly IMO. Thats what is great about Boldin for us, you dont have to go deep to get him the ball. He takes short throws and turns them into long plays, a perfect complement for the type of player Trent is. This guy goes over the middle and is fantastic after the catch...
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Look at what Roy Williams fetched...you think AZ trades arguably one of the top 4 or 5 WR's in the game for a 2nd after the fleecing Det did with Roy? I would say a 1st and some change would be the min. Last year, Wash offered Cincy 2 1st rd picks for that head case Chad Johnson, and Anquan is a far better teammate and a way better WR than Ocho Cinco who I wouldnt even list in the top 10 at WR. Point taken. I completely forgot about Johnson. Would you trade our first then for Boldin? I'm not sure if I would. Probably the most I would be willing to give up would be this year's second and next year's second. It Probably wouldn't get it done..but then so be it.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 BS.....Jackson is already capable. Boldin is a stud. Evans would be better, and Reed would be the Wes Welker type. Unstoppable combo there. Jackson would handle the load and we could find the backup RB, much easier than adding another crappy medicore WR. Since this would be a trade, the Bills could still spend money on a pass catching TE, and this offense would be explosive. This is actually a great deal for both teams. I don't disagree. However in the post season I'm saying teams win with power running games, not explosive passing games. Yes I prefer the running game to the passing game. It was on the legs of Maroney that NE made it past jacksonville and sd to get to the Superbowl last year, and it was on the legs of Addai and Rhodes that the colts won the superbowl. For as great as Arizona's passing game is. They're winning the post season, because of their commitment to Edge/HighTower which has forced defenses to become accountable for their running game. Yeah I would keep Lynch/Jackson and look elsewhere for a wr. I'd prefer the funds spent on 2 wr's, could be better allocated to stuff like, improving the defense.
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I agree in theory. In practice, however, I'm not sure how much of an impact boldin would have on this offense. We rarely ever go deep, and Trent at times has shown that even when WRs are wide open, he still won't throw to them. Boldin would be a waste of talent in this offense until Trent improves significantly IMO. No way in hell. Did you ever see Boldin run after the catch? It has been so long that we've had any kind of talent in here that people's brains have warped I think. Boldin makes plays anywhere on the field. Deep, short, over the middle, screens, period. He's a stud. Period. Evans would then benefit tremedously from this. THEN, Reed goes in over the middle as the possesion guy. Turk would be like a kid in a candy store with those guys. Add Jackson's hands out of the backfield, and then a pass catching TE to the mix. Now, tell me, what team in our division could cover all those guys on one 3 WR, 1 RB, 1 TE set? I know the Pats and their aging assed LB's couldn't. The Jets? Ummm no. The Dolphins? Not at this time. We would actually have teams in our division having to adapt their defenses to stop all of our options. Those 3-4 rush LB's could easily get burned if Edwards was up to the task with reading coverages. I like it more and more. Plus, Arizona needs a RB. I love Lynch, but in this case........see ya
Recommended Posts