Coach Tuesday Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The left guard situation is bugging me. Great to have some elite WRs but everyone is gonna blitz up the middle unless we solidify the interior o-line. The TO signing makes Roscoe expendable. McKelvin can return punts. KC needs some playmakers and Roscoe will remind them of Dante Hall. Throw in a 6th and let's grab Waters. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The left guard situation is bugging me. Great to have some elite WRs but everyone is gonna blitz up the middle unless we solidify the interior o-line. The TO signing makes Roscoe expendable. McKelvin can return punts. KC needs some playmakers and Roscoe will remind them of Dante Hall. Throw in a 6th and let's grab Waters. Thoughts? I'm sure KC would just jump at that offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWVABillsFan Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The left guard situation is bugging me. Great to have some elite WRs but everyone is gonna blitz up the middle unless we solidify the interior o-line. The TO signing makes Roscoe expendable. McKelvin can return punts. KC needs some playmakers and Roscoe will remind them of Dante Hall. Throw in a 6th and let's grab Waters. Thoughts? If they go for it hell yeah. I don't think they will for a 6th, maybe a 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 I'm sure KC would just jump at that offer. Not sure it's that unreasonable, tell me why you disagree? The guy wants out, he's what, 32? And they need playmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glass To The Arson Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Idk if I'd do that... but I'll give them a 5th! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I'm not sure about what we should offer, but I absolutely agree that we should trade for Waters. Now that we have the T.O, we need to finish the puzzle. Get Waters via trade and Pettigrew through the draft Then I believe we are ready to go for the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Not sure it's that unreasonable, tell me why you disagree? The guy wants out, he's what, 32? And they need playmakers. I like Roscoe, but until things change he is a great punt returner only. I know the guy wants out but I just don't think that is a lot to give up for a quality starting guard. I guess I should not have tried to be a smartass. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The thing about Parrish is he's another DR client. Would he bring TO to a team that would force the trade of another client? Probably not. Plus Parrish was just extended, I don't think he's going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quester74 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The thing about Parrish is he's another DR client. Would he bring TO to a team that would force the trade of another client? Probably not. Plus Parrish was just extended, I don't think he's going anywhere. He would if he thought he could get Roscoe another contract from KC.. besides, when I seen the thread starter, the first thing I thought of was, "Hmmm.. KC just got Cassell.. maybe they'd like to see if they can turn Roscoe into another Wes Welker. I don't think this idea is too far fetched. Although, I would offer more than a 6th.. I'd throw a 5th at least, and possibly a 4th, just to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toledo Bill Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 It seems that trading Parrish is a popular idea right now. What I am anxious to see is with TO and Evans at the wide outs and Reed in the slot, if we bring in Parrish as a 4th reciever, the matchups would be very favorable to us. He is so effective in the open field, I think TO's signing will lead to Parrish having a great year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 It seems that trading Parrish is a popular idea right now. What I am anxious to see is with TO and Evans at the wide outs and Reed in the slot, if we bring in Parrish as a 4th reciever, the matchups would be very favorable to us. He is so effective in the open field, I think TO's signing will lead to Parrish having a great year. I've been thinking along these lines too. Parrish is elusive in open field, but Steve Johnson in that 4th spot shows me flashes of excelling at beating the first guy. T.O's only here for a year. We're rich at WR right now, which is rarified air in WNY. We could 'spare' to lose one now, but we may be shorthanded next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Idk if I'd do that... but I'll give them a 5th! I'll raise that to a 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Everyone needs to keep in mind that TO is only here for a year. Do we want to give up an explosive young player and then be without both TO and RP next season...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Everyone needs to keep in mind that TO is only here for a year. Do we want to give up an explosive young player and then be without both TO and RP next season...? Looking at how much Faneca, Steinbach, Davis and Dockery cost, my answer is a resounding yes, but that's jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Not sure why everyone is trying to get rid of Roscoe. If he doesn't work out in the passing game (which I think he still can as the #3 or #4), he's arguably the best punt returner in the game. Everyone settle down. If the FO wants to trade a late-round draft pick for Waters then so be it. Regardless, I think we should still grab Kendall Simmons - if Waters comes too, then he's good for depth. We have the cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Everyone needs to keep in mind that TO is only here for a year. Do we want to give up an explosive young player and then be without both TO and RP next season...? Roscoe's a luxury on a team that needs quality OL play. I'd raise it to a 3rd if it meant developing a solid/deep OL with the playmakers we have and the possibility of drafting a good young TE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksilver Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 The left guard situation is bugging me. Great to have some elite WRs but everyone is gonna blitz up the middle unless we solidify the interior o-line. The TO signing makes Roscoe expendable. McKelvin can return punts. KC needs some playmakers and Roscoe will remind them of Dante