macaroni Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 If you think a left guard - an easier position than RG, according to Ross Tucker - does more for an offense than an offense than a player like TO, you're crazy. Of course, you don't want someone crappy playing the position, but that's about the easiest position to plug a guy into. I agree with what you are saying ..... but my point is, at this point in time we have nobody playing LG ..... so we have to draft one. When we talk about all of our other needs the round we go after a LG drops lower and lower until we are left drafting somebody that isn't an upgrade to what we already have on the team ........ and keep in mind ...... the people we have on the team were not good enough to beat out Dockery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Let the Bill's be interesting now- who knows if Buffalo has a team in 2010- If the Bills are here who knows if fans will have the money to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 So your criticizing the TO move for what it isn't? The Bills were in the market for a vet WR. They looked at Coles (who wouldn't take $6 mil) and Galloway. Would you feel better with one of them, instead of TO? This deal is what it is. Feel free to complain about what the Bills have yet to accomplish, this offseason, but I'm not sure why you choose to blame the TO deal for those shortcomings. Boldin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Boldin The Bills were not looking at a TRADE for a WR. While I'd love to see Boldin in a Bills uni, he would have cost players and/or draft picks, either of which could cause as many problems as the addition of a WR might fix. But, again, that would be criticizing the TO trade for what it isn't, instead of for what it is. The Bills were actively looking for a veteran WR to function for a short while, while they developed their draftees from last year. How is TO a bad choice to implement that strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I actually am in agreement with mac here...... - At first I hated the move because TO literally could cause our team chaos....then I realized that WTF does it matter we haven't been making the playoffs lately anyway....then I was excited because I thought it might have been a sign that the team really wanted to take chances and try to win...... Now I am back to "well it seemed to sell tickets" and now what will end up happening is if we dont win (because the team didn't improve" then TO will end up being that distraction because we are losing......in what could have been a positive move it could actually end up hurting the team even worse. Guys like Cato June, Kendall Simmosn....or Mike Goff.........guys that that should already been signed so we dont have as many holes going into the draft......wich we could pick up a pass rusher, a tight end, and another quality offensive/defensive linemen If we are really going to rely on the draft only to improve this team.....we need to accumulate more picks....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This is what I said when the deal went down and I got blasted by euphoric T.O. fans who continually told me there was no downside to the deal. While that's probably the case, it might not be. But even if there is no downside, I don't love the deal from a football perspective. T.O. does NOT solve enough of our problems to get us to the playoffs and the bottom line to me is that's where we need to be in late December. I don't give a rat's a$$ if we win 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 games next season - if we don't make the playoffs it doesn't mean anything. Seriously - is anyone going to be happy with 9 wins and the opportunity to watch other teams play in January? It won't be any different than the past decade. Great marketing move - kudos to the Bills for getting what they can. Is it surprising at all that the front office is run by marketing guys and not football guys? This move IS the front office... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 The Bills were not looking at a TRADE for a WR. While I'd love to see Boldin in a Bills uni, he would have cost players and/or draft picks, either of which could cause as many problems as the addition of a WR might fix. But, again, that would be criticizing the TO trade for what it isn't, instead of for what it is. The Bills were actively looking for a veteran WR to function for a short while, while they developed their draftees from last year. How is TO a bad choice to implement that strategy? Yeah, I know, but why not plan for the future (TO's horizon is about 2 more seasons, max--he will be 36 this season)? I would venture that Boldin would be far more valuable then a LB or DE as #11 pick. In fact you could put the league's best LB on the Bills right now (pick one) and not much is going to change--certainly not for the offense. Since 1999, 7 of our 11 first round draft picks don't even play for the team anymore (I'm throwing in McCargo) and 2 of the remaining 4 are DB's. Really, is our 1st rounder really going to have that much more impact than our 2nd round pick? Wouldn't you take Boldin for our first round