Christopher Capolupo Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Since we got Rhodes and Jackson, hows about trading Lynch for a top 5 pick? I don't think you understand trades in the NFL. He is a good running back, but that does not warrant a top 5 pick, maybe not even a 1st rounder. We couldn't get a top 5 pick for Peters, and he is supposed to be elite. Lynch is far from elite. Even if he was, we aren't getting a 1st for him. BTW, he is suspended for the first 3 games, why would someone trade for him with his baggage he carries with him.
todd Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 So you don't think Jackson or Lynch will get injured this year, leaving us short? You don't think that having a great 3rd stringer in an offense that requires 2 backs is important? You don't think that WR is our deepest position? Other than that, great post! 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!
todd Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Since we got Rhodes and Jackson, hows about trading Lynch for a top 5 pick? Do you sniff glue?
gcb34 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! Rhodes was a bust in Oakland and seems he only produces when he's with the Colts. He's washed up. I agree we should pay Fred his money and start him the first 3 games and if he does well then Lynch can sit and spell him for awhile.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Yup, we should have showed Peter's who's boss. Make him play under his current contrct at least another year. Tell him no new deal period. That would have taught him a lesson. Of course most likely he wouldn'y have reported till game ten then at best half out of shape and owuld have been totally useless. But that's the mentality our front office needs to have. That will definitely work in todays NFL 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.
lynchneedsfood Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 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! wow we're not even in the preseason and we already want to speculate that fast Freddy won't be the starter at the start of the season... let's just hope we didn't make rhodes an incredibly rich 3rd string running back
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Fred Jackson KICKS ASS! will he? Not if he's unhappy. The Run game lsat season was still mediocre to average at best.
John from Riverside Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 It is never wrong to upgrade the talent on a team..... For all we know Lynch might screw up again tomorrow.....and then where will we be?
VOR Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Rhodes was a bust in Oakland and seems he only produces when he's with the Colts. He's washed up. I agree we should pay Fred his money and start him the first 3 games and if he does well then Lynch can sit and spell him for awhile. Everyone's a bust in Oakland. See Moss, Walker, etc.
Trent=Answer 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. Are we getting peyton manning? .. im pretty sure rhodes had a minimal part in "winning" .. hes a product of the system
SKOOBY Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Are we getting peyton manning? .. im pretty sure rhodes had a minimal part in "winning" .. hes a product of the system Rhodes did his part and Indy succeeded, which is cool.
BuffaninATL Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I think he will be very valuable to buffalo, in a kevin Faulk type roll. yes, in a Kevin-Faulk type ROLE.........
dogbyte Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Depth Rhodes at this time in his career is a spot player
stinky finger Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Are we getting peyton manning? .. im pretty sure rhodes had a minimal part in "winning" .. hes a product of the system All I know is Rhodes outplayed Addai last year. He was in on most critical downs and all goal line.
Cookiemonster Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Are you looking at a stop-gap measure? Yes,somebody who could stem the flow.
VABills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Yes,somebody who could stem the flow. Only seems to be a problem about once a month.
billsfreak 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. Don't speak for everyone. I have seen alot of games that Rhodes has played in for the Colts, and there is a pretty good chance that he will beat Jackson out for the position on opening day. Eventually he will sign the tender, or he won't play, and at his salary he hasn't made millions to sit back on.
SuperKillerRobots 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! I think they still give Jackson a raise and Rhodes is there to push Omon. If you know that one of your best offensive players will be out for the first three games, and the third guy has never really shown anything, I would be happy to take Rhodes into camp as insurance in case Omon develops fumblitis or Jackson holds out. I think this was a very prudent move to hedge their bets on the RB position. Im sure he didn't get a huge bonus or contract, so he would probably be pretty easy to get rid of. Not to mention he is kind of a bruiser type back and maybe they keep them all and finally go to the power running game.
billybob Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Rhodes is a smart Pick up he will spell Jackson the games Lynch is suspended and he will be there if either Lynch or Jackson is injured- what I don't understand from the topic starter is the idea that the first three games aren't important- do you think the Bills are so good they are going to Waltz into the playoffs - Please!!! if they make the playoffs it's going to be from scrapping for every game possible
Recommended Posts