BuffaloBill Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Wow ... stunning not in the sense that this is a new idea but stunning that the Bills followed through with it. The Bills have certainly embarked on a high risk journey when it comes to the o-line. If these guys are or get good they are young. This could serve the Bills well into the future. At the same time greater risk of crash and burn scenario.
stuckincincy Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I really don't understand this. It has to be about money. If their logic was that Bell was performing better at LT than Walker, then the best move for the team, not their wallet, would have been Bell - Wood - Hangartner - Butler - Walker. That's what should have been done weeks ago if they really saw Bell as their answer at LT. Levitre could fill in at both guard spots and even a bit at right tackle if need be. Walker is a good RT, and was probably the most consistent damn offensive lineman on the team last season. Now we have an incredibly inexperienced tackle protecting Trent's blindside, along with two rookies and a guy (Butler) switching positions with Chambers as the main safety valve. What a joke. Sure seems so. I sense estate planning...
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 If Chambers starts over Bell, I'll be pissed. And I guess they don't want to move Butler from RT and didn't want to pay Walker to be a backup. This hurts depth, but I'm betting Walker didn't want to be a backup.
todd Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I'm not against releasing Walker, but what kind of front office and coach changes your starting left tackle less than a week before the season starts? Holy crap, this team is a horrible mess. Yes, get the best players on the field, but GOOD LORD WHY WAIT UNTIL NOW? Clearly this team has no hope of winning this season and is acting like it. I'm sick of this dysfunction.
cmjoyce113 Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Did anyone watch Walker against Detroit? He got beat every play he was in... this is not a loss at all. We will only benefit from having youth on the field. I guarentee cutting Chambers and keeping Walker on Saturday was a Schonert plan that AVP decided he didn't like. The problem for New England now is game planning for someone you don't have film of calling plays. It is not rocket science, he knows the plays in and out... now he just has to call them at the right time. Believe it or not since Last Thursday I feel like this team has gone from sucking to moving in the right direction. A few more moves and we will be all set. Walker was a bum... rewatch the first 10 offensive snaps against the Lions if you don't believe me.
Major Mud Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 So basically, they cut Walker because they didn't want to pay him $3 million to be the backup? Right?...so why not Kelsey?....overpaid under-producer= backup, IMO
DC Tom Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Since 2007 "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" "Walker sucks" Today "On my god, we cut WALKER??!!!??? Worst move ever-The end is here!!!!!!!" I think it's less the quality of Walker than it is the quality of the decision making process that leads an organization to cut their starting left tackle a week before the season opener and in turn resign a guy they just cut three days ago.
Lori Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I'm not against releasing Walker, but what kind of front office and coach changes your starting left tackle less than a week before the season starts? Holy crap, this team is a horrible mess. Yes, get the best players on the field, but GOOD LORD WHY WAIT UNTIL NOW? Clearly this team has no hope of winning this season and is acting like it. I'm sick of this dysfunction. The timing is ... interesting, to be sure. Then again, if Bell's back doesn't flare up, perhaps Walker goes in the cutdown to 53.
ans4e64 Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 If Chambers starts over Bell, I'll be pissed. And I guess they don't want to move Butler from RT and didn't want to pay Walker to be a backup. This hurts depth, but I'm betting Walker didn't want to be a backup. If their plan was truly to start Chambers all along, do you really think they'd cut him and risk their LT? It's Bell.
Thurman#1 Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I really don't understand this. It has to be about money. If their logic was that Bell was performing better at LT than Walker, then the best move for the team, not their wallet, would have been Bell - Wood - Hangartner - Butler - Walker. That's what should have been done weeks ago if they really saw Bell as their answer at LT. Levitre could fill in at both guard spots and even a bit at right tackle if need be. Walker is a good RT, and was probably the most consistent damn offensive lineman on the team last season. Now we have an incredibly inexperienced tackle protecting Trent's blindside, along with two rookies and a guy (Butler) switching positions with Chambers as the main safety valve. What a joke. To me, the fact that they didn't do this right from the beginning, or a week or so afterwards shows what we are afraid of, that Bell wasn't much better than Walker if at all. They are counting on his upside, but right now, Bell's probably about the same as Langston or just a smidge better. Which is not good news. This throws a worse light on the Peters trade. If Bell works out, great. If not, it was a horrible trade.
jimmy griffin Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 yeah, "lg" -- usually means left guard. thus, no kidding he wouldnt ply lt (this means left tackle). he hurt his achilles game 4 of last season. that is a long time to recoup. also, that injury IS NO longer career theatening. i suppose you should ask the pats why they signed him -- i mean they dont do anything, right? actually, you know more than the pats front office, right? so, when they make a roster move -- you usually doubt it, yes? the moral of the story? bills should have signed him as ol (offensive line) depth. Simmons hasn't been a "premier guard," for years predating the usually-career-killing Achilles injury. He also doesn't play tackle.
keepthefaith Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 So basically, they cut Walker because they didn't want to pay him $3 million to be the backup? One article says the Bills felt Walker was expendable after the Pats traded Richard Seymour.
Bufcomments Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I bet Walker said "If Bell starts over me yall can kiss my black ass" Jauron in a Trump moment says "Your fired" APV says " Juaron you suck...how you gonna leave my QB with no experience at LT days before the opener???" Jauron...."Well they play hard in practice..." Ralph please fire this ass of a coach while you are cleaning house......
Reed83HOF Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 If Chambers starts over Bell, I'll be pissed. And I guess they don't want to move Butler from RT and didn't want to pay Walker to be a backup. This hurts depth, but I'm betting Walker didn't want to be a backup. IIRC, Butler always gets dinged up, so we let Walker go. What if Bell sucks and/or Butler gets injured? We were committing to pay him through out the offseason and even as of this past saturday, how did the coaching staff come to make his decision over the last couple days when they could have made it during to offseason or even on cut down day. I can kinda see Turk getting dismissed, but this one really boggles me...I mean honestly what is next - fire Fewel on Sunday night/Monday morning?
Wagon Circler Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Walker stunk. Another of John Guy's great scouting decisions. Good riddance. Let's see what Bell can do. He won't be any worse than Walker would have been.
JPicc2114 Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 I'm not against releasing Walker, but what kind of front office and coach changes your starting left tackle less than a week before the season starts? Holy crap, this team is a horrible mess. Yes, get the best players on the field, but GOOD LORD WHY WAIT UNTIL NOW? Clearly this team has no hope of winning this season and is acting like it. I'm sick of this dysfunction. That's what pre-season is for. He was never the "starting" left tackle. They haven't even played a season game yet. So after evaluations they feel that Bell/Chambers is better than Walker.
billybob Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Maybe Scott is the RT - Chambers G/LT Butler G/RT McKinne G/C
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 If their plan was truly to start Chambers all along, do you really think they'd cut him and risk their LT? It's Bell. That's what I'm thinking, but with this franchise, you never know.
Thurman#1 Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Maybe AVP felt Walker was holding back the no-huddle, or had some other friction with Walker? Yeah, I think that this is an AVP move.
Recommended Posts