basskik11 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I love this move. D. Rhodes kills...Now, let's just get our OL in place. LETS GO, BUFFALO!!!!
Maddog69 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. You can find hundreds of cases like this. Who cares. Life is not fair, get used to it. Fred will get his money when he is a UFA, assuming he keeps performing well. I just think too much is made of these contract issues. Fred will get signed, there is no other outcome that could happen unless he wants to quit playing. He was not fortunate enough to be a high draft choice or perform better sooner. Now he has gotten a chance and performed well. He will get paid. Everyone needs to just chill. After the signing of Rhodes today, Freddy is our 3rd string RB. His leverage is now less than it was yesterday when it was almost non-existent.
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 After the signing of Rhodes today, Freddy is our 3rd string RB. You think so? Rhodes is on a serious decline and Freddie is still improving. I see this move as veteran depth. I wouldn't assume Rhodes goes above Fred on the depth chart.
BillsWatch Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I think the point is it doesn't matter how many all world skill players you have if you dismantle your OL and reduce it to a high school squad. Exaggeration is a tool of those unarmed in battle of wits. All of these players competed in college hence they are not high school level.
dave mcbride Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Nice. A-Train Mach II (plus a couple of arrests as a bonus). 3.5 ypc his last four years and unceremoniously dumped from his last three teams too.
Maddog69 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 You think so? Rhodes is on a serious decline and Freddie is still improving. I see this move as veteran depth. I wouldn't assume Rhodes goes above Fred on the depth chart. I think they are very similar players. Rhodes has more experience. Scores more TDs and blocks way better. I like Freddy, but Rhodes is better. I also disagree that he's on the decline. He had a good year last year, better than Jackson. And he is only 2 yrs older. I like our backfield now better than before this signing.
Maddog69 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Nice. A-Train Mach II (plus a couple of arrests as a bonus). 3.5 ypc his last four years and unceremoniously dumped from his last three teams too. He was not unceremoniously dumped by 3 teams. After 2006, he was a UFA and signed a big deal with the Raiders. After an injury plagued 2007, he was dumped by Oakland in a salary dump. I honestly don't know why Indy dropped him this year, other than the DWI, which I could care less about. Everyone needs to quit crying about character. Remember Bruce, Andre, Darryl, Thurman and Jimbo ? Loads of off field stuff with those guys. Just not as much media and internet crap about it. Now a guy takes a dump and someone post on Facebook or Twitter what color it was and that he didn't wash his hands.
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I think they are very similar players. Rhodes has more experience. Scores more TDs and blocks way better. I like Freddy, but Rhodes is better. I also disagree that he's on the decline. He had a good year last year, better than Jackson. And he is only 2 yrs older. I like our backfield now better than before this signing. Look at the stats, again. Rhodes YPC average sucked ("3.5)...and if you watched him, you would see he has lost a lot. I won't go as far as Dave and call him A-Train II, but right now, Fred is a better RB, I think. I do think Rhodes may handle the blitz better, and that may come in handy. My guess is they make that decision in Preseason and my money is on Freddie (assuming they get him signed and in camp)
dave mcbride Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I think they are very similar players. Rhodes has more experience. Scores more TDs and blocks way better. I like Freddy, but Rhodes is better. I also disagree that he's on the decline. He had a good year last year, better than Jackson. And he is only 2 yrs older. I like our backfield now better than before this signing. TDs for RBs are the second most overrated stat in football after tackles. I remember the pre-fantasy football days when neither teams nor fans paid much attention to them. The bottom line: if a team is inclined to run near the goal line, a RB is gonna get the TD. If a team has a good offense, then he'll score more. Indy has had a good offense for years. Rhodes has always been in the TD rushing mix there; a second fiddle first to James and then Addai. Addai was hurt last year so his numbers were down, but they were about the same as Rhodes' numbers. Kenny Davis put up the same sort of TD numbers as Rhodes. He wasn't especially good except for having a pretty strong straight-line burst (not much change-of-direction ability, however), but he was more productive than Rhodes over his career in the ypc category. I'm not too down on the Rhodes signing despite what I'm saying here. As an aging journeyman who knows how to play the game, he can sub in a pinch. But he will be the third best RB on the team. Plus he had the bad luck to be signed on a day that featured one of the dumbest Bills trades ever.
dave mcbride Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 He was not unceremoniously dumped by 3 teams. After 2006, he was a UFA and signed a big deal with the Raiders. After an injury plagued 2007, he was dumped by Oakland in a salary dump. I honestly don't know why Indy dropped him this year, other than the DWI, which I could care less about. Everyone needs to quit crying about character. Remember Bruce, Andre, Darryl, Thurman and Jimbo ? Loads of off field stuff with those guys. Just not as much media and internet crap about it. Now a guy takes a dump and someone post on Facebook or Twitter what color it was and that he didn't wash his hands. The Colts decided he wasn't worth resigning after 2006 and didn't make any effort to keep him. The Raiders overspent and were burned. They cut him, and then the Colts picked him up again the next year on the cheap. After the season, they decided he was done (at least for them) despite the low cost. I'm of course hoping he has something left, but I also think the only reason he's on the team is because Lynch is going to miss three games.
Maddog69 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 TDs for RBs are the second most overrated stat in football after tackles. I remember the pre-fantasy football days when neither teams nor fans paid much attention to them. The bottom line: if a team is inclined to run near the goal line, a RB is gonna get the TD. If a team has a good offense, then he'll score more. Indy has had a good offense for years. Rhodes has always been in the TD rushing mix there; a second fiddle first to James and then Addai. Addai was hurt last year so his numbers were down, but they were about the same as Rhodes' numbers. Kenny Davis put up the same sort of TD numbers as Rhodes. He wasn't especially good except for having a pretty strong straight-line burst (not much change-of-direction ability, however), but he was more productive than Rhodes over his career in the ypc category. I'm not too down on the Rhodes signing despite what I'm saying here. As an aging journeyman who knows how to play the game, he can sub in a pinch. But he will be the third best RB on the team. Plus he had the bad luck to be signed on a day that featured one of the dumbest Bills trades ever. While I am not one who is big on arguing specific stats, because I think you can always find a stat to say whatever you want, I like the fact that he finds the End Zone a lot. 9 TDs last year. Again, not trying to slam Freddy. I like him to, just don't think the Bills need to break the bank for him. And I wish his agent would shut up.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 TDs for RBs are the second most overrated stat in football after tackles. I remember the pre-fantasy football days when neither teams nor fans paid much attention to them. The bottom line: if a team is inclined to run near the goal line, a RB is gonna get the TD. If a team has a good offense, then he'll score more. Indy has had a good offense for years. Rhodes has always been in the TD rushing mix there; a second fiddle first to James and then Addai. Addai was hurt last year so his numbers were down, but they were about the same as Rhodes' numbers. Kenny Davis put up the same sort of TD numbers as Rhodes. He wasn't especially good except for having a pretty strong straight-line burst (not much change-of-direction ability, however), but he was more productive than Rhodes over his career in the ypc category. I'm not too down on the Rhodes signing despite what I'm saying here. As an aging journeyman who knows how to play the game, he can sub in a pinch. But he will be the third best RB on the team. Plus he had the bad luck to be signed on a day that featured one of the dumbest Bills trades ever. I asked you this before, but how many RB's this past year, backup RB's much less with 4 starts, had 9 TD's? Sorry but TD's (scoring) are the most important stat, period.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 The Colts decided he wasn't worth resigning after 2006 and didn't make any effort to keep him. The Raiders overspent and were burned. They cut him, and then the Colts picked him up again the next year on the cheap. After the season, they decided he was done (at least for them) despite the low cost. I'm of course hoping he has something left, but I also think the only reason he's on the team is because Lynch is going to miss three games. The Colts weren't going to match the Raiders' 2-year $7.5M deal. That's more than Addai would have been making. The Raiders stink and had a similar situation happen with Lamont Jordan. And remember how bad Walker looked with them, only to look good with the Bills? I don't know what happened with the Colts this year. I'll have to find a Colts message board and find out.
dave mcbride Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I asked you this before, but how many RB's this past year, backup RB's much less with 4 starts, had 9 TD's? Sorry but TD's (scoring) are the most important stat, period. I totally disagree, but I respect your opinion.
LynchMob23 Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I believe the Colts just had him on the cheap and let the contract run out, as it's just about time to draft someone to eventually replace Addai.
Lori Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I asked you this before, but how many RB's this past year, backup RB's much less with 4 starts, had 9 TD's? Sorry but TD's (scoring) are the most important stat, period. I'd be curious to know how many of those rushing TDs were one-yard plunges. I know they were all under 20 ... Checking my FFL site: 1, 3, 1, 17, 1, 1. So, most, but not all.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I totally disagree, but I respect your opinion. To win a game, you need to score more points than your opponent. That's why I talk more about points scored and allowed rankings than yards gained or allowed rankings. And I checked the Colts' website's message board, and the vast majority think it was a mistake to let Rhodes go, with some saying Addai should have been gone instead. http://forum.colts.com/showthread.php?t=41947
Wing Man Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I'd be curious to know how many of those rushing TDs were one-yard plunges. I know they were all under 20 ...Checking my FFL site: 1, 3, 1, 17, 1, 1. So, most, but not all. I'd be happy if we could score touchdowns from the one once in a while. Every time I see the Bills at the opponent's one yard line, I'm wondering how we're not going to get into the end zone this time.
Magox Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 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? because it plays a part in how much cap room is available. It really isn't that difficult to understand. Do you think that we are hoping that Ralph is saving the money and collecting interest on it? Come on Btw, this is a good pickup, gives us quality depth, specially for the first few games, and it will send a message to Marshawn that we do have alternate plans, just in case. Good move
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 To win a game, you need to score more points than your opponent. That's why I talk more about points scored and allowed rankings than yards gained or allowed rankings. But, when it comes to individual players, is the guy who scores TDs (because his team gives him the ball at the 1 or 2), but averages 3.5 yards a carry more valuable than the guy who averages 4.5 and gets them all the way down the field and has speed, etc? Dave's right on this one, for RBs TDs can be deceptive. Another back may be just as capable to get into the End Zone from one, but not to replace the back that gains big chunks of yards. It isn't a cut and dry analysis. Of course, judging a player on a single stat is usually not a very good methodology. And there is no reason to think he departure cost the Colts 9TDs and brings them to the Bills. BTW, I think we all agree that this is an OK signing, for the Bills, considering how they are likely to use him. My opinion: Nothing to be pissed about, but nothing to get too excited about either. Fills the bill (and fits the Bills).
Recommended Posts