Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea. My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate. I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have. And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I am not very high on Edwards myself, but adding Boldin would be a tailor fit to Trents passing style...short over the middle passes, except now we have a guy that thrives once the ball is in his hands and finds a way to get open. So, Trent would be better with him here in my opinnion and hopefully will start to show some consistency and expedite his development. Worst case scenario, Trent doesnt develop, in which case we were screwed either way, but it at least it would expedite his departure in that case because if he cant develop with both Boldin and Evans to throw to then he is never going to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea. My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate. I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have. And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. There isn't a person in his right mind today.......that if they were offered ownership of the Bills from Ralph himself.....if their team scored a TD vs Pittsburgh, and they only had one drive to do it, and they had to take one of two lineups to do it, would not pick this lineup: WR Boldin WR Evans WR Reed RB Jackson TE Free Agent QB Edwards over this one..... WR Evans WR Reed WR Parrish / Hardy RB Lynch TE Free Agent QB Edwards Its not even close. The ONLY place I might miss lineup #2 is at the 3 yard line on first and goal. That's where Lynch is valuable, comparibly, in these two lineups. However, we've also forgot what's it's like to throw a ball up for grabs and have a stud go up and get it. That's what Boldin gives you there. Ummmmm, yeah,.......I take lineup one....as I don't even think lineup two would make it past the fifty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I just don't see a point in arguing any further b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen. Well, what else is there to talk about? Welcome to January as a Buffalo Bills fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, I don't disagree with the people who say that it's reasonable. I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side. Again, I respect those who disagree with me. I just don't see a point b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen. I feel ya on that one! And I fixed the comment for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I am not very high on Edwards myself, but adding Boldin would be a tailor fit to Trents passing style...short over the middle passes, except now we have a guy that thrives once the ball is in his hands and finds a way to get open. So, Trent would be better with him here in my opinnion and hopefully will start to show some consistency and expedite his development. Worst case scenario, Trent doesnt develop, in which case we were screwed either way, but it at least it would expedite his departure in that case because if he cant develop with both Boldin and Evans to throw to then he is never going to develop. Absolutely zero question in my mind that the Bills need to bring in another legitimate receiving threat, regardless of anyone's opinion of Trent. If they don't it will be criminal. I think all options need to be on the table, whether it's finding a receiver in the draft who can step in and contribute, or a high-profile trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side. Who's stat line is this? 101 rec, 1377 yards, 8 TD's for a season that included a 217 yard performance in the first game of that season? Anquan Boldin and it was his ROOKIE year. Do you know who is quarterback, or should I say quarterbackS were that year? Washed up Jeff Blake and rookie Josh McCown rotating in and out of roster, and that was BEFORE he had Fitz to take pressure off him, NO running game, NO offensive line, and NO tight end... So, why would you say his production would just drop off here? Where is the logic? In fact, until Warner he has never had a good QB throwing him the ball, still has never had a running game, and yet ALWAYS been top of the class in production, even when Fitz is out and they key on him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I agree with the idea of not trading our good players, but totally disagree with your perception of Trent Edwards. He is a keeper and is gonna be a really good one for us for years to come . 'patience young grasshopper' I must respectfully ask what you've seen Edwards do against even a mediocre defense that makes you believe this? His best game of his career came against San Diego this year before they fired Ted Cottrell. The rest of his success both this past season and in 2007 came against defenses in the bottom quarter of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Let's look at the top 5 WR's in football, and then let's rush you to the doctor to get your head examined. If you think Warner made Boldin and Fitzgerald, you must be crazy. If you think any of the Detroit QB's this season made Calvin Johnson, you must be crazy. If you think Matt Schaub or Sage Rosenfels made Andre Johnson, you must be crazy. If you think the only reason Steve Smith is Steve Smith because of Jake Delhomme, well......well.....you know. Please! Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. What did Leinert do with those receivers? The same thing Edwards would probably - nothing. Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10 Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10 Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB. Boldin has produced at Elite levels when on the field since his first game and season where he was only rookie to make Pro Bowl and Blake/McCown were throwing him balls. That was 2 years before they got Fitz. Boldin has produced NO MATTER who was the QB in AZ, and they have all pretty much been bad until Warner took over a season and a half ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Who's stat line is this? 101 rec, 1377 yards, 8 TD's for a season that included a 217 yard performance in the first game of that season? Anquan Boldin and it was his ROOKIE year. Do you know who is quarterback, or should I say quarterbackS were that year? Washed up Jeff Blake and rookie Josh McCown rotating in and out of roster, and that was BEFORE he had Fitz to take pressure off him, NO running game, NO offensive line, and NO tight end... So, why would you say his production would just drop off here? Where is the logic? In fact, until Warner he has never had a good QB throwing him the ball, still has never had a running game, and yet ALWAYS been top of the class in production, even when Fitz is out and they key on him... And I hate to defend Boldin's behavior, but the only reason Boldin is disgruntled is because he was a stud before Fitz got there. A mighty stud. And they chose to re-up Fitz over or before Boldin. Seems legit to me to be angered by that somewhat. That being said, to do what he did Sunday, was just stupid. The timing was awful. Make no mistake about this though......If the Cards lose Boldin (which they will), and while Warner gets one year older.......they will NOT be the same team next year. Fitz is probably the best WR in the league. But, Boldin is easily top 5 and maybe top three. The Cards will struggle. They are the Cardinals because they have Fitzy AND Boldin. Without Boldin, and unless they change their philosophy to a more power running attack first, pass second, they Cards will not be the same next year. Write it down. They are who people think they are......Fitzy, Boldin and an aging QB just barely capable and smart enough to get them the ball.........next year though.........does Warner hit the wall, and struggle when he has only one automatic ooption in Fitzy? Boldin is the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Boldin has produced at Elite levels when on the field since his first game and season where he was only rookie to make Pro Bowl and Blake/McCown were throwing him balls. That was 2 years before they got Fitz. Boldin has produced NO MATTER who was the QB in AZ, and they have all pretty much been bad until Warner took over a season and a half ago... In his second season, how many TD's did Boldin have in 10 games? Again, his career year came when Warner arrived. Steve Smith's career year came when Jake arrived. Fitzgerald doubled his production when Warner arrived. Listen, I must go. I did enjoy debating with you. Nothing against your ideas, I just disagree!!! Hopefully we can continue this later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. What did Leinert do with those receivers? The same thing Edwards would probably - nothing. Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10 Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB. Ummm yeah ok. How do think the Hall of Fame QB would have looked anywhere else this year than in Arizona? I love Warner, but he's in about the only spot in the NFL this year where he could succeed. And that's because Fitz and Boldin are there. Calvin Johnson is an elite WR. Already. Done deal. That's known by anyone who watches the NFL from scouts to fans to GM's to well......canadian fans know this. What he did this year with the crap they had on offense is beyond disgusting. You failed to answer Andre Johnson. And yeah, Steve Smith was good with or without Delhomme. About the only guy Smith was hampered with was Vinny Testerverde, the year Delhomme went down. Even at that, he caught almost all of their passes, although it was far less. I also think Smith inujured his hammy that year if I'm not mistaken. If you want to tell me Manning made Reggie Wayne. OK, I can live with that. If you want to tell me Brady revived life into Moss and Welker.....OK....I'll buy it I guess. Don't tell me that the likes of any Detroit QB, Delhomme, Schaub, Rosenfels, or Warner made any of these guys. I don't think many would buy that. Smith - Best player on his team. Johnson - Best player on his team Fitz - Best player on his team. Boldin - 2nd best player on his team. Johnson - Best player on his team On the other hand...... Manning - Best player on his team Brady - Best player on his team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 In his second season, how many TD's did Boldin have in 10 games? Again, his career year came when Warner arrived. Steve Smith's career year came when Jake arrived. Fitzgerald doubled his production when Warner arrived. Listen, I must go. I did enjoy debating with you. Nothing against your ideas, I just disagree!!! Hopefully we can continue this later. You did state that Warner played in, not even start in, 10 games in 2005 right? Oh, and he played in 6 games, not starts, in 2006 right? I'm just checking? You also wanted to state that Anquan had 101 RECEPTIONS in 2003 right? Ummm, Warner wasn't there in 2003. Or, did you conviently forget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Boldins career and who the QB was...rookie year is 2003 where he was only rookie to make probowl and set rookie recieving records in his first game that still stand today. 