Hall. Throw in a 6th and let's grab Waters. Thoughts? How about Roscoe and a 2nd + 7th next year for Gonzo and waters? any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Roscoe's a luxury on a team that needs quality OL play. I'd raise it to a 3rd if it meant developing a solid/deep OL with the playmakers we have and the possibility of drafting a good young TE... Everyone needs quality OL play, but for the most part all that a team will be able to assemble is adequate OL play. The question is what quality of play is going to be adequate. With Brad Butler as the only reasonable option at G right now, the Bills need to get at least two reasonable options to play G (one a reasonable starter and one a reasonable back-up). However, while I feel that two good enough players can be acquired through the draft and FA at this position (actually it is getting a better player at C that I think is the larger priority and actually using Hamgartner as a player who can flip back and forth between being a starting G and back-up C is I think the path to go for building a solid OL) that I would prefer to see the Bills keep a dictating solid core at WR which I think they have now. I view Parrish as not an added thing but actually a key at #3 WR who forces almost all opposing Ds into a difficult zone D because of match-ups. Right now I see our O set-up and the D scheme it forces the opponent into as: #1 WR- Evans- demonstrated raw speed, and success at catching the long pass and turning it into six that the opposing team pretty much has to double-team him. The Bills did not have a well enough designed O and a quality threat at #2 WR that opponents simply dt'ed Evans with an over and under coverage that took away a large part of his game. Evans was good enough and Edwards was quick enough with the release that he could still be a clear #1 WR, but the deep game was taken away so that he was not an imposing threat. The Bills OL actually had proved to be outstanding in the past against the pass rush (the 07 team gave up the fewest # of sacks ever by a Bills squad) but the cost of doing this was that they never have exploited the long game like they have in the past with JP hooking up with Evans. What TO brings is an ability for the Bills to deal with the opposing pass rush with merely adequate though not great G play by forcing the opposing D to have commit so many players to coverage that even merely adequate Gs do not have to play against a lot of stunts and difficult pass rushes as the D will be back on their heels. 2. #2 WR- TO- He has produced 1000+ yards and racked 10 or more TDs in each of the past three seasons. He would be the clear #1 WR on many teams and has been such a producer on the field that he also commands a consistent dt or it is simply a matter of time until the opponent gets burned. Of the top 4 of the 11 defenders are now forced to put a major focus of their work on 2 Bills. Off the top this leaves 7 defenders who MIGHT be thinking about the pass rush as a thing they might do. As these 7 men also have to deal with the possibilities of Lynch, the TE and a 3rd WR a mismatch is already created as the Bills will have 5 OL players taking on 4 pass rushers if the D man-to-man's these three offensive threats. 3. #3 WR- Some folks obviously view Parrish as an unneeded player and they are anxious to trade him for help because they are now frightened by the possibility of losing Lynch for 2-4 games or that he will be an idiot. Could be. However, this is a game about aggression. The Bills approach the past decade has been one of avoiding problems rather than one of taking risks to create problems for the opposing D. To change this approach is why I argue that Parrish rather than an added luxury actually creates match-up problems for the opposing D that we must push to finish the opponent. Parrish has simply demonstrated in real play that he has tremendous open field running ability which has made him one of the top PR guys in the NFL. This is in part due to his freakish speed which mandates that the opponent cover him with a fast player or at least create enough traffic in the middle that Edwards cannot pass to him. Like it or not, Parrish is also a little guy and does not present a huge target and he has suffered a couple of injuries in his brief career which simply indicates that he cannot be expected to be a #1 or a #2 relied on consistently to carry the weight of a lot of catches. This being said, Parrish has demonstrated with his play that he does not fear contact and that actually he is a player who can be counted upon to make a tough catch in traffic over the middle. If one does this a lot with him one runs the likelihood that he will eventually get hurt. the good news is with the acquistion of TO that clearly the problem is not going to be one of over-use of the #3, but instead how do we manufacture enough throws for both Evans and TO to be utilized fully. Rather than simply using this fun problem as a rationale to get rid of Parrish, I argue that instead it is time for the Bills to put the pedal to the metal and force opposing Ds to address the difficult task of with Evans and TO both mandating a dt and either arguably demanding coverage by the fastest DB the opponents have, if Parrish is also out there in a 3 WR set, the opposing D will have little choice but either put their 4th or even fifth best DB on Parrish or instead give Parrish the coverage his speed demands and Evans or TO gets to pick on the 4th or 5th best DB as the back-end of their dt. If the opponent is committing 5 of their 11 defenders to cover a spread passing game featuring Evans, TO and Parrish, this leaves 6 players whose primary looks are how to combat Lynch led by 6 blockers (the 5 OL players and the TE). I feel fine about Jackson as my RB for 2-4 games (a 2 game suspension seems likely but given that both convictions against Lynch were misdeameanors it is not impossible for him to escape suspension but we will see). At any rate, the luxury here would be to trade Parrish in my view and if we keep him and put him to his highest and best use my sense is that the 09 Bills will be very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 How about Roscoe and a 2nd + 7th next year for Gonzo and waters? any thoughts? Never going to happen. How big of you to throw in the 7th rounder. I'm sure that will seal the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts