grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I know that Lynch will be gone for a few games. I know that we will need depth at RB. I know that D.Rhodes is a quality verteran, who in case of injuries could start for a while. I also know... In a few games Lynch will be back. Fred Jackson KICKS ASS! If we can't afford luxary items like Parrish( who IMO is extrememly valuable), then why the hell can we afford what will soon become the best THIRD string back in the league? D. Rhodes also wants playing time(can't blame him) but in only a few games we will wont have enough carries for 3 starting caliber RB's. Why didn't we just suck it up and tried to go with Jackson as starter, and maybe Oman or someother cheap player as backup? It will only be for a max 3 games. I really wish we had just given Jackson a fair raise with the money that we spent on Rhodes. Don't get me wrong, I like Rhodes, it's just that RB is already possibly our deepest position!
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah, let's keep the current bunch of folks who haven't won crap. Let's not go recruit proven winners.
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah, let's keep the current bunch of folks who haven't won crap. Let's not go recruit proven winners. So you didn't watch the 2nd Pat's game last year?
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 So you didn't watch the 2nd Pat's game last year? You mean the one we lost? or are you talking about that other one, where we lost?
KD in CA Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 So you didn't watch the 2nd Pat's game last year? So because he had one very good game that means he's a top flight back with 0% risk of injury and they shouldn't make any contingency plan for how to handle Lynch's absence, or acquire a solid guy who can step into a starter or primary backup role if necessary? This is a RBBC league; teams want to have two solid backs suited up and Oman is not a guy you want to rely on for 3 games, which is almost a quarter of the season. If they start 0-3 you can stop dreaming about playoffs. It's a smart acquisition. This FO is actually starting to give me reason to hope for good things in 2009. I'm really looking forward to the draft.
Mike in Syracuse Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 You mean the one we lost? or are you talking about that other one, where we lost? I think he's talking about the year before where we lost. I can't remember if it was the home or away game but I guess it doesn't matter because we lost both of them. Or maybe it was two years ago, we lost both of them too.... We've got a veritable cornucopia of super excellent all stars.
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 You mean the one we lost? or are you talking about that other one, where we lost? This thread is about RB's. You responded to the orignial post about proven winners. Well, the way the Fred Jackson ran against NE, on a day that they had a MUST-WIN, meaning that it was essentially a playoff game for them, also on a day that they KNEW we were going to run a whole bunch because of the conditions, I think that Fred Jackson proved that day that he is just as proven as Rhodes is. Granted Rhodes has had many more NFL games than Jackson. Do we need proven winners right now at RB? We are already so deep! We need proven winners at pretty much every other position right now, excluding K,P,Wr, and maybe CB, but we are fine at RB.
basskik11 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 So you didn't watch the 2nd Pat's game last year? Yeah, we all saw it, but there was no depth behind Jackson. Obviously X. Oman is not the guy, so why now have depth at running back. I don't see what the problem is when a team signs a good player, who's one a super bowl. He ran for over a hundred yards and touchdown in that game. By the way, didn't we get shut out in that game?
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah, we all saw it, but there was no depth behind Jackson. Obviously X. Oman is not the guy, so why now have depth at running back. I don't see what the problem is when a team signs a good player, who's one a super bowl. He ran for over a hundred yards and touchdown in that game. By the way, didn't we get shut out in that game? You're right, Rhodes is a good player. In fact, I would probably have him over Fred Taylor, but my argument is that we have more important needs. What's wrong with letting Jackson get 90% of the carries the first few games and draft some kid in the later rounds to back him up?
GOBILLS78 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I also know that if Fred Jackson got hurt on the first play from scrimmage, Xavier Oman and Bruce Hall aren't going to get the job done.
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 I also know that if Fred Jackson got hurt on the first play from scrimmage, Xavier Oman and Bruce Hall aren't going to get the job done. True, but anyone could get hurt. Does Jackson have an injury history? I don't remember that being an issue for him. Also, I think that Xavier is better than most people think. Remember how many yards he got in college.
CT Bills backer Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Does anyone think the Bills are considering a draft day trade of one of their current running backs. We have a lot of holes to fill and just added another now that Peters is gone.
stinky finger Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I know that Lynch will be gone for a few games.I know that we will need depth at RB. I know that D.Rhodes is a quality verteran, who in case of injuries could start for a while. I also know... In a few games Lynch will be back. Fred Jackson KICKS ASS! If we can't afford luxary items like Parrish( who IMO is extrememly valuable), then why the hell can we afford what will soon become the best THIRD string back in the league? D. Rhodes also wants playing time(can't blame him) but in only a few games we will wont have enough carries for 3 starting caliber RB's. Why didn't we just suck it up and tried to go with Jackson as starter, and maybe Oman or someother cheap player as backup? It will only be for a max 3 games. I really wish we had just given Jackson a fair raise with the money that we spent on Rhodes. Don't get me wrong, I like Rhodes, it's just that RB is already possibly our deepest position! You seem to know quite a bit. Do you know Lynch will keep his azz outta trouble and on the field? He seems to be having trouble in that dept. And when exactly did Jackson become so reliable that you've become comfortable with Omon as his backup? Crissakes, people complain when we don't bring talent in then there's those who scoff at the proven, winning types that are on board. Without going crazy, I thought Rhodes signing was brilliant. Rhodes was clearly the RB on the Colts last year.
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Does anyone think the Bills are considering a draft day trade of one of their current running backs. We have a lot of holes to fill and just added another now that Peters is gone. Since we got Rhodes and Jackson, hows about trading Lynch for a top 5 pick?
SKOOBY Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 ML has all summer to get suspended and Freddie is a holdout candidate, Rhodes has more experience then both of them combined as well and can hopefully give them Some advice.
grammer_police Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 ML has all summer to get suspended and Freddie is a holdout candidate, Rhodes has more experience then both of them combined as well and can hopefully give them Some advice. ok, good point
Chandler#81 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 You're right, Rhodes is a good player. In fact, I would probably have him over Fred Taylor, but my argument is that we have more important needs. What's wrong with letting Jackson get 90% of the carries the first few games and draft some kid in the later rounds to back him up? Jackson doesn't impress me -or others- as a go-to back for a season. Rhodes is, has been and is healthy enough to do it again. Sadly, I think signing him was a no-brainer that had to be done. Marshawn '2 Strikes' Lynch is an open container law violation away from a year suspension. We've all heard he prefers to BYO to bars.. I think the FO has about as much faith that Lynch will grow up as we do. Thus, we sign a proven back who can be a go-to guy.
gflande1 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Since we got Rhodes and Jackson, hows about trading Lynch for a top 5 pick? Unfortunalty he isnt worth that much. Running backs are a dime a dozen, I dont think you would get much in a trade for him. Especially with his off field issues, teams wouldnt want to take the chance. At best we would get a box of tampons for Jackson to use.
DazedandConfused Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Does anyone think the Bills are considering a draft day trade of one of their current running backs. We have a lot of holes to fill and just added another now that Peters is gone. I think it is hard to know what the FO is doing as they seem to be motivated most by trying to build a team that the FO can most easily manage rather than build a team which has the best shot at winning games right here and right now. An example of this seems to be in the FO virtually complete caving to Peters demands for a super huge contract extension and raise even though he was still under contract to play at his current huge rate. In the face of this demand and Peters demonstrating he would throw a hissy fit, the Bills gave Peters exactly what he demanded by trading him. RB appears to offer the FO two issues which it wants to deal with to ease their management, dealing with the holdout from voluntary workouts by Jackson and the dealing with the criminal actions of Lynch. If the Bills follow the model that showed with Peters, they will do things to allow them to ship both Pro Bowler Lynch and surprise Jackson off to find big bucks elsewhere even though both clearly make this a better team in 09. Surprisingly to me even after the 0 for the millineum playoff showing, trading for TO with the guarantee of him only being around this year, and given it is not a sound bet that Ralph will live forever, the Bills do not seem to be driven by putting the best product in the field this year they can. Instead even if one hates Peters, the set-up we have produced where it appears we are going to depend on at least one and possibly two rookies to rebuild our OL makes our 09 prospects makes the NY Lotto being a good investment strategy.
Recommended Posts