pick and then some? If a great WR veteran is what this offense needs, don't they need him for more than 1 year? Boldin and Evans are both 28. Together for the next 4, 5 years? No? How is TO a good choice to help develop the rookies from last year? Is he going to run patterns to draw coverage away from Hardy? Come on! When has this guy ever thought about someone else's touches--let alone some spastic rook, before his own? If TO was truly worried about his financial future he would have acted like a man; he would still be on the Cowboys--not in Buffalo "auditioning" for a new contract next year. Trading for Boldin would have been a bold move forward. Picking up TO is "what it is"--a desperate stab at.......something--hoping that a flash in the pan year will soothe the angry mob for a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 There is no doubt, that by adding T.O, he has changed the whole dynamic of our offense in a positive manner. We've all ready gone through on how he changes how defenses have to defend us both on the run and pass. Aside from that, We do have two glaring issues that I would hope we would address through FA. The guard and LB position. There are a few guards in the this year's draft that I believe could have an immediate positive impact for our offense, but I still would like to see either Goff, Simmons or even more so a possible trade for Waters. Maybe Parrish and a 4th would do the trick. As far as LB is concerned, unless the Bills believe that Digiorgio or Bowen can do the job, then I would much rather pick up an inexpensive option like a Freddy Keiaho. It just makes sense to me instead of using one of our valuable early round draft choices on filling that need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah, I know, but why not plan for the future (TO's horizon is about 2 more seasons, max--he will be 36 this season)? I would venture that Boldin would be far more valuable then a LB or DE as #11 pick. In fact you could put the league's best LB on the Bills right now (pick one) and not much is going to change--certainly not for the offense. Since 1999, 7 of our 11 first round draft picks don't even play for the team anymore (I'm throwing in McCargo) and 2 of the remaining 4 are DB's. Really, is our 1st rounder really going to have that much more impact than our 2nd round pick? Wouldn't you take Boldin for our first round pick and then some? If a great WR veteran is what this offense needs, don't they need him for more than 1 year? Boldin and Evans are both 28. Together for the next 4, 5 years? No? How is TO a good choice to help develop the rookies from last year? Is he going to run patterns to draw coverage away from Hardy? Come on! When has this guy ever thought about someone else's touches--let alone some spastic rook, before his own? If TO was truly worried about his financial future he would have acted like a man; he would still be on the Cowboys--not in Buffalo "auditioning" for a new contract next year. Trading for Boldin would have been a bold move forward. Picking up TO is "what it is"--a desperate stab at.......something--hoping that a flash in the pan year will soothe the angry mob for a little while. I don't think the Cardinals are interested in trading Boldin. They have repeatedly said that they want him back and I'll be suprised if they don't find a way to make it happen. You can't blame the Bills for not making the impossible happen, especially since the whole league probably wants him. The Boldin trade hopes really shouldn't have anything to do with the TO aquisition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I don't think the Cardinals are interested in trading Boldin. They have repeatedly said that they want him back and I'll be suprised if they don't find a way to make it happen. You can't blame the Bills for not making the impossible happen, especially since the whole league probably wants him. The Boldin trade hopes really shouldn't have anything to do with the TO aquisition. Which has been, and remains, my point. Given what the Bills were interested in doing, I believe it was a terrific move. Now, if you want to argue the Bills should be interested in doing different things...that's a different discussion. As to WEO's take that a Boldin does more for this team, this year, than Owens and an elite DE, I say "balderdash!". And, as for the future, I believe: 1. The Bills need to make a couple of moves for NOW, at this stage of the game. 2. I think the Bills think more of the future of Hardy and Johnson than some here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Before the days of FA teams built through the draft. And then Trades. This years draft has a lot of guys in areas the Bills need help. DE, Interior Olinemen, and LBs. T.E to me is an issue i dont think/hope the bills address in FA or in the draft. I personally think you have very good/great WRs in Evans and Owens. These two guys will stretch the field and command attention.This will leave Reed and Fine open underneath. I know Fine/Reed aren't going to catch a seem route and go for 50 yds. But they will be free to p/u 7-10yds. I also like to see how Steve Johnson progress' this year. Owens is going to help this offense a lot. The Bills just need to address the LG spot in the second or third. In the First go defense. Sorry but dont see the glum and doom of the Owens signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This is what I said when the deal went down and I got blasted by euphoric T.O. fans who continually told me there was no downside to the deal. While that's probably the case, it might not be. But even if there is no downside, I don't love the deal from a football perspective. T.O. does NOT solve enough of our problems to get us to the playoffs and the bottom line to me is that's where we need to be in late December. I don't give a rat's a$$ if we win 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 games next season - if we don't make the playoffs it doesn't mean anything. Seriously - is anyone going to be happy with 9 wins and the opportunity to watch other teams play in January? It won't be any different than the past decade. Great marketing move - kudos to the Bills for getting what they can. Is it surprising at all that the front office is run by marketing guys and not football guys? This move IS the front office... BINGO! Macaroni got the ball rolling and you hit it out of the park. The T.O. signing, as it turns out, is merely shoe polish on a turd. This front office has not put the team in a position to compete for the division championship, they have only improved their chances of selling merchandise and tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Big Man Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 BINGO! Macaroni got the ball rolling and you hit it out of the park. The T.O. signing, as it turns out, is merely shoe polish on a turd. This front office has not put the team in a position to compete for the division championship, they have only improved their chances of selling merchandise and tickets. Yep! I agree. The Bills have only done exactly that, put asses in the seats.If they are not going to compliment TO on offense then they must get a couple studs on defense...and they won't. I, for one, have the wait and see attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am not a big fan of the TO move at all. Not because the guy is a jerk. And, I have no doubt that he will make the offense better. However, I think, unless the Bills make the playoffs, the move is just window dressing. And honestly, I think, given how the team has addressed other issues (and they have a lot to address), we may have a more exciting team to watch, but I don't think, ultimately, they are a lot better than what they were last year. They (or we) can't bank on a draft pick to come in and make a huge impact, so the Bills are looking at free agents as their source of improvement. Like I have said in other posts, if the Bills were serious about winning, and they felt the WR position was their greatest priority, I think they could have, at least tried, to land a more long term solution to their problem than Owens. Anquan Boldin (at this point a better receiver than TO, IMO) can still be had, by a team serious enough to want to make a commitment to improving, long term, at that position. There were other guys out there, than just Coles or Galloway. I realize, there is the potential, still, to sign more free agents, and that some valuable players could be cut in the coming weeks, as salary cap casualties. So, I hold out some hope that the Bills aren't done shopping. If they are, it could be another very long season. Call me nuts, cynical, or whatever, but I have a little theory about the Owens signing: Our owner, who I think is cheap (I will duck), knew that he had to make some sort of a splash this offseason. This became an even higher priority when that owner was chosen to the Hall of Fame. Lets' face it, Ralph has been called to the carpet, more so, in the last year, than almost ever. I realize he has always had detractors amongst the Bills faithful (I have been one), but it his reputation as being a miserly, bumbling old fool has gained some national prominence in the last year or two, amongst NFL followers. Ralph has been taking criticism from everyone who follows the NFL. Some of it is way off base, but some is valid. Many national media types scrathced their heads over the whole Dick "did he or didn't he" Jauron thing in regards to his contract. The way that it was "announced" was sort of sheepish, because there wasn't a lot of justification for bringing DJ back, other than dollars. When Ralph knew he was being inducted this summer, and that his team was going to appear in the first nationally televised pre-season game of the 2009 season, I think, he wanted to insure that his detractors weren't being too loud. The signing of Owens, given the sports media's fixation with things like Owens, will take some of the glare off this franchise, and maybe, Ralph hopes, will mask just how poorly it is being run right now. I am sure he envisions Canton being a sea of Bruce Smith and Terrell Owens jerseys. Terrell Owens will be the segueway out of any touchy subjects. Why Jauron, is the team moving to Toronto, etc etc... "We signed TO!!!!" Just my two cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I