VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Rhodes is your basica average, minimum veteran tender type RB who will get you 3.5-3.8 yards per carry, nothing more Yes, nothing more except a bunch of TD's.
Buftex Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Good move.The Rhodes contract likely has much less guaranteed $ than Fred Jackson wanted. The Bills have a guy capable of starting 3 games. Now, Jackson has a choice - sit out and hope for a trade or play for the league minimum. BTW, since when is a person's rap sheet predict thier character. I know many high charicter people with checkered pasts. I also know a lot of scumbags who I wouldn't even want on my co-ed vollyball team. Character is about what someone is going to do when things get tough. A high character guy is someone you want by your side when things go bad. If that guy is willing to stand up and fight with you, who cares if he has a DUI. Nothing personal against you cody, but this is the kind of crap that drives me insane around here. There are those here, who go out of their way to crap on everything the Bills do (and I will admit, I may be turning in to one of them), but for me, it is just as annoying to see Bills fans patting the Bills front office on the back, for how wisely they spent their (Mr Wilsons') money. It is like, to be a Bills fan, now, you can't expect your team to win on the field, but we have a new game, where the object is to see how little money the Bills can spend, while trying (not doing) to field a competitve NFL football team. This team has done ZERO in a decade! Being penny wise, and pound foolish, has gotten them nowhere...do you like Fred Jackson? If your answer is yes, why should you, or I, or anyone else care how much money the Bills pay him?
Max997 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Rhodes is your basica average, minimum veteran tender type RB who will get you 3.5-3.8 yards per carry, nothing more he is an excellent receiver out of the backfield and is solid in pass protection as well....he also happened to rush for over 100 yards and scored a TD in the super bowl against what was thought to be a pretty good Bears defense
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Why is this bad news? It's fine for what they are looking for.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 It's official: http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/04/17/bills-agre...with-rb-rhodes/ It's an incentive-laden deal. I like it.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 they better pay freddy after this move. Highly doubtful now. It's a 2-year deal that gets them through this year (EFA year for Freddy) and next year (RFA).
Maddog69 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 they better pay freddy after this move. Why? The have his rights. He has no choice but to play. He gets $460k, not to bad for being a second (now maybe 3rd) RB on the depth chart. Everyone needs to stp with the hysteria about Fred Jackson. He is nothing special. He's solid. I like that he is on the team, but for the love of God, he is not Walter Payton.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Freddy might be playing ST's a lot more, if Parrish gets traded and McKelvin focuses on CB.
bdelma Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Rushing Receiving Year Age Tm Pos G GS Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb 2001 22 IND RB 15 10 233 1104 9 77 4.7 73.6 15.5 34 224 6.6 0 19 2.3 14.9 1328 9 6 2003 24 IND 11 0 37 157 0 25 4.2 14.3 3.4 6 62 10.3 1 27 0.5 5.6 219 1 0 2004 25 IND RET 16 0 53 254 1 55 4.8 15.9 3.3 2 24 12.0 0 20 0.1 1.5 278 1 2 2005 26 IND RET 13 1 40 118 4 24 3.0 9.1 3.1 12 88 7.3 0 15 0.9 6.8 206 4 2 2006 27 IND RB 16 16 187 641 5 17 3.4 40.1 11.7 36 251 7.0 0 27 2.3 15.7 892 5 3 2007 28 OAK 10 2 75 302 1 25 4.0 30.2 7.5 11 70 6.4 0 17 1.1 7.0 372 1 2 2008 29 IND rb 15 4 152 538 6 38 3.5 35.9 10.1 45 302 6.7 3 29 3.0 20.1 840 9 0 Career 96 33 777 3114 26 77 4.0 32.4 8.1 146 1021 7.0 4 29 1.5 10.6 4135 30 15
MavBavButav Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Why? The have his rights. He has no choice but to play. He gets $460k, not to bad for being a second (now maybe 3rd) RB on the depth chart. Everyone needs to stp with the hysteria about Fred Jackson. He is nothing special. He's solid. I like that he is on the team, but for the love of God, he is not Walter Payton. do you believe in justice? 2008 salaries James Hardy $2,586,000 Chris Kelsay $3,000,000 John McCargo $1,337,500 Fred Jackson $374,320 Pay should reflect performance.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 do you believe in justice? James Hardy $2,586,000 Chris Kelsay $3,000,000 John McCargo $1,337,500 Fred Jackson $374,320 Pay should reflect performance. So should players give money back when they don't perform?
MavBavButav Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 So should players give money back when they don't perform? YES!
Cash Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 On the surface, I like the deal. I was rooting for them to sign Rhodes as soon as I heard he came in for a visit. Based on last year, Rhodes seems to have a lot more in the tank than any of the other guys the Bills had previously brought in, and with Marshawn out for 3 games, RB was a significant need. And I'd much rather have the Bills sign a veteran than bring in a rookie, for various reasons. Digging a little deeper, I am a little curious/maybe concerned about it being a 2-year deal. Does this mean Jackson isn't in the Bills' plans after this year? Maybe that's why they've been so intractable in negotiations (according to Jackson's agent, anyway). But I'm not super concerned. We all know that future years in NFL contracts are worth the paper they're printed on. As long as that 2nd year isn't guaranteed in any way, I don't think it's cause for alarm just yet.
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 do you believe in justice? 2008 salaries James Hardy $2,586,000 Chris Kelsay $3,000,000 John McCargo $1,337,500 Fred Jackson $374,320 Pay should reflect performance. But it doesn't necessarily do that for every player on any team in any sport. There are many forces that influence pay, including when you sign, what position you play, others playing that same position on your team and others, availability of players to take your job, age, draft position...etc. Fair? Maybe not. But, it's the way it is.
Max997 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 do you believe in justice? 2008 salaries James Hardy $2,586,000 Chris Kelsay $3,000,000 John McCargo $1,337,500 Fred Jackson $374,320 Pay should reflect performance. that might have been Hardy's cap number but that was not his salary....second round picks do not make 2.5 mil in their first as their salary Jackson will obviously be signed at some point, its April people need to relax
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 On the surface, I like the deal. I was rooting for them to sign Rhodes as soon as I heard he came in for a visit. Based on last year, Rhodes seems to have a lot more in the tank than any of the other guys the Bills had previously brought in, and with Marshawn out for 3 games, RB was a significant need. And I'd much rather have the Bills sign a veteran than bring in a rookie, for various reasons. Digging a little deeper, I am a little curious/maybe concerned about it being a 2-year deal. Does this mean Jackson isn't in the Bills' plans after this year? Maybe that's why they've been so intractable in negotiations (according to Jackson's agent, anyway). But I'm not super concerned. We all know that future years in NFL contracts are worth the paper they're printed on. As long as that 2nd year isn't guaranteed in any way, I don't think it's cause for alarm just yet. Again, 2 years gets the Bills through Freddy's EFA and RFA seasons (assuming a new CBA is worked-out and players become UFA's after 4 years) for the minimum salaries, and then they do a deal if they feel he's worth it.
MavBavButav Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 And I should be banging Heidi Klum, not Seal. call her up, big boy.
Recommended Posts