2003 Jeff Blake & Josh McCown - 16g, 101rec, 1377yds, 8tds 2004 Josh McCown & little bit of Shaun King - 10g (was hurt), 56rec, 623yds, 1td 2005 Josh McCOwn & Kurt Warner - 14g, 102rec, 1402 yards, 7td 2006 Matt Leinart & Kurt Warner - 16g, 83rec, 1203yds, 4td's 2007 Kurt Warner & Matt Leinart - 12g, 71rec, 853yds, 9td's 2008 Kurt Warner - 12g, 89rec, 1038, 11td. He produced every year at very high levels while on the field despite never having a consistent starting QB until this year. Every year, there were 2 QB's seeing high number of snaps through the season until Warner finally took the job over for good last year when Matt was hurt. Jeff Blake? Josh McCown? Shaun King? Matt Leinart? I mean come on, he still produced no matter who was in there! How can anyone say he won't be as affective with Trent throwing him the ball? Oh, and his first year playing with Fitz he still had 102 catches and over 1400 yards in ONLY 14 games despite a QB carousel between Warner and McCown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Boldins career and who the QB was...rookie year is 2003 where he was only rookie to make probowl and set rookie recieving records in his first game that still stand today. 2003 Jeff Blake & Josh McCown - 16g, 101rec, 1377yds, 8tds 2004 Josh McCown & little bit of Shaun King - 10g (was hurt), 56rec, 623yds, 1td 2005 Josh McCOwn & Kurt Warner - 14g, 102rec, 1402 yards, 7td 2006 Matt Leinart & Kurt Warner - 16g, 83rec, 1203yds, 4td's 2007 Kurt Warner & Matt Leinart - 12g, 71rec, 853yds, 9td's 2008 Kurt Warner - 12g, 89rec, 1038, 11td. He produced every year at very high levels while on the field despite never having a consistent starting QB until this year. Every year, there were 2 QB's seeing high number of snaps through the season until Warner finally took the job over for good last year when Matt was hurt. Jeff Blake? Josh McCown? Shaun King? Matt Leinart? I mean come on, he still produced no matter who was in there! How can anyone say he won't be as affective with Trent throwing him the ball? Oh, and his first year playing with Fitz he still had 102 catches and over 1400 yards in ONLY 14 games despite a QB carousel between Warner and McCown... And in 2005-06, Warner started in less than half of the teams games over the two year span. He didn't seem to want to include that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 And in 2005-06, Warner started in less than half of the teams games over the two year span. He didn't seem to want to include that. Well thats why in those years I didnt list Warner first as he wasnt the designated starter...but yes, he started less than 50% of those games in those 2 years which furthers my point that Boldin produced no matter who was throwing him the ball and even when a bunch of journeyman bumbs were passing to him... He would be a stud here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The only problem with the Lynch Jackson combo is that only one of them is on the field at a time. Both are great but with a guy like Boldin you get a player who will be on the field for 90% of the snaps (assuming he's healthy). We have two great running backs and I love Lynch but if you can get a guy like Boldin and keep Jackson it means more weapons on the field at once. On another note, as great as Lynch is, he comes down to being a grinder type running back. He doesn't have a great YPC and the majority of his runs go for 3 yards up the middle. We didn't get to see to much of Oman this year but he is built in the same way and could be that pounding back. You never know he could compliment Jackson perfectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anzaloha Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's. You have to run the ball in Buffalo when your WR's suck. Moulds had a good opposite one year, and Peerless turned out the be a fluke. Funny that passing the ball never seemed so damn scary until Jim Kelly and the boys were all washed up. I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman! Its rare that a team doesnt run more than 50% of their plays, even on great passing teams...running 52% is still a modestly low running percentage...oh, and they had hall of famer Thurman Thomas to hand the ball to, so why on earth would they not balance out the game, so this is a lame point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman! Whoa......52% to 48%. So, it was a balanced attack, and that's assuming that you are telling the truth. I remember Andre and Lofton running into the endzone many times, along with Thurman out of the backfield. So, in all, yeah, the Bills threw the ball a ton. Especially considering that the Bills were killing the clock many times because they were totally dogging the opponent. That attack was evenly balanced, which means the PASS was just as important to them as the RUN. Look that up Thurman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts