bobobonators

My preference would be Bradford of them all (if his physical works out OK--no reason to think it wont). We should be drafting in the top 8 this season... Bradford, Clausen, Locker, or McCoy. One will definitely be available. I think i'd really take any of them. This is shaping up as a good QB draft.

Locker definitely..i forgot. I think Mallett shouuld stay in college a couple of more years.

Possible QB in 2010 Draft: Clausen Bradford McCoy Tebow Pike Snead Robinson Who do you want?

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines...L&hl=160586 Will he go top 5? You think he'd be worth trading up for (if possible)?

ya, insults tend to be unwarranted..not that anyone should really take them personally here anyway.

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going. Six pages are given to a trade that wouldn't even happen in a video game, let alone in real life. And no, I would not do this trade.

In his second season, how many TD's did Boldin have in 10 games? Again, his career year came when Warner arrived. Steve Smith's career year came when Jake arrived. Fitzgerald doubled his production when Warner arrived. Listen, I must go. I did enjoy debating with you. Nothing against your ideas, I just disagree!!! Hopefully we can continue this later.

Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. What did Leinert do with those receivers? The same thing Edwards would probably - nothing. Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10 Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB.

Well, I don't disagree with the people who say that it's reasonable. I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side. Again, I respect those who disagree with me. I just don't see a point in arguing any further b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen.

I'm sorry, what examples?

No, we need to run the ball because we haven't had a capable passing QB here since Bledsoe, and before that, Kelly. Ask anyone that knows one iona of football, and they'll clearly tell you that 9 times out of 10, it's the QB that makes the WR, and not the WR that makes the QB. Give me any of the QB's that made the playoffs this year, put him on this team for this past season, and we probably make the playoffs, or at least finish 10-6 with these "mediocre" set of WRs. But I guess that's my opinion, like you have yours.

Listen, I don't know how good Edwards will be. He might be great, he might not. But as of RIGHT NOW, he's very, very mediocre. And again, what's with the assumption that removing Lynch by adding Boldin would actually constitute "upgrading" our offense? That's faulty logic, and that's the fundamental premise of this entire thread.

LOL. Apparently this only makes THAT MUCH SENSE to the two of you. Because to others here, it isn't that clear-cut as you make it out to be. I'm sorry...I just don't agree with you. I simply think you're giving too much credit to Boldin's ability to affect a game (for our team at least). Put Boldin in New England, and I agree. Put Boldin in Indy, and I agree. Put Boldin in Pitt or on the Giants and I agree. Put Boldin on the Bills, who play in cold, windy, snowy/wet weather, with a still green/very mediocre QB so far, while hampering the Bills running attack, and no, I don't agree.

you two live in a fantasy world. I really can't take it. Are you two the same person? Because your mentality is strangely similar. Talk about delusions of grandeur..

Wow dude. I really can't agree with you on anything. The dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is minor? Fine then, just send arizona Jackson instead. He's apparently THAT good.

The passing game would demand more respect? Ya, and the running game would demand much LESS respect. The problem with this ENTIRE thread is that you're automatically assuming that the addition of Boldin will make Edwards better. What if Edwards/and the Bills playcalling make Boldin worse? Boldin is great but he can't pass himself the ball. I think the fundamental disagreement you and I have is that I feel that our main problem last year, and the year before has NOT been our WR's, but instead it's clearly been our QB's and playcalling. Whereas you feel that it's simply our WR's that are the problem. That way, under your logic, improve the WR and everything is better. Well, I disagree fundamentally with your logic. Sure, we could use an improvement at WR...but we don't necessarily need Boldin to improve, and this point is stressed even more by the fact that we would have to give up our heart and soul of the offense , in lynch, to get Boldin.

Other than three 4th quarters at the beginning of the year, and the KC game, Edwards was pretty horrible the rest of the season. Just look at the numbers. And you're also fixated on Boldin, but refuse to address the loss of Lynch as if he means absolutely NOTHING to this offense. What happens if Jackson goes down with an injury in week 2? Bad things man, bad things. That's what.

Alright, fine. You're right. I'm wrong. Whatever you like.

Yes, I agree. But ask yourself this: Was it a weak passing game b/c of our WR's, or more b/c of our QB and playcalling? I honestly think it was much more the latter than the former meaning that Boldin's addition would ultimately do little to improve the offense until the latter is addressed. What comes first I guess, the chicken or the egg? In this case, Edwards has shown that even when WR's are WIDE OPEN, he has been unable to get them the ball. Sure, Boldin would be a great addition on paper, but how would that translate on the field in our system? I'm not so sure about that part. Sad, but true.

Again, this kind of logic revolves around one thing: the ability of our QB to get the ball into their hands. I could name you 3-4 games last season where we could've had God at WR, Moses at TE, and Jesus Christ in the backfield, and Trent still wouldn't have found them open in coverage. Maybe trent improves this season (i hope), but maybe he won't. NOw, imagine if Trent doesn't improve much at all, and now we're down Lynch as well. Boldin's addition will be meaningless and in fact, turn out to be detrimental.

I know. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that we would have to go deep with Boldin. What my post meant to say is that this offense (passing attack) is limited both in the deep ball, and even when WRs are open underneath due to the shaky QB play. Boldin to me wouldn't be nearly as effective here as he was in arizona with Warner..for sure. Again, I love Boldin...but again, this team has a great thing already in Lynch/Jackson..it's arguably our strongest weapon on offense..so why would we want to break it up? If we had a sure-thing at QB, then I think I would be much more willing to make such a trade. But Boldin's effectiveness will completely rely on Edward's play - which at times has been extremely, extremely, poor.

Point taken. I completely forgot about Johnson. Would you trade our first then for Boldin? I'm not sure if I would. Probably the most I would be willing to give up would be this year's second and next year's second. It Probably wouldn't get it done..but then so be it.

How exactly do you know if Jackson is capable? Jackson isn't like Turner was in San Diego (in terms of experience/attempts), and isn't built like Turner (short/stocky/powerful). I love Jackson, don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure about saying automatically that Jackson is "ready" to be the feature back for an entire season. I also love Boldin..however, I'm just not sure that diminishing one critical position to improve another critical position makes this offense that much better.

I agree in theory. In practice, however, I'm not sure how much of an impact boldin would have on this offense. We rarely ever go deep, and Trent at times has shown that even when WRs are wide open, he still won't throw to them. Boldin would be a waste of talent in this offense until Trent improves significantly IMO.

I wouldn't want that. While Jackson has been great, I'm not sure how I feel about him starting the entire season. What if Jackson goes down? The combination of Lynch/Jackson completely addresses the RB position with both quality and depth. I would, however, be willing to give up our 2nd rounder for him.