GG Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 can't confirm whether Vick in Buffalo. CAN confirm that Bills aren't interested. jw Did you read that on Ralph's Facebook page?
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Hey, not fair asking a real football question during journalism slamming. But, my answer is yes, because he's probably the best available option right now as I'm less than thrilled about the QB position. I thought that Garcia would have been the best choice in FA (of course that would have meant that TO wouldn't have come here). Exactly. Our quarterbacks, after Trent Edwards, are obviously lacking and the "what if" scenario if Trent happens to go down for any number of games is not at all encouraging. All other options should be getting consideration, and Vick should be at or near the top of the list based on talent alone. If and how much this talent has depreciated over the last 2 years that he's been out of football, and his ability to understand and run our offense are still major questions.
Delete This Account Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Did you read that on Ralph's Facebook page? no. i did things the old-fashioned way and actually talked to someone who might know. but that's me, a throwback kinda guy. jw
Magox Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 no. i did things the old-fashioned way and actually talked to someone who might know. but that's me, a throwback kinda guy. jw Well, that settles it. Everyone back to your regularly scheduled ________
GG Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 no. i did things the old-fashioned way and actually talked to someone who might know. but that's me, a throwback kinda guy. jw I guess it's on the Internet now, so it must be true. But, now on to the next question. Who is the QB that they are targeting and was Chris Brown close with his speculation on Frerotte & Griese?
scribo Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 can't confirm whether Vick in Buffalo. CAN confirm that Bills aren't interested. jw Well, that's that.
Fan in Chicago Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Exactly. Our quarterbacks, after Trent Edwards, are obviously lacking and the "what if" scenario if Trent happens to go down for any number of games is not at all encouraging. All other options should be getting consideration, and Vick should be at or near the top of the list based on talent alone. If and how much this talent has depreciated over the last 2 years that he's been out of football, and his ability to understand and run our offense are still major questions. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but please guys consider the facts on Vick's NFL performance first. He had talent but has underperformed in the NFL (check my earlier posts for clarification). He would be in competition for the backup position. I am not sold on Trent Edwards yet, but his stats so far are better than Vick's and show no reason why TE should compete with Vick for the starting job. And this was before he 'left' the NFL. Given the baggage that comes with Vick, I would be in favor of getting a different QB to back Trent up such as a Griese.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Sorry to sound like a broken record, but please guys consider the facts on Vick's NFL performance first. He had talent but has underperformed in the NFL (check my earlier posts for clarification). He would be in competition for the backup position. I am not sold on Trent Edwards yet, but his stats so far are better than Vick's and show no reason why TE should compete with Vick for the starting job. And this was before he 'left' the NFL. Given the baggage that comes with Vick, I would be in favor of getting a different QB to back Trent up such as a Griese. Where in my OP did I mention anything at all about a starting quarterback competition between Vick and Trent if Vick was to be brought in?
BillsFanForever19 Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/235557-...come-to-buffalo Just posted an hour ago. I don't know if I buy "The Bleacher Report", but I figured i'd share.
RayFinkle Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 no. i did things the old-fashioned way and actually talked to someone who might know. but that's me, a throwback kinda guy. jw Thanks John.
dave mcbride Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 can't confirm whether Vick in Buffalo. CAN confirm that Bills aren't interested. jw Thanks - much appreciated.
Justice Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ituation-again/ ...and the plot thickens.
kasper13 Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 I may be in the minority here but I am really hoping the Bills sign Vick. He would add another dimension to the offense. Anyone say "Wildcat"? Why not use him 10-15 plays a game? I think Vick would help any team that signs him. We could have a really explosive offense as it is, even more so with another weapon. i watched Fitzpatrick try and run, he may be even slower than Drew Bledsoe. If Edwards gets hurt, Vick would be a better option than Fitzpatrick. So there are my two reasons I am for it. Negative publicity if the Bills did sign him? Who really gives a crap? Buffalo is not highly thought of anywhere else as it is. Playoffs or bust. You know, this would be the only decade in history that the Bills did not make the playoffs if they miss this year. Got to do whatever it takes.
BillsFanForever19 Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...ituation-again/ ...and the plot thickens. I'm at work, so I can't play the video. What do they say?
loyal2dagame Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 good article on 550.com from nick mendola- i think he completely covers all bases http://www.wgr550.com/So-What-About-This-Guy-/4999470
zdro22 Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 no. i did things the old-fashioned way and actually talked to someone who might know. but that's me, a throwback kinda guy. jw I dont think vick is coming here but who are you? Some insider?
Fan in Chicago Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Where in my OP did I mention anything at all about a starting quarterback competition between Vick and Trent if Vick was to be brought in? True and I agree you did not. Perhaps I should not have quoted you specifically when posted. I just don't want even the vague drift of the thread to go towards a starting job competition.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Thanks John. I dunno. We'll see how it plays out but it seems like Brandon's tone has softened up about this recently too. Saying we're not interested at this time isn't saying we're not interested. From a logitics standpoint it makes sense to sign him on Sunday. You let Baker get reps on Saturday then cut him Sunday for the roster spot. You may even be able to PUP Vick at which point he wouldn't even cost you a spot (but he couldn't play in PS - but would he really anyway?) He's eligible to come off that in week 6 which is about when he'll be reinstated anyway so unless you want him on the field for the last 2 PS games it doesn't hurt you from a roster standpoint. Hamdan stays around til Week 6 then Vick becomes the #2 or 3 QB. If I were a GM I'd want to be fairly cagey about interest in Vick as well. Once confirmed interest becomes public the price goes up. The longer teams can perpetuate the myth that nobody is really that interested the lower the price gets. Plus, why start the inevitable firestorm early? Deal with the backlash if you sign him, why take heat now just for confirming you're interested? it's in the team's best interest to keep any dealing with Vick as low key as possible. Since the Bills signed TO I won't beleive that they aren't interested until he signs somewhere else. Last year I'd have said no chance in hell. now? I'm not so sure.
Justice Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 I'm at work, so I can't play the video. What do they say? Jim Nantz thinks Vick will sign as soon as today. He didn't say which team, though.
Recommended Posts