BB2004 Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 C'mon. Haven't you guys seen the movie Major League? The owner puts together a purposely horrible team so they'll lose, attendance will drop, and she can move the team. I think Ralph is following the script. I hope that is not the case. There would be a lot of sad, unhappy and hurt people, including myself. That would be worse than any loss on the field the Buffalo Bills have had over the years.
RayFinkle Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 If this was just a money move, in that LW was making too much money to play RT, couldn't his contract have been re-structured ? It isn't like they are against the cap and need the coin. If this was a money move, which looks probable, it is pathetic.
Bill from NYC Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 From what everyone is saying, Bell will be the starting LT. Do you have any different info? None at all. I base my suspicions on the fact that Bell has never played in a real game, and Chambers has. Also, I think that Chambers, while nothing special against the run, is a decent pass protector at LT. He was a horrible guard mind you, but the man is agile. He is what I would characterize as the perfect backup LT, and I think that he would be somewhere around decent as a starter. Next, let's go to Jauron. Is he inclined to taking risks? It's simply hard for me to visualize Jauron putting a kid at LT who has no experience AND coming off an injury. In this case, he might be right. Again, this is nothing but my opinion.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 We actually get this ridiculous chaotic ineptitude as the celebration of the team's 50th year?!? Whoo Hoo.....Party Time!!!
Endzone Animal Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I actually hope they wear the Donahoe clown suits rather than disgrace our proud championship uniforms in front of the entire country.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 After this, how'd you like to be the guy that has to talk free agents into coming to Buffalo at reasonable multi-year contracts? Most of the players John Guy finds stink, but the few that are average have to be overpaid and then get dumped as well.
billnutinphoenix Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 NOW DOES ANYONE THINK WE CAN BEAT THE PATS????
BobDVA Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 NOW DOES ANYONE THINK WE CAN BEAT THE PATS???? Here!
spartacus Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 If this was just a money move, in that LW was making too much money to play RT, couldn't his contract have been re-structured ? Or was the FO giving LW a chance to test the waters and sign him back if he didn't get any offers ? If this was not a money move, then perhaps there is a plan to bring in Runyan or trade for someone ? In either case, things will become clear in the next few days. I certainly hope the answer is not 'none of the above' as then we are woefully low on depth. lack of depth?? you are looking in the wrong places we have plenty of DBs - kept 11 who needs OL -
JinWPB Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Welcome to the Roscoe Parrish moving pocket , double TE ,"WildMouse" offense Bill's fans.
Robert Paulson Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I want to follow the logic here, because I assume our coaches and front office are paid to think things out in a timely manner and improve our team. #1 we have a weak offensive line, but we trade away our pro-bowl LT, who admittedly is underperforming and unhappy - but we don't pay him to make him happy, since pro-bowl LT's just grow on trees and its not an important position, see, you can just #2 take our adequately performing RT, who now is the best player on the line, and have him play LT, right? Even though he knows and anyone who understand football knows it will be a disaster, because he has the body-type for a RT, not an LT. And he is even sceptical if he can play the position, but we're told it will be fine, and then #3 a week before the season starts you decide he can't play LT, in fact, although he was your "best" lineman he can't even play on the team at all, not even moved back to the RT spot, and you end up with #4 a cheap undrafted LT who, being the bass-tard son of Karl Malone, has some athletic ability but five years football experience. And the guy has a bad back and hasn't practiced in two weeks. But that's fine. Because he's on a solid line with #5 two rookie guards (one seems up to the task) an underperforming free-agent center, and a perpetually broken-down RT playing out of position. And for depth you got a guy who was waived and nobody else wanted, Johnathan Scott who now the more optimistic fools on this board are high on, simply because we haven't seen him play/suck yet, and one mediocre vet guard. But we didn't need to hang onto Walker - we could just let him go. that pretty much sums it up
Magox Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Ralph is a joke. All of the moves the Bills make are about selling jerseys (T.O) or saving money (keep Jauron, cutting Rhodes/Walker).Those player cuts were all about saving money. There is noone on the O line as good as Walker. He was not suited for LT, but he is by far the best RT on the roster. Rhodes is way better than Omon. Cutting those guys saves Ralph money. He does not care about fielding a competitive team. He needs to go. The Bills are now the laughing stock of the NFL. Al Davis is laughing at Ralph. Atleast Al tries to win. Ralph treats the Bills like a 401k. He just wants to maximize the value for his family upon his death. He is not even pretending to care about football anymore, regardless of the crap he said in his HOF speech about loving the competitiveness. Maybe he did when he was younger. Clearly not any more. I am a season ticket holder and will continue to be becasue I love this team and long for a time when we have a real owner to bring this team some real glory. Ya, that was the gameplan, sign Rhodes, make it appear that we are trying to improve the team, so that we can cut him before the season starts so that we can save money. Ya ya ya, that's the game plan
Orton's Arm Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I like this move. There was no way Langston Walker was going to be the long-term solution at LT. Or even RT, for that matter. By getting rid of him now, we get to see whether Bell can fill the LT role. If he can, great. And if not, then we'll know that LT is a serious need, come the 2010 draft. If, on the other hand, we'd retained Walker while keeping Bell on the bench, then, come the 2010 draft, the Bills would have to guess about how well Bell's career might work out. Guessing incorrectly could lead either to using a high pick on a LT they didn't need, or it could lead to failing to address the LT position when it was one of dire need. I've also read that releasing Walker hurts our chances of beating the Pats. But I'd disagree. We're not going to win that game, either with Walker or without him. Getting Bell in there as quickly as possible will give us a better chance to win games in future weeks.
