VOR Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 By the way Taylor had more yards than Rhodes last year, despite playing in fewer games, having less carries and playing in one of the worst passing offenses in the league. At no point in their careers has Rhodes been a better player than Taylor, including now. Wait, we're supposed to be impressed that Taylor had 18 more yards on 9 fewer carries, while more importantly having 5 fewer TD's (which would explain the difference in yardage/YPC) than Rhodes? Not to mention 29 fewer receptions and 3 fewer receiving TD's? In 13 games and starts, versus 15 games and 4 starts? Taylor chose the Pats because he had a 0% chance of being a starter in Buffalo, and a 100% chance of being one in NE for a significant portion of the season. Neither team made the playoffs last year and just because Brady is back, it's no guarantee that the Pats will make them again. Virtually no one was gaga over Fred Taylor when he visited Buffalo. And virtually no one knew that Rhodes was available, or the type of season he had last year, until he visited the Bills. When that was made known, it was a no-brainer.
John from Riverside Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........ We get it.....New England is the better team as of right now.......unless of course Tom comes back and has an off year due to being out of football last year.......then you are @ucked
VOR Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........ That would be like Bungles fans rubbing it in our faces that they got Coles and we got TO.
MattM Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........ We get it.....New England is the better team as of right now.......unless of course Tom comes back and has an off year due to being out of football last year.......then you are @ucked Don't worry, he's got that all figured out, too--he'll just go back to being a Cowboys fan or may even be really daring and bandwagon his way onto whoever is the new hot team. Yeah, he's a real Pats* "fan", alright. I'm curious, dude, do you even live in Boston? Or are you like 90% of their fans who grew up and live somewhere else but just magically became Pats* fans over the last nine years. Just curious....
afcfan1 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Flawed logic. The Bills' FO also brought in Coles before TO. Does that also mean they'd rather have Coles as the second WR? No, it just means they brought in FAs as they were available. The fact that they didn't offer Taylor "an offer he couldn't refuse" says more to how they valued him than when they brought him in. Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!!
billsfan89 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!! Well Coles was released by the Jets who have a huge need for a WR so how good was he. Now I know Coles is a good WR at the #2 slot but who would you rather have for one year only TO or Coles. Who cares about the money the Bills weren't capped strapped. TO is better than Coles for this one year and TO won't be a cancer because he needs the Bills as a way to tryout for the league next year. Coles isn't exactly young either he will be 32 by the end of the season.
afcfan1 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Well Coles was released by the Jets who have a huge need for a WR so how good was he. Now I know Coles is a good WR at the #2 slot but who would you rather have for one year only TO or Coles. Who cares about the money the Bills weren't capped strapped. TO is better than Coles for this one year and TO won't be a cancer because he needs the Bills as a way to tryout for the league next year. Coles isn't exactly young either he will be 32 by the end of the season. He's 3.5 years younger than Owens any way you cut it, and he is not a frickin cancer to the extent of Owens. Combine that with the fact Owens doesn't even want to be in Buffalo. Good luck.
The Dean Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it. Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one.
afcfan1 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it. Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one. The problem is the chances are greater that it could completely blow up in the face of the franchise. TO was a problem when he had all of his skills. Now that his skills are diminishing, it's only going to get worse. I seriously can't envision a scenario where this doesn't end badly. When the Bills are eliminated from playoff contention, how do you think he is going to act?
MattM Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!! Declining skills? I'll take 69 catches and 10 TDs and over 1000 yards any day from a number 2--and that was with his QB out for 3 weeks and Brad Johnson throwing to him. So far, he's done and said all the right things. Not to say that will continue, but so far, no complaints from me. Beats the heck out of Joey Galloway and Greg Lewis, no? Those were your WR additions. Don't look now, but Randy's due for his tight hammy or some other injury costing him 5-6 games and his explosiveness for the rest of the year--I should know, I've had him in my fantasy leagues those seasons he could never quite gets through all of (in Oakland and Minn, in 2004 and 2006). "He plays when he wants to play", you know--and when things go south, he has a tendency to check out mentally. That was the knock on him once upon a time, wasn't it? If he's changed, why not TO? Especially when there's plenty of cash at stake for good behavior in the form of a one-year deal...... And I'll take your ignoring my post about where you come from to confirm my strongly held suspicion that you're a Johnny-come-lately Pats* "fan" with no connection to the city of Boston or the region of New England. I've given you plenty of chances over the last few weeks to come back on that and yet you never have. Funny, isn't it......
afcfan1 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Declining skills? I'll take 69 catches and 10 TDs and over 1000 yards any day from a number 2--and that was with his QB out for 3 weeks and Brad Johnson throwing to him. So far, he's done and said all the right things. Not to say that will continue, but so far, no complaints from me. Beats the heck out of Joey Galloway and Greg Lewis, no? Those were your WR additions. Don't look now, but Randy's due for his tight hammy or some other injury costing him 5-6 games and his explosiveness for the rest of the year--I should know, I've had him in my fantasy leagues those seasons he could never quite gets through all of (in Oakland and Minn, in 2004 and 2006). "He plays when he wants to play", you know--and when things go south, he has a tendency to check out mentally. That was the knock on him once upon a time, wasn't it? If he's changed, why not TO? Especially when there's plenty of cash at stake for good behavior in the form of a one-year deal...... I stopped reading at the Brad Johnson comment. Please explain to me how Trent Edwards is an upgrade over Brad Johnson. I think you really overevaluate the level of talent on your team. Trent Edwards hasn't shown to be anything other than below avg - avg.
