BillsNYC Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm happy about the TO signing, but not euphoric like some. The Bills have a lot of holes to fill, and Juaron/Turk might not be able to utilize Owens as well as they should. But I'm also not THIS down on the move: http://billsdaily.com/articles/bogyo/2009/owens.shtml Of course like Sully, he's usually right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 It is a good article and makes a great point about TO not doing anything to build a winner in Buffalo. But he's wrong about the "tremdenous" downside. The downside is minimal. If Jauron and Edwards can't deal with a strong personality than neither of them has any business leading an NFL team and need to be gone. If anything, TO could push those two issues to resolution, one way or the other. And that would be a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The Bills need to add a LG to make the offense complete. A threat at TE would be nice, but not a deal-breaker. Coupled with a great return game, the addition of a good Tampa-2 LB like Keiaho, and hopefully a healthier year from Schobel and/or pass rushing help, there could be great things happening this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuffan34 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 It is a good article and makes a great point about TO not doing anything to build a winner in Buffalo. But he's wrong about the "tremdenous" downside. The downside is minimal. If Jauron and Edwards can't deal with a strong personality than neither of them has any business leading an NFL team and need to be gone. If anything, TO could push those two issues to resolution, one way or the other. And that would be a plus. I agree! I see this move as win-win, Let's be honest, a month ago most of us on this board were not looking forward to the 09 season, now I for one can't wait to see what unfolds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Back to the topic... Here's the email I wrote Tony after reading his article: There may or may not be some sort of franchise clause. Speculation. Best case scenario is a tag and trade (after 2009). On the bright side, his signing will only (if at all) make the Bills a more viable spot for other free agents going forward. He is a bridge player. His year here will give Hardy and Steve Johnson who I don't believe you mentioned, one more year to develop their game, not to mention that if the Bills draft a wide receiver this year, it'll give that player a year extra to develop without the burden of having to produce. Finally the downside is nil. The Bills have not made the playoffs in 9 years. Even if he's a one-year shot in the arm, the risk-reward/cost-benefit make this a great move. They have nothing to lose. Thought the article was silly. There is virtually no downside. So what if he's not here in 2010? Some of us won't be here either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 No, I still like the air up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The Bills need to add a LG to make the offense complete. A threat at TE would be nice, but not a deal-breaker. Coupled with a great return game, the addition of a good Tampa-2 LB like Keiaho, and hopefully a healthier year from Schobel and/or pass rushing help, there could be great things happening this year. So you did or didn't think the article was good??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 We went 0-6 in the division last year, haven't been to the playoffs this century, haven't won a playoff game in 13 years. If this deal blows up, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I didn't like how he said the TO signing is more hype than substance. All TO's b.s. aside, we added a star player who is a proven playmaker and who scores a lot of touchdowns. TO has never been a problem his first year on a new team. He also knows this is his last shot at one more pay-day. He's hope he's been humbled and will just play hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Actually, Tony's article raises one good point: Tony says that he's pretty sure the contract contains a no-franchise player clause. This is a significant question and one the local media has not addressed yet. If he has a great season, we might be able to tag him or tag and trade him...unless such a clause exists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think the reason I hate this deal so much is because we are being played. A one year TO signing at his age has little to no impact on the future of the Bills. Even if it works out well in 2009 we will be left holding our #@$#s thereafter. And worst of all, it could be just enough to keep Dick "7and9" Jauron from getting the firing he deserves. A good team is BUILT with good players and management - not by the marketing department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think the reason I hate this deal so much is because we are being played. A one year TO signing at his age has little to no impact on the future of the Bills. Even if it works out well in 2009 we will be left holding our #@$#s thereafter. And worst of all, it could be just enough to keep Dick "7and9" Jauron from getting the firing he deserves. A good team is BUILT with good players and management - not by the marketing department. You're right about it only being one year