bills_red Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Lynch isn't going to get you much in return, 1 more run in with the law and he is out a year.
murra Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 ya, my point was, "what a typical knee jerk reaction". That was my point. But if you want details, fine. *It is becoming apparent that you need 2 good backs in this league on your team to succeed. *What happens if Freddy goes down? *Marshawn was voted into the probowl because of his tough running. *Marshawn has a knack for finding the endzone and is a better red zone running back. better? You mean his 7.5 TD's/season?
SDS Posted September 15, 2009 Author Posted September 15, 2009 But that is why a trade partner will be difficult. Smart teams know that it's pointless to trade a high draft pick for a RB with some mileage (and even more baggage). The way Lynch runs, his career isn't going to have a long duration. And it's not like you're trading Portis at his peak - actually, come to think of it, the Redskins might be capable of being fleeced here. If RB is so easy to replace, why is some team going to give up a good player for a RB? Note that I said "assess Lynch's market value". If the value isn't there - it isn't there and you keep him. A trade may occur for many reasons - injury on a team with playoff hopes who panics. A team with bad ownership and a penchant for shiny new things. A team thin on RB, but stocked at another position. The point is, if you want value you need to trade value. Brandon needs to assess if he can trade an asset for one that will make a bigger impact on this particular team.
MDH Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 The only problem is that teams don't usually rate RBs as top flight guys (unless they are named Adrian Peterson) as they are relatively easy to find in FA or in the mid rounds of the draft and they have a really short shelf life. Lynch is a good back but I don't think they'd get much in return for him (particularly given that his next run in the the law may result in a one year suspension.) They might land a mid level starter but the Bills already have a team full of those types of guys. I don't think it would be worth it given the complete lack of depth the Bills have at RB. That being said, there's no harm in putting feelers out there and seeing if anybody is interested. I also wouldn't mind seeing Jackson get more playing time even when Lynch comes back.
Magox Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You mean his 7.5 TD's/season? Talk about a blanket observation. What do you do, look at the stats and make your final conclusion?
Tcali Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Would you trade him for an impact LB or DT? YES.
SDS Posted September 15, 2009 Author Posted September 15, 2009 For everyone who says you need "2 quality backs", make note that you actually need a LB or two to play defense...
Captain Caveman Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I would consider it depending on what we get back. But I don't think it will happen for the following reasons. 1. Fred Jackson looked great last night, but that was largely due to the defense double teaming two WRs. I'm not sure he can be an every down back next year without TO and Evans. 2. Fred Jackson will be 29 next year. Most running backs turn into a pumpkin at or before age 30. I know he doesn't have a lot of carries in the NFL, but he had plenty of work in other leagues, and it's hard to say how many good years he has left. 3. The Bills have traded every decent back we've had since Thurman, and I don't know how the fans would take it. I have to think Wilson (and Brandon) would be worried about fan reaction, unless we get great value in return. 4. It would take a desperate team to give up much value for a guy who hasn't really lived up to his potential after three years, and is 1 strike away from a very long suspension. Did Tennessee get anything for Pacman Jones? I'm not saying Lynch is in Jones territory (yet) but teams would be taking a risk.
zdro22 Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I totally agree with this argument. Completely agree! RB is the most "plug and play" position. You could trade Lynch for a LB or a frist day pick...and then sign Rhodes back. Jackson is faster then lynch and looks to add a new dimension to the offense. I love Lynch and if we were to keep him fine. Either way were good, but having Lynch Or Jackson on the sideline every play seems like a waste of talent.
Dan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 look what dallas did to become the 90's dynasty. traded away their best player and sucked for 3 years, but the end was worth the means OK. Yes. Of we could get a trade like Dallas did for Walker, I'd do it. Heck, I'd trade any 2 of our players for that. But, let's be a little realistic. We're not going to get all that for Lynch. I'd have to see what's on the table, but I find it hard to believe we could get enough value (plus ou'd have to convince me we're not going to select another CB with the draft pick). Let's also bring ourselves back down to earth a bit. Yes, Jackson looked great last night. He was running those screens and I had visions of Thurmal out there. It truly was great running. But... he only had 15 carries for 57 yards. We need more running yardage than that. And that's what the 2 back combo of Lynch and Jackson gives us. We have 2 solid running backs, I really don't see any need to weaken that spot just so we can potentially improve somewhere else.