MattM Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I stopped reading at the Brad Johnson comment. Please explain to me how Trent Edwards is an upgrade over Brad Johnson. I think you really overevaluate the level of talent on your team. Trent Edwards hasn't shown to be anything other than below avg - avg. Uhh, the Bills got their number 2 last year (the mighty Josh Reed) the ball 56 times and Reed didn't play almost 4 games. So having a number 2 with TO's talent for hopefully a full season you're saying it's a stretch that he'll catch 70 balls from our number 1 QB (Losman played in a number of the games Reed did while Trent was out)? Now who's displaying "magical homerish thinking"..... Still no answer on where you live and/or grew up, dude.....
nucci Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!! I'm willing to take that bet. Let me know how much you would like to wager.
Dan Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it. Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one. With the troll, yes. I agree. I'm not even sure why I responded in the first place. I guess I was just bored. But, you're right. If you entered into the off season with the idea of upgrading your WR corps, TO is by far the most productive receiver any team could have acquired. Coles, Galloway, anyone, not even close. I would put Boldin up there, but last I heard he was still a Cardinal. So hard to say you should have signed a guy who's team doesn't seem to want let go. With that said, if I had a team that was close (ala the Colts); I might be concerned about TO because we all know with that production comes a fair amount of baggage. However, for a team like Buffalo, they have little to lose.
billsrcursed Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 I'm willing to take that bet. Let me know how much you would like to wager. Seconded. Put your money where your mouth is afcfan1. So far you've done nothing but belittle our FO and our off-season moves while being owned in virtually every post you make. I look forward to you making good on your blabbery....
The Dean Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 With the troll, yes. I agree. I'm not even sure why I responded in the first place. I guess I was just bored. But, you're right. If you entered into the off season with the idea of upgrading your WR corps, TO is by far the most productive receiver any team could have acquired. Coles, Galloway, anyone, not even close. I would put Boldin up there, but last I heard he was still a Cardinal. So hard to say you should have signed a guy who's team doesn't seem to want let go. With that said, if I had a team that was close (ala the Colts); I might be concerned about TO because we all know with that production comes a fair amount of baggage. However, for a team like Buffalo, they have little to lose. Agreed. It's clear why some teams wouldn't be interested in TO, but the reason has nothing to do with his ability. The Bills TO match is perfect, in so many ways, IMO. The Bills need that kick in the ass, and TO is just the kind of guy to provide it. And, he has NEVER been a negative influence in his first season with a team. I'm counting on that history to repeat itself. But, perhaps most importantly, his presence on the team will help the team make the final determination on Edwards, IMO. People forget that Romo hadn't started one NFL game before he took over the #1 QB job for the Boys, a few games into TO's first season there. I think TO played a huge part in Romo's early development. Expect Edwards to really come out of his shell, this year.
Dan Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Agreed. It's clear why some teams wouldn't be interested in TO, but the reason has nothing to do with his ability. The Bills TO match is perfect, in so many ways, IMO. The Bills need that kick in the ass, and TO is just the kind of guy to provide it. And, he has NEVER been a negative influence in his first season with a team. I'm counting on that history to repeat itself. But, perhaps most importantly, his presence on the team will help the team make the final determination on Edwards, IMO. People forget that Romo hadn't started one NFL game before he took over the #1 QB job for the Boys, a few games into TO's first season there. I think TO played a huge part in Romo's early development. Expect Edwards to really come out of his shell, this year. I would add that I think the Bills are a great fit for TO as well. In Buffalo, TO is THE star. There's no one here to compete with. By default, he's the center of attention and, if the Bills have a good season, regardless of TOs actual performance, it will be seen largely because TO is here. So, he's going to remain the center of attention regardless of what Evans or Lynch or Trent does. I'm really hoping that TO can pull Trent out of his shell. What happened last year was... well.. just sad. Trent started as hot as you'd want a QB to start. But, with a few hard hits followed by a few mistakes, his confidence just appeared to be shot. He needs to keep his head on straight. In the past, I could see Trent and his receivers just going back to the bench and sit in quiet. Well, you know TO isn't going to do that. He'll be in Trent's face after good and bad plays. And that's what Trent seemed to need last season. Ya know, it strikes me as I write this, that what myself and several other posters are saying about TO's influence.. should really be the coaches job. What does that say about our coaches?
Commander Posted May 25, 2009 Author Posted May 25, 2009 He's 3.5 years younger than Owens any way you cut it, and he is not a frickin cancer to the extent of Owens. Combine that with the fact Owens doesn't even want to be in Buffalo. Good luck. I see. So being three years younger is a big deal with receivers when you're comparing Owens to Coles, but no big deal when you're comparing Taylor to Rhodes. How convenient. You're logic is impervious to all reasoning. Wide receivers have a much better chance of playing well into their 30s than running backs. Look it up.
BillsGuyInMalta Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 If this were a prize fight and facts were punches, someone would have to throw in the towel on afcfan. Kid is getting pummeled here.
HurlyBurly51 Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 I see. So being three years younger is a big deal with receivers when you're comparing Owens to Coles, but no big deal when you're comparing Taylor to Rhodes. How convenient. You're logic is impervious to all reasoning. Wide receivers have a much better chance of playing well into their 30s than running backs. Look it up. sfpwned!
Recommended Posts