billsrcursed Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 NOW DOES ANYONE THINK WE CAN BEAT THE PATS???? Nope. LW was the key piece in beating them, all hope is lost.....
Bill from NYC Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 lack of depth?? you are looking in the wrong places we have plenty of DBs - kept 11 who needs OL - Welcome to my world. The Levy/Jauron era is going to take a long time to undo, and I'm not even sure if there is an end in sight. Jauron has to be jettisoned out of WNY for there to be a real shred of hope for this franchise. A semi-competent defensive backs coordinator is making this beautiful franchise a train wreck. PS: Langston Walker is not the cause of the comments above. He is also a train wreck.
Mr. Dink Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I actually hope they wear the Donahoe clown suits rather than disgrace our proud championship uniforms in front of the entire country. How true. Poce.
jad1 Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I want to follow the logic here, because I assume our coaches and front office are paid to think things out in a timely manner and improve our team. #1 we have a weak offensive line, but we trade away our pro-bowl LT, who admittedly is underperforming and unhappy - but we don't pay him to make him happy, since pro-bowl LT's just grow on trees and its not an important position, see, you can just #2 take our adequately performing RT, who now is the best player on the line, and have him play LT, right? Even though he knows and anyone who understand football knows it will be a disaster, because he has the body-type for a RT, not an LT. And he is even sceptical if he can play the position, but we're told it will be fine, and then #3 a week before the season starts you decide he can't play LT, in fact, although he was your "best" lineman he can't even play on the team at all, not even moved back to the RT spot, and you end up with #4 a cheap undrafted LT who, being the bass-tard son of Karl Malone, has some athletic ability but five years football experience. And the guy has a bad back and hasn't practiced in two weeks. But that's fine. Because he's on a solid line with #5 two rookie guards (one seems up to the task) an underperforming free-agent center, and a perpetually broken-down RT playing out of position. And for depth you got a guy who was waived and nobody else wanted, Johnathan Scott who now the more optimistic fools on this board are high on, simply because we haven't seen him play/suck yet, and one mediocre vet guard. But we didn't need to hang onto Walker - we could just let him go. I think you're missing the part where the FO ignores LT in the draft, but spends half of its picks on DBs.
BeastMode54 Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I like this move. There was no way Langston Walker was going to be the long-term solution at LT. Or even RT, for that matter. By getting rid of him now, we get to see whether Bell can fill the LT role. If he can, great. And if not, then we'll know that LT is a serious need, come the 2010 draft. If, on the other hand, we'd retained Walker while keeping Bell on the bench, then, come the 2010 draft, the Bills would have to guess about how well Bell's career might work out. Guessing incorrectly could lead either to using a high pick on a LT they didn't need, or it could lead to failing to address the LT position when it was one of dire need. I've also read that releasing Walker hurts our chances of beating the Pats. But I'd disagree. We're not going to win that game, either with Walker or without him. Getting Bell in there as quickly as possible will give us a better chance to win games in future weeks. Understood, but there was this whole time period called the off-season that they could have used to make these moves. and maybe drafted someone THIS year as well
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Welcome to my world. The Levy/Jauron era is going to take a long time to undo, and I'm not even sure if there is an end in sight. Jauron has to be jettisoned out of WNY for there to be a real shred of hope for this franchise. A semi-competent defensive backs coordinator is making this beautiful franchise a train wreck. PS: Langston Walker is not the cause of the comments above. He is also a train wreck. Has this team, has anyone, carried so many DBs? No, seriously...
keepthefaith Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Has this team, has anyone, carried so many DBs? No, seriously... Chicago Bears have 11 on their roster now. Only team I checked.
Recommended Posts