bobobonators

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.

it always amazes me how moralistic and altruistic the members of this board are - always so very quick to pass judgement on another individual. I'm sure if you were working hard for a company your entire professional career, there through the start-up period and rough years where it wasn't producing much, but now finally see your company becoming successful (and you were a major part of that transition) only to have your boss tell you: "thanks, but you can stay home" or "thanks, but we don't want you attending this next conference" or "thanks, but we don't need you on this account anymore" I'm sure you would all be cheery and warm inside right? what a bunch of hypocrites some of you are. Oh, and I love the post about his agent. Another thing that always amazes me about fans. this criticism comes from a society that switches jobs 5 times a year if need be, just to get an increase of 5K on their salary..people who would hold your respective companies "hostage" if need be for an extra $2 an hour...but yet some of you sit there criticizing a player because he chooses to obtain the services of an agent that is known to get his clients the most lucrative contract possible. No, YOU wouldn't want that. And don't give me the flawed argument that "well, with that much money, I wouldn't care." Right, keep telling yourself that.

Wow. This isn't war, and no, we're not back in 'nam. Get over it. And your logic is flawed, Warner may be the "field commander," but he also has to take "orders." Or can a field commander simply do whatever he wants? Also, don't forget who's been on this team much longer.

It's really not that odd (to me at least). He's been on this team his entire professional career. he's busted his a$$ for this franchise through some pretty bad seasons/bad teams. Now they're finally in the playoffs, one quarter from making the super bowl, and they remove him from the game?? I don't know, but I'd be pretty f'ing pissed off too if I were him. Respect goes both ways. then again, we'll probably never hear the 100% truth from either side.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, there were a couple of games where pass protection was a bit suspect, but what team doesn't suffer from that? However, in the majority of the games this season, both JP and Trent had more than enough time to find a WR but did nothing but hold onto the ball. Lets not forget that Trent had a stretch of 3-4 games where he played absolutely scared and refused to pull the trigger many times and took the sack, or the pocket collapsed. I would say our O-line played solidly most of the season in pass protection.

God man, if i see another "trade peters" post i'm seriously going to vomit. trade him for 1 or 2 picks sure (if that'll even happen), and then what do we do at LT? Waist one of those picks we get on a LT that hasn't proven squat. Trading one of our best players that's in his prime, that has been extremely underpaid to this point, at one of the key positions in football, is not how you "rebuild."

It's sad, but true. I think we all feel pretty much teh same way. It's even more frustrating when the system in the NFL is set in place to have parity (unlike MLB), yet we're always unable to land the "big" FA in the offseason. Peppers still has a good 4 years left of great football imo. The team that lands him will surely be lucky.

This in an interesting post. Where did you hear that he want to play in a 3-4? He would be beastly as an OLB in a 3-4.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. I really can't see Peppers wanting to come to the Bills under any circumstance.