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 For everyone who says you need "2 quality backs", make note that you actually need a LB or two to play defense... Hey, Dominic Rhodes is available...
SDS Posted September 15, 2009 Author Posted September 15, 2009 I would consider it depending on what we get back. But I don't think it will happen for the following reasons. 1. Fred Jackson looked great last night, but that was largely due to the defense double teaming two WRs. I'm not sure he can be an every down back next year without TO and Evans. 2. Fred Jackson will be 29 next year. Most running backs turn into a pumpkin at or before age 30. I know he doesn't have a lot of carries in the NFL, but he had plenty of work in other leagues, and it's hard to say how many good years he has left. 3. The Bills have traded every decent back we've had since Thurman, and I don't know how the fans would take it. I have to think Wilson (and Brandon) would be worried about fan reaction, unless we get great value in return. 4. It would take a desperate team to give up much value for a guy who hasn't really lived up to his potential after three years, and is 1 strike away from a very long suspension. Did Tennessee get anything for Pacman Jones? I'm not saying Lynch is in Jones territory (yet) but teams would be taking a risk. all that may be true. You have to ask to find out though...
Fan in Chicago Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 No, it's not. Unlike most fan trades where they try to unload their crap for someone else's stars, you need to trade value to get value. Depending what Lynch would fetch in the open market, we could improve another area of our team substantially and not be much worse off. Sure you may be trading depth, but that is reasonable if you upgrade your starters. First thought in my mind was 'no way' but then it struck me that this is a valid argument. Jackson played very well yesterday though I am not sure about Omon yet. We can still sign a street RB for depth. But, if we get a stud LB or OT, I agree we go for it. Don't think we are that desperate for DT help.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 The prolem with trading Lynch is that Oman is not a strong enough backup. Lynch and Jackson are a sick combo. PTR
KD in CA Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Would you trade him for an impact LB or DT? I'd trade him for Richard Seymour.
toddgurley Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 SDS, I hear ya, but I'll tell ya we've waited so long to a complimentary back system (going back to Davis and Thurman) and we have NO BACK-UPS after these two that I think you hurt yourself greatly through subtraction. Both guys can run, both can catch. I know there is only one ball, but we really do need both guys, almost as much as we need help in other positions. I agree. You need 2 backs in the nfl today.
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 This isn't a Seymore scenario. Here's why: 1. Lynch is not a 30 year old player. 2. Lynch is not in the last year of his contract and we don't know for a fact we're not resigning him. 3. No one is going to give us a first round pick for Lynch. RB's are a dime a dozen and most easily replaced position. 4. You need a partner stupid enough to give us enough value to make this viable. Unless GB is willing to give us A.J Hawk or Pittburgh is willing to part with their starting MLB I'm just not interested. There's just no way I'm convinced that Jackson can carry the ball 20 times a game and make it through the season. Oman is a HUGE drop off. It's still crazy IMO.
zow2 Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Trading Lynch as much of a thug as he is would be just another stupid move in the anals of the Bills FO. Fred Jackson can't go 16 games getting just about every touch like he did last night, his body won't take the punishment. totally agree. Fred is a monster but the punishment he takes and dishes out will leave him limp. You need both he and Lynch to split carries and share the backfield. It works for other teams.
colin Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 i want to see our young athletic line get better over the year, and be running those inside handoffs and screens to lynch in jan in the playoffs. along with the WR and TE talent we showed out there, that would be very very hard for other teams to stop.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I'd trade him for Richard Seymour. Why would Oakland trade for a RB when they have McFadden ?
Recommended Posts