am not a big fan of the TO move at all. Not because the guy is a jerk... I have little doubt that marketing played a role in the signing of TO. If not for the recent playoff dry spell, and the real potential for declining ticket sales this season, the Bills may not have had the stones to sign TO. But, in that case, they would have signed someone like Coles or Galloway. So, given that choice, I'm glad they chose this "publicity stunt". The thing you need to realize is, THAT was the option, here. TO or Coles...and Coles didn't want to come. I simply can't believe the TO signing isn't being looked upon in that light. And, I'm not sure how old you are, but Wilson has been reviled much worse than the criticism he took last year. In the years before Kelly, when the Bills were horrid, and the fans weren't as afraid of losing the team, they relentlessly bashed Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Sorry but adding a guy who had 69 receptions for 1,052 yards and 10 TD's, while his QB (the only competent one on the roster) missed 3 games is NOT a marketing move. That was just a side benefit. And the move wasn't supposed to be THE only move to put them over the top and get them to the playoffs. They signed a center they feel will be a good one. The only other options were someone overpriced (Brown), highly overrated (Groves), and who only wanted to play for 2 teams (Birk). But still, it was a move the Bills felt would improve them. At LG, Goff, Simmons, and Bentley are still out there. The closer to the draft we get, the less their market value becomes. So don't be surprised if one is signed sooner rather than later. The same goes for LB. June and Keiaho have no other offers. And a signing of one of them is probably going to happen sooner rather than later as well. The draft will be about adding line, LB, and TE help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 And, I'm not sure how old you are, but Wilson has been reviled much worse than the criticism he took last year. In the years before Kelly, when the Bills were horrid, and the fans weren't as afraid of losing the team, they relentlessly bashed Ralph. I am 44 today. I realize that Wilson has always been bashed by a certain segment of Bills followers. My father has been bad mouthing Ralph since Rich Stadium was built. But, with the internet, and sports talk radio, as prevalent as they are these days, as say it was 10 years ago, and thousands of "bloggers" having to have something to write about, I guarantee, more people across the country are aware of Ralph than they were in the 1980's. I don't believe for a second that franchises try to gauge the temperament of public opinion, as it applies to them. The Bills are no different. The Super Bowl run kind of erased a lot of that... I will agree that Terrell Owens is a better player than some of the other options, even at 36. My main gripe is that it is very short term, at a time when there were two very good options (Houshmanzadah and Boldin), that, to me anyways, would go go a much longer way toward convincing me that the Bills are serious about winning football games for the next 5 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 I am 44 today. I realize that Wilson has always been bashed by a certain segment of Bills followers. My father has been bad mouthing Ralph since Rich Stadium was built. But, with the internet, and sports talk radio, as prevalent as they are these days, as say it was 10 years ago, and thousands of "bloggers" having to have something to write about, I guarantee, more people across the country are aware of Ralph than they were in the 1980's. I don't believe for a second that franchises try to gauge the temperament of public opinion, as it applies to them. The Bills are no different. The Super Bowl run kind of erased a lot of that... I will agree that Terrell Owens is a better player than some of the other options, even at 36. My main gripe is that it is very short term, at a time when there were two very good options (Houshmanzadah and Boldin), that, to me anyways, would go go a much longer way toward convincing me that the Bills are serious about winning football games for the next 5 years or so. Bolden is not & NEVER was an option. He is UNDER CONTRACT for 2 years with the Birds just like Peters is with Buffalo. I think the TO signing was a fantastic move. If Edwards gets the ball to him, TO will SCORE. With a few more pieces the Bills could make the playoffs in 09, they looked like they would make it last year for half the season. If nothing else TO puts people in the stands & makes things INTERESTING. That can not be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Scoring touchdowns and playing with a lead is one of the absolute best things you can do to help your pass rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Most of the cases against T.O. here are ridiculous. How does the fact that we have holes at LG and LB make T.O. a bad signing? I really don't see that logic. You should be criticizing them for not adding more signings in addition to Owens, not for the Owens signing itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts