bobobonators
-
Posts
10,183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bobobonators
-
-
I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea.
My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate.
I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have.
And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
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.
-
No, you actually need to re-read, it actually makes sense to a few more. And at least while we've xcited examples of our positions succeeding in multiple places, you seem to only hang your hat on how bad Trent is at QB.....which is grossly exaggerated by you.
I'm sorry, what examples?
-
Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's.
You have to run the ball in Buffalo when your WR's suck. Moulds had a good opposite one year, and Peerless turned out the be a fluke.
Funny that passing the ball never seemed so damn scary until Jim Kelly and the boys were all washed up.
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.
-
Here's the thing though. If Edwards is as bad as you fear the Bills are screwed either way. That's not a reason to hold off on stocking the cupboard for when they get the right guy in. And as much as I like Josh Reed as a player, Evans/Reed is nowhere close to a potential Boldin/Evans combo in terms of setting up a QB for success.
Holding off on upgrading offensive weapons because you don't think Edwards will take advantage of them doesn't make sense. Let's get the players to improve the offense and see what Edwards can do. If he doesn't improve, move on.
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.
-
You are missing the point. BOLDIN IS A STUD player. He's a playmaker. He's a gamebreaker. Period. It's not totally about improving the WR's. He'd improve our WR's to the point where it would create tremendous pressure on defenses to defend us. Amani Toomer would also improve our WR corps. However, he would not improve us to the point where it would make us explosive. Big difference.
When you add in Fred Jackson, and his body of work over the last two years, you start to think that maybe a deal like this could work. Then, you look around the league, and you see that RB's are the most easily replaced position in the NFL, and you really start to warm up to the idea.
Marshawn is a fantastic player, and would be a great fit in Arizona. Boldin is a stud and would be a great fit in Buffalo. Both teams have sufficient help in the areas they would be losing talent, while SIGNIFICANTLY upgrading the position they would be acquiring.
I've gotta say, this makes way too much sense to actually happen. You usually see some dumb things proposed about trades, but this one has legs.
I gotta give it to AD on this one. Deifinately worth the discussion.
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.
-
Bingo. LMAO. Gotta love the what if X player gets hurt stuff. Hell, what if Evans gets hurt in the current offense. I'd be hard pressed to think we could actually complete more than 5 passes per game to our WR's.
With Boldin, he would have 5 catches automatic.
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..
-
Boldin tremendously upgrades our WR spot...The dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is minor...so we take a minor (and even thats debateable) hit at RB and MASSIVELY upgrade WR which is a much harder position to fill in the first place...
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.
-
Sorry man, I hate this logic. What happens if Payton Manning goes down in Week 2? Should INDY be trying to trade with NE to get Cassel or Brady as insurance? You cant pass up a chance to get an ELITE every down player at a skill position like WR just to have insurance at an easily filled position like RB...
One, RB is the easiest position to replace...look around the NFL, they constantly find producers in late rounds or even undrafted at RB...heck, look at Jackson in Buffalo. Two, Oman I think can be a capable backup who never got to show what he can do. Three, even if Oman isnt, we can find another backup in the draft or FA market that could fill in nicely if that was case.
It would much easier to find a competent backup also becasue our Passing game now would command much more respect which in turns opens up the ground game.
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.
-
And this is the kind of backwards ass, gutless logic that I hate. Because while you could name me 3-4 games last year where our QB coudln't get Jesus Christ the ball, I can name about 8 games where our QB's did get a below average WR corps the ball....meaning Evans, Reed and Parrish.
Now, imagine if that WR was lead by Boldin......bad things man, bad things. You all act like Edwards was horrible every game. He has started a handful of games in this league and has shown flashes with a crappy supporting cast. Give him some weapons, and see how those mediocre games become more than solid.
Curt Warner could have been the Bills QB last year, and you bet your ass he'd have about 20 INT's and would be retiring this season, with the subpar skill people around him.
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.
-
Again, BS. The passing game isn't all the effective because it has Lee Evans, Josh Reed, and Roscoe Parrish as it's options. Period. This is Anquan Boldin. The guy makes plays with any QB. And Evans would be that much better. Hell, Calvin Johnson makes plays in Detroit, because he's a stud. The same would happen here.
Alright, fine. You're right. I'm wrong. Whatever you like.
-
Why? Because being one dimensional with a weak passing game got us a 7-9 record the last 2 years...
The more I think about this, the more sense it makes for BOTH teams...which is probably why it wont happen because it makes too much sense...lol.
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.
-
No way in hell. Did you ever see Boldin run after the catch? It has been so long that we've had any kind of talent in here that people's brains have warped I think.
Boldin makes plays anywhere on the field. Deep, short, over the middle, screens, period. He's a stud. Period. Evans would then benefit tremedously from this. THEN, Reed goes in over the middle as the possesion guy. Turk would be like a kid in a candy store with those guys. Add Jackson's hands out of the backfield, and then a pass catching TE to the mix.
Now, tell me, what team in our division could cover all those guys on one 3 WR, 1 RB, 1 TE set? I know the Pats and their aging assed LB's couldn't. The Jets? Ummm no. The Dolphins? Not at this time. We would actually have teams in our division having to adapt their defenses to stop all of our options. Those 3-4 rush LB's could easily get burned if Edwards was up to the task with reading coverages.
I like it more and more. Plus, Arizona needs a RB. I love Lynch, but in this case........see ya
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.
-
Thats what is great about Boldin for us, you dont have to go deep to get him the ball. He takes short throws and turns them into long plays, a perfect complement for the type of player Trent is. This guy goes over the middle and is fantastic after the catch...
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.
-
Look at what Roy Williams fetched...you think AZ trades arguably one of the top 4 or 5 WR's in the game for a 2nd after the fleecing Det did with Roy? I would say a 1st and some change would be the min. Last year, Wash offered Cincy 2 1st rd picks for that head case Chad Johnson, and Anquan is a far better teammate and a way better WR than Ocho Cinco who I wouldnt even list in the top 10 at WR.
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.
-
BS.....Jackson is already capable. Boldin is a stud. Evans would be better, and Reed would be the Wes Welker type. Unstoppable combo there. Jackson would handle the load and we could find the backup RB, much easier than adding another crappy medicore WR. Since this would be a trade, the Bills could still spend money on a pass catching TE, and this offense would be explosive.
This is actually a great deal for both teams.
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.
-
If you had defenses worrying about covering that offense, the running game would open up immensely. Offense is offense, it can be built many different ways. I think it has snowed and has been just as sh------- in NE over the last few years than in Buffalo, and they built an unstoppable passing game two years ago.
We could do the sa,me.
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 $2 an hour...but yet some of you sit there criticizing a player because he chooses to obtain the services of an agent that is known to get his clients the most lucrative contract possible. No, YOU wouldn't want that.
And don't give me the flawed argument that "well, with that much money, I wouldn't care." Right, keep telling yourself that.
-
He is a member of a team. A football game is a battle. Combat. Boldin is a foot soldier in the battle. Warner is not. He is the field commander.
You listen to Warner, deal with, consider his commentary.
Boldin broke ranks, then continued whining after the game was won. To the eager press.
Inactive.
Wow. This isn't war, and no, we're not back in 'nam. Get over it.
And your logic is flawed, Warner may be the "field commander," but he also has to take "orders." Or can a field commander simply do whatever he wants?
Also, don't forget who's been on this team much longer.
-
Once the game ended, Boldin, a four-time Pro Bowl selection, left the field quickly without celebrating
Wait, so his team wins the right to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, and he doesn't want to enjoy the moment with his teammates? That's pretty !@#$ing odd....
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.
-
Guarding Trent looked optional in some games and after seeing when he had time versus not what a difference. As Jason Peters got back into the mix, our O-line actually got worse. I guess you could blame schedule but I blame the coaching staff for allowing it to happen. Jason should of eased back into the line versus being the integral part of it.
Our main failure was not allowing Trent more time to work and it cost us this season, I think that will change this draft.
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.
-
I live in the Carolina's and have seen him play and he is no Bruce Smith, takes plays off etc, there is no way this team can afford a guy like that, and secondly as other posters have noted, I can not see any top free agent even considering this team. I look at Tony Gonzalez and I still can not understand why he did not want to come to Buffalo...at that time they were 4-0 or 5-1, players talk and there must be a reason why he held firm on not going to the Bills, and unfortunately I think that is going to be a sign of things to come.
I also think the Bills need only to look at the hated Dolphins and the way they did things...through the draft, trade Peters and get 1 or 2 draft picks + a starter, of course the stellar personelle dept needs to hit on those draft picks
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 really frustrating that people, myself included, would love to have Peppers but feel it will be impossible to sign him. I ask, why? If money is a huge factor in deciding where to play, why can't old Ralph just pay for some players. We never get ANYONE of value in free agency. No big names or playmakers. Year after year after year.
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.
-
It's not only money, but he reportedly wants to play in a 3-4. And after living and playing in Carolina all of his life, I doubt he'd want to play in Buffalo. Add in state taxes...
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.
Would you trade Lynch for Boldin?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.