with him. But this is how I'm looking at it: I think that it gives us the time and flexibility we need to continue bringing along both Hardy and Johnson and see if they are the answer(s) going forward and whether they are ready to contribute. It takes a while to groom a wideout and I think having Evans and Owens starting ahead of them allows them the chance to slowly be brought along. So just because TO will probably be one and done in Buffalo doesn't mean we're SOL. Our receiving corps should be better off when it's all said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 One can hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think the reason I hate this deal so much is because we are being played. A one year TO signing at his age has little to no impact on the future of the Bills. Even if it works out well in 2009 we will be left holding our #@$#s thereafter. And worst of all, it could be just enough to keep Dick "7and9" Jauron from getting the firing he deserves. A good team is BUILT with good players and management - not by the marketing department. Which again begs the question: Was there a no-franchise tag clause in the contract? I guess I'll just start another thread...even though I hate doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 No, I still like the air up here. Me, too! SKOOB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm happy about the TO signing, but not euphoric like some. The Bills have a lot of holes to fill, and Juaron/Turk might not be able to utilize Owens as well as they should. But I'm also not THIS down on the move: http://billsdaily.com/articles/bogyo/2009/owens.shtml Of course like Sully, he's usually right. The problem with this piece is that he idealizes long term planning and mistakenly thinks that free agency in the NFL is about the long term. No league is as short run as the NFL due to the injuries and short shelf lives of players. As a consequence, signing free agents - who always have wear on their tires - is all about immediate impact. Do you really think the Bengals expect 4 solid seasons from Coles? That whoever signs Joey Galloway expects more than one good season? I'm guessing the Bengals are hoping for two before they cut Coles. If the Bills do well next year and make a run, even if Owens isn't here in 2010 it'll have been worth it. He'll be gone, but the Bills will have finally made the playoffs, their two big young receivers (Johnson and Hardy) will have another year under their belts, Edwards will have established himself as a productive QB, and they won't have to deal with the inevitable implosion that always occurs with Owens after he's been on a team for over a year. What's not to like about that? Also, Florence isn't replacing Greer. McKelvin is replacing Greer. Florence will play nickel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm happy about the TO signing, but not euphoric like some. The Bills have a lot of holes to fill, and Juaron/Turk might not be able to utilize Owens as well as they should. But I'm also not THIS down on the move: http://billsdaily.com/articles/bogyo/2009/owens.shtml Of course like Sully, he's usually right. I don't know about the "usually right" part, but I read this earlier today, and it didn't "knock me back to earth". (Of course, I wasn't flying high, or anything, from the move, either.) Actually, I thought it was a terrible analysis, that totally misses the point. It's a low-risk (very low risk), potentially big reward move, for one year. Take it for what it's worth. If it works, it helps the Bills win games, and compete for a year, while helping to develop two young prospect WRs. If it doesn't, Ralph's out $6.5 million...period. This move doesn't hinder future moves the Bills may have to make now (it actually might help them), or in future years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I don't know about the "usually right" part, but I read this earlier today, and it didn't "knock me back to earth". (Of course, I wasn't flying high, or anything, from the move, either.) Actually, I thought it was a terrible analysis, that totally misses the point. It's a low-risk (very low risk), potentially big reward move, for one year. Take it for what it's worth. If it works, it helps the Bills win games, and compete for a year, while helping to develop two young prospect WRs. If it doesn't, Ralph's out $6.5 million...period. This move doesn't hinder future moves the Bills may have to make now (it actually might help them), or in future years. Yes as I said to him in my email. Apparently the concept of "bridge player" must confuse people. It means that he upgrades a position and removes that need for one year while younger players (Hardy, Johnson) are given another year to develop. It doesn't mean T.O. plays a game of bridge at the senior center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Yes as I said to him in my email. Apparently the concept of "bridge player" must confuse people. It means that he upgrades a position and removes that need for one year while younger players (Hardy, Johnson) are given another year to develop. It doesn't mean T.O. plays a game of bridge at the senior center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 So you did or didn't think the article was good??? I didn't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts