rstencel Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Like all the players in the league, he picks the team that agrees to pay him the most. Not like he had a ton of choice, there were not a lot of teams willing to pay him more than the minimum at the time the Bills picked him up, and the Rams couldn't find anyone willing to give up a 7th rounder for him the year before, reportedly. After he left Bills he probably had more offers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 How bad is it that we are pining over mid-tier players? And, yes, I'd take Fletcher back, too. The dude is indestructible, unlike Mr. Brittle Middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 What does it matter? He is 2nd in the league in tackles. Period. Ya can't say that about any Buffalo Bills linebacker. All that indicates is that his defense isn't getting off the field, which means that they aren't successful as a unit. To quote tackles as a measure of defensive success only illustrates your flagrant ignorance of the game. While it probably indicates that he is better than most of the players on his team, it speaks very little at all about how effective he is compared to other linebackers in the league. That isn't to say he is not effective, only to say that his tackles are not indicative of his performance one way or the other. Really this isn't a difficult concept. I don't know why so many people continue using this obviously flawed statistical argument. Wait actually maybe I do... I blame OSHA for the stupidification of society. They have unnaturally interrupted natural selection and now we have to deal with people posting on message boards whose ancestors should have been removed from the gene pool long ago via some giant machine press etc. The result is the proliferation of those individuals whom are incapable of critical thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 he's not 5'10". they may list him at that but he's a lot smaller. even the broadcasters on MNF were commenting how he's around 5'5" to 5'6" I heard he was acutally 5'2" and wears lifts in his cleats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 he's not 5'10". they may list him at that but he's a lot smaller. even the broadcasters on MNF were commenting how he's around 5'5" to 5'6" Honestly, I dont think anyone is going to care what Joe Buck, or Troy Aikman, or Solomon Wilcots has to say about the guys size. The NFL and Washington Redskins list him at 5'10". I also have a friend that played against London in college, he laughed when he heard claims that he was 5'5". I'm not sure about all of you, but I think I'll take the NFL and my good friend's word for it when they say he is 5'10". On another note, if the NFL lies about his height by 5-6 inches does that mean they lie about Roscoe's weight at 175lbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rstencel Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Honestly, I dont think anyone is going to care what Joe Buck, or Troy Aikman, or Solomon Wilcots has to say about the guys size. The NFL and Washington Redskins list him at 5'10". I also have a friend that played against London in college, he laughed when he heard claims that he was 5'5". I'm not sure about all of you, but I think I'll take the NFL and my good friend's word for it when they say he is 5'10". On another note, if the NFL lies about his height by 5-6 inches does that mean they lie about Roscoe's weight at 175lbs? I did meet him once, and he is taller than me. I am 5'8 so if he is not 5'10" he must be close. ( I didn't check to make sure he wasn't wearing lifts though ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 In re: "Redskins aren't getting off the field"... The Washington defense is tied with the Giants for the seventh-FEWEST scrimmage plays faced this season, 482. New England holds the top spot with 468. And you can probably guess who's dead last: Buffalo, with 568. NFL.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 In re: "Redskins aren't getting off the field"... The Washington defense is tied with the Giants for the seventh-FEWEST scrimmage plays faced this season, 482. New England holds the top spot with 468. And you can probably guess who's dead last: Buffalo, with 568. Cue the music....We're #1...We're #1...We're #1...We're #1... Why isn't he London Fletcher-Baker any longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Cue the music....We're #1...We're #1...We're #1...We're #1... Why isn't he London Fletcher-Baker any longer? Easier signing autographs this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts