stinky finger Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 At best we would get a box of tampons for Jackson to use. I'm having difficulty absorbing this.
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I'm having difficulty absorbing this. Negotiations could get bloody
Leonidas 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! This is quite literally the dumbest post I've ever seen.
Jeffery Lester Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I think he will be very valuable to buffalo, in a kevin Faulk type roll.
BuffaloRebound 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? I think that would decrease Jackson's effectiveness. Plus, Jackson probably splits return duties with McKelvin if/when Parrish is traded. Getting Rhodes obviously helps in the first 3 games, but also allows Jackson to be used more situationally and on returns. In addition, I think Lynch doesn't run hard all the time especially early in the season to save himself for later in the season. Two work-horse backs like Lynch and Rhodes with an all-purpose guy like Jackson is almost an ideal backfield.
Numark Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Negotiations could get bloody you sir need to stop
damj Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 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. Why do people fall in love with and want to put EVERY Bills player in the HOF ... Xavier is a nice story, but he hasn't proven squat in this league, and if Freddy Jackson gets hurt, I'm in no mood to have to find out. Yeah, getting proven players and upgrading the talent on this team really pisses me off too!
gregkash 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 didn't read anything after this i was laughing too hard.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 This is quite literally the dumbest post I've ever seen. While this post is dumb, the posts in favor of trading Parrish are the dumbest.
Cookiemonster Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Negotiations could get bloody We will need to get somebody to plug up the middle.
billsfreak Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Getting Rhodes wasn't stupid, your post claiming that is what is stupid-and might be the dumbest post that I have ever seen on TBD. Fred Jackson has kicked ass in what-2 games maybe? And he got stuffed at the Goal Line in each of those two games. Actually over that past week, they Bills have made the two smartest moves they have made all off season-getting Rhodes and dumping Peters.
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 We will need to get somebody to plug up the middle. Are you looking at a stop-gap measure?
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 there are many stupid things the bills do or have done. this isnt one of them
ans4e64 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 We all agree that we'd rather have Fred Jackson in there. There's only one problem..... HE'S NOT UNDER CONTRACT! For whatever reason, the Bills haven't offered him a long term deal, and he is upset and won't sign the 1 year tender. As of right now, going into the first 3 games of the season, Xavier Omon is the starter... with no backups. You sign Rhodes as insurance that this Jackson ordeal doesn't go the route Peters' went. Maybe the Bills don't want to sign Jackson to a long term deal. Rhodes is signed for two years.
Chief D Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I like the Rhodes addition but I don't like how they have handled Fred Jackson's new deal! Very Poor on the Bills part there.
Thoner7 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills will either A) cut Rhodes after Lynchs suspension is up, or B) Trade Jackson after Lynchs suspension is up
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills will either A) cut Rhodes after Lynchs suspension is up, or B) Trade Jackson after Lynchs suspension is up They won't do A. Rhodes is a vet and therefore if he is on the roster for game 1, the Bills are on the hook for his entire seasons salary.
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 B) Trade Jackson after Lynchs suspension is up kinda hard to trade a player who isnt signed....
Recommended Posts