VOR

It should have been the 21st overall and a 4th, or the 28th overall and a 3rd. And the conditional should be up to a 1st rounder depending on how he does next year. But a 1st, 4th, and late-rounder in 2010 is pretty good for an UDFA, whose unreasonable salary demands made him a nusiance. And my biggest fear was the Bills giving him a huge deal, and then seeing that last year wasn't the exception, but closer to his real ability.

Okay. Might as well cancel the season.

Me too. If it could be as high as a 1st rounder based on post-season accolades, it would make this a much better trade.

Butler is far better than "average" and has missed less games the past 2 years (as a starter) than Peters has. Hangartner has starting experience and the Carolina offense didn't miss a beat with him. All three (including Walker) are proven NFL players. Now LG and LT are a different story.

No proven NFL players?

It might be lower...if he agreed to a reasonable extension and attended all the workouts. But since it doesn't appear he will sign a reasonable extension, the chance he holds-out again is very real, and that means a repeat of last year.

Forget the Pro Bowl, which is a popularity contest. Peters was in the top-8 (actually he was in the #4-8 group) in AP All Pro voting, which is done by the writers, who are far less biased. So while he wasn't as bad as some claim, he also wasn't the top OT, or even the 2nd or 3rd best tackle last year, and was at best the 4th-best. So looking to be the highest-paid isn't justified.

I don't think anyone believes that they don't have time, just that there are higher priority players and money issues. Stroud didn't receive a new deal when he was traded, so he was really #1 in line, or at least 1a or 1b to Peters' 1b or 1a.

If keeping the Bills in the region means they have to share the team with Toronto, so be it. IMHO it's better than the team pulling-up stakes and leaving the area entirely.

Hmmm. No LT, no LG (haven't had one for 5 years now!), and no RB for the first 3 games. Awesome.

The guy can't stay healthy. And he's been in the league long enough that potential no longer applies to him.

Production is production. How many players scored 9 TD's last year? By your estimation, there should have been tons. There were 25 out of 394 players. And Rhodes started just 4 games and got a handful of carries the other ones. Besides, the Bills have had trouble scoring near the goalline. I'd take him just for that. The receiving and pass-blocking skills are an added bonus.

Stats aren't truly indicative of anything, much less whether a guy is "toast" or not. While it's possible he wore-down at the end of the season, the Bills aren't bringing-him-in to be anything more than than the #2 back for 1-3 games, and the #3 back for the rest of the games. And have you seen Kevin Jones' last 4 seasons, much less his last 4 games last year? He's a non-factor at this point in his career.

So would you trade a 1st and 3rd (at least) for Boldin, and have to pay him $9M/year (at least)? I wouldn't.

"Elite offense?" The Colts ranked 15th in YPG and 13th in PPG. And Rhodes accounted for 20% of the Colts' TD's. And he got a smattering of carries those final 4 games. Most RB's need more than 10-15 carries to hit their stride.

Without knowing what Rhodes is looking for, I can't tell much. Given the money far-less productive backups RB's have been getting, and in-turn the season he just had, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Rhodes is looking for $3M+/year. Taylor is older than him, did a lot less last year, and got $2.5M/year. And what's so horrible about having Jackson prove himself again with another good season? Has he conclusively proven that he's a great and indispensable backup RB? What about other EFA's who have had productive seasons? Are they getting big money deals as well?

Really? How much more? $21 a ticket more, which would get them to average ticket prices? Doubtful.

And do what, sit out the season? Miss the first 10 games, show-up for the last 6, and then be an RFA next year and tendered at the lowest level?

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding who is more proven, Jackson or Rhodes, at least in the short-term, because neither guy is a spring chicken. Rhodes virtually equalled or bested Jackson in every category except YPC, and has done it for a lot longer. Now if Jackson were younger, say 25, I'd be more inclined to go along with what you said since Jackson could be viewed as a longer-term prospect. And by going public, it appears that Jackson's attorney doesn't think the Bills will offer his client anything more. Maybe he's using the Lynch suspension as leverage to get more than Jackson is truly worth? I don't know, since I don't know what they're looking for, or what the Bills have offered, if anything.

Why, because Jackson is a threat to holdout into the season? Why stop with Jackson? Why give a big raise to a starter like Ellison, who is also a high-character guy?

I'd rather give Dominic Rhodes, even though he's 30 and has a DUI under his belt, a 4-year $10M deal, than Fred Jackson. He's proven himself, as have Taylor, Buckhalter, and most of the rest of the backup RB's to whom Fred is comparing himself. He's been in the league 2 years and just started producing last year, and he's expecting $2.5M a year? Are you serious? The Bills literally own him this year, and next year they can tag him for $1.5M and basically take him off the market since it would cost a 2nd rounder to get him, and no one will give that for him. And the Bills have bigger fish to fry.

Is Willy a Bills fan? It would be a great pickup and story, as a later-round pick.

I can see drafting Pettigrew with the first pick (even at 11, although a trade down would be ideal, although not likely), because as a double-threat at TE, he'll be like an extra OL. I just hope that if they do go that route, they have a good DT/DE identified with their 2nd round pick. And then a LB'er with their 3rd.

Actually buddy, I learn all the available facts and then make my conclusion. In all our discussions on Lynch, I never once said that he shouldn't have been nailed for the gun. I had a problem with the claim that the cops found pot, but couldn't (be bothered to) charge him for it. Hence the reason I said it was an excuse. And since he's never failed a drug test, why should I believe that even if there was pot, that he was smoking it, or care that he was smoking it, as long as he comes up clean in tests? And I don't have to go far to find examples of corrupt cops, or even non-corrupt but overzealous cops. Hell just a couple weeks later, we were treated to the Ryan Moats incident! But yes, I do need usually need evidence before I convict someone. Just making a claim or being arrested isn't enough proof. And that was what I was trying to get at (sarcastically) with my post about not drafting Pettigrew. I think you knew what I meant, but maddog sure didn't.

Anyone who gets arrested is a thug.