bladiebla Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 Or maybe the trade Marshawn, and give Jackson a little more money? This team is so unpredictable, you never know... Hmmm....
cody Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 The problem the Bills face is that (like Aaron Schobel said just after the Bills signed TO), players usually don't want to come to Buffalo because of the weather and small market, unless they're paid a lot. After they get there, more than a few end-up liking it. But if a good/overhyped player doesn't like it in Buffalo, he can do things (disrupt the lockerroom, make negative comments, play poorly) to get himself out, and find another payday on a "better" team. The Bills valued Dockery, Kelsay, Schobel, etc. enough to overpay them to keep them, and those proved to be mistakes given their production since (Schobel is arguable). They saw the light with Dockery and appear to see it with Kelsay. I think they're doing the right thing with Jackson, i.e. telling him to play under his EFA tender and we'll take care of you later. He really has no choice but to show-up, being he has just 2 accrued seasons in the NFL, and is 28. I understand what you are saying. There are other teams with bad weather and in small markets that are able to stay out of cap trouble or field a good team. Green Bay was in cap trouble a few years back, but they had superbowl rings that justified the spending. Pittsburg seems to be consistiantly good without getting into cap trouble. Butler always overpaid guys to keep them - even when he was in San Diego. Marv brought the Bills right back to that when he signed Dockery, Kelsay, Schobel, Parrish, Price, etc to large contracts (BTW most of those guys were already here. The $ wasn't to lure them here. It was to keep them from leaving) A team with players as good as the ones in Buffalo should have a low salary.
VOR Posted April 18, 2009 Posted April 18, 2009 I understand what you are saying. There are other teams with bad weather and in small markets that are able to stay out of cap trouble or field a good team. Green Bay was in cap trouble a few years back, but they had superbowl rings that justified the spending. Pittsburg seems to be consistiantly good without getting into cap trouble. Butler always overpaid guys to keep them - even when he was in San Diego. Marv brought the Bills right back to that when he signed Dockery, Kelsay, Schobel, Parrish, Price, etc to large contracts (BTW most of those guys were already here. The $ wasn't to lure them here. It was to keep them from leaving) A team with players as good as the ones in Buffalo should have a low salary. Well, you can't let everyone who is good but wants to be overpaid leave, because you'll just end-up spinning your wheels. The Bills have gotten a lot of flack for letting Jennings, Winfield, Clements, Williams, McGahee, and now Peters go, because it meant they had to draft or sign someone to replace them.
Mark Vader Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Or maybe the trade Marshawn, and give Jackson a little more money? This team is so unpredictable, you never know... Trading Marshawn might not be out of the question. One more incident by Marshawn and he's looking at a year's suspension. Remember the Bills went through the same thing with Travis Henry, and look what happened. Add in the fact that Rhodes signed a 2 year deal, which I find to be very interesting. Why sign Rhodes to a 2 year contract when it appears that he will only get playing time during Lynch's suspension? I think the signing of Rhodes has more to do with Lynch's long-term situation than Jackson's.
Tsaikotic Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Might be? You think anybody's gonna shed any tears over Omon? no..I just thought maybe he had an upside and might turn out to be reliable as a backup when needed..sometimes I wonder why teams keep guys and then just throw them away a year or two later...sometimes it seems as if they keep some guys just to make the 53 member squad 53 members...Lynch is only suspended for 3 games, wich might be reduced to 2, if you cant rely on ur 3rd RB to act as a backup to your 2nd RB for 2-3 games total, then why even keep him at all?...now I understand you want atleast 3 RB's on the roster, and that bringing a veteran makes for 3 for those 2-3 games, but I cant see Buffalo signing Rhodes for just 3 games and parting ways...so that means the Bills either keep 4 RB's or dump either Rhodes or Omon by game 4...personaly, with so many WR's and DB's, I dont think they can keep 4 RB's all year.
Lurker Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 The Bills have gotten a lot of flack for letting Jennings, Winfield, Clements, Williams, McGahee, and now Peters go, because it meant they had to draft or sign someone to replace them. Winfield and Phat Pat are the only guys on that list that performed up to the $$$ they left for. Peters is a 50-50 proposition to do so, IMO...
Tsaikotic Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 I think he might be headed very quietly to the practice squad. I don't think he was active enough games last year to be ineligible. hmm...didnt think about that..that might make most sense...this way if anything happens he can be called back up.
Lori Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 I think he might be headed very quietly to the practice squad. I don't think he was active enough games last year to be ineligible. You could be right. He's definitely eligible, as he was activated for only the last two games in 2008.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Trading Marshawn might not be out of the question. One more incident by Marshawn and he's looking at a year's suspension. Remember the Bills went through the same thing with Travis Henry, and look what happened.Add in the fact that Rhodes signed a 2 year deal, which I find to be very interesting. Why sign Rhodes to a 2 year contract when it appears that he will only get playing time during Lynch's suspension? I think the signing of Rhodes has more to do with Lynch's long-term situation than Jackson's. Well as others have said, Rhodes is an insurance policy. I don't think there's a conspiracy to trade Lynch...yet. In the worst case scenario, we're covered. Also of course, Lynch's market value is lower now than at any time since he's been in the NFL. And if there were another "incident" he'd have almost no trade value.
Erik Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Trading Marshawn might not be out of the question. One more incident by Marshawn and he's looking at a year's suspension. Remember the Bills went through the same thing with Travis Henry, and look what happened.Add in the fact that Rhodes signed a 2 year deal, which I find to be very interesting. Why sign Rhodes to a 2 year contract when it appears that he will only get playing time during Lynch's suspension? I think the signing of Rhodes has more to do with Lynch's long-term situation than Jackson's. Maybe that's how desperate they were to get that competent help for the three games. They needed to overcompensate.
VOR Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Maybe that's how desperate they were to get that competent help for the three games. They needed to overcompensate. How were they desperate? The only reports I've heard about the contract is that it's a 2-year incentive-laden deal. By "incentive-laden," I assume it's for close to the minimum with, well, incentives to push it higher should be produce. I'd say "desperate" would be signing him to a 4-year $10M deal.
The Dean Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Trading Marshawn might not be out of the question. One more incident by Marshawn and he's looking at a year's suspension. Remember the Bills went through the same thing with Travis Henry, and look what happened.Add in the fact that Rhodes signed a 2 year deal, which I find to be very interesting. Why sign Rhodes to a 2 year contract when it appears that he will only get playing time during Lynch's suspension? I think the signing of Rhodes has more to do with Lynch's long-term situation than Jackson's. A 30-year old RB on the slide as a replacement for Marshawn? Wow, you really don't have ANY faith in the FO.
Dwight Drane Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Trading Marshawn might not be out of the question. One more incident by Marshawn and he's looking at a year's suspension. Remember the Bills went through the same thing with Travis Henry, and look what happened.Add in the fact that Rhodes signed a 2 year deal, which I find to be very interesting. Why sign Rhodes to a 2 year contract when it appears that he will only get playing time during Lynch's suspension? I think the signing of Rhodes has more to do with Lynch's long-term situation than Jackson's. You would think Marshawn would be hangin' in his hottub in the OP, just chillaxin'......but Mr Lynch doesn't seem to understand that his professional future is hanging by a thread, and he continues to put himself at risk. As we have seen with Whitner....you can only look the other way so many times before you run out of other ways to look....then you Taser his a$$. I would be perfectly happy trading Lynch while the Bills are in Crazy Eddie mode. A backfield of Jackson and Rhodes should be fine for a few years.
Mark Vader Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 A 30-year old RB on the slide as a replacement for Marshawn? Wow, you really don't have ANY faith in the FO. That's not what I meant. If Lynch were traded then Fred Jackson would be the starter. Lynch has dug himself a big hole, and he had better be on his best behavior from now on. That's why I think the Bills are in a similar situation with Lynch, that they were in with Travis Henry. If the Bills do trade Lynch, then they have covered their bases by having Jackson be the starter and Rhodes the back-up. Of course it is possible that the Bills really do not have much confidence in Omon, and since the idea of having 4 running backs on the active roster seems highly unlikely, they could put Omon on the practice squad and go with Lynch, Jackson & Rhodes.
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 That's not what I meant. If Lynch were traded then Fred Jackson would be the starter. jackson and rhodes are only 2 years apart. by the time we trade lynch, they will probably be retiring. unless we trade lynch really soon
The Dean Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Of course it is possible that the Bills really do not have much confidence in Omon, and since the idea of having 4 running backs on the active roster seems highly unlikely, they could put Omon on the practice squad and go with Lynch, Jackson & Rhodes. I'm assuming this is what they will do, unless Rhodes simply doesn't have anything left, or a draft pick/UDFA beats out Omon for a roster/PS spot.
bobblehead Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 Oh my god, I love this thread. In 8 posts we've already had two posters turn it into a conspiracy theory. God I love Bills fans. I know the team has had it's share of the suck and questionable moves lately, but I'm really having a hard time figuring out what is so bad about this particular signing.
VOR Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 In the article linked on the front of TBD, the Bills apparently told Rhodes that he might start against the Patriots on opening day. So the reports of Rhodes' demise are greatly exaggerated.
Leonidas Posted April 19, 2009 Posted April 19, 2009 I know the team has had it's share of the suck and questionable moves lately, but I'm really having a hard time figuring out what is so bad about this particular signing. The signing is great. The TSW analysis, however, is mind-boggling...
Recommended Posts