Mr. WEO Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 LOL! Even with your silly hypothetical "[if he'd gone] to Cleveland and Detroit," you're unwittingly making my point FOR me, doc. No one ever claimed that TO would throw himself the ball when he was open (like the multitude of times last year, again according to the "experts" not named "Mr. WEO"). You see, people were (unreasonably, as it turned out, and count me among them) expecting Trent to take more chances, what with Evans and TO to throw to, and to ditch the "Captain Checkdown" moniker. Didn't happen. So he was replaced by a career backup, who oddly enough also couldn't get it done and showed why he was a career backup. It's little different from Randy Moss' time in (your new BFF) Zach Miller's present stomping grounds, Oakland. To use your term, it's "team winning." And to take the example further, the Patriots haven't won a SB with Moss and Welker, but did with such luminaries as Deion Branch, David Patten, and David Givens (we'll go your route and ignore the cheating for the purposes of this exercise). But who do you think the Patriots and their fans would rather have at WR? If only Jeff Garcia would give you the time of day... Your original point (it changes) was that the Bills would have been significantly worse had there been no TO. No evidence to support this. TO had 109 balls tossed to him this past season--no need for him to throw to himself. TO would have done nothing to the fortunes of Cleveland and Detroit---you give no argument to that either. Moss's lack of production in OAK was from his obvious dogging it--is that what you are saying now about TO- he dogged it? Many here would then agree with you. If you are saying that TO gave his best effort than your Moss comparison equates Moss's worst effort with TOs best. Either way, you hurt yourself with this one, chief. Your Moss/NE argument is nonsense. Fans, uniformly, would always want to keep a guy they were confident would lead them to an other SB...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Your original point (it changes) was that the Bills would have been significantly worse had there been no TO. No evidence to support this. TO had 109 balls tossed to him this past season--no need for him to throw to himself. TO would have done nothing to the fortunes of Cleveland and Detroit---you give no argument to that either. Moss's lack of production in OAK was from his obvious dogging it--is that what you are saying now about TO- he dogged it? Many here would then agree with you. If you are saying that TO gave his best effort than your Moss comparison equates Moss's worst effort with TOs best. Either way, you hurt yourself with this one, chief. Your Moss/NE argument is nonsense. Fans, uniformly, would always want to keep a guy they were confident would lead them to an other SB...... My point hasn't changed a bit. You must be confusing me with yourself. The Bills' offense was bad but would have been much worse without TO. In the grand scheme, they still would have missed the playoffs, the coaching staff still would have been fired, and a new regime would have been hired. But instead of 5-11, they'd probably have been 1-15 and owning the 1st overall pick in the draft. There was no "bench warmer" that was going to magically become the Bills' leading WR last season, as TO was, much less be a WR to take coverage away from Evans. And now your point (it changes) with Moss is he was dogging it? Whereas before you blamed Kerry Collins and the Raiders' offense? But okay, tell me which WR's the Patriots fans would rather have: Moss/Welker or Branch/Patten/Givens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 per vtext. Have been informed they will not be offered contracts for next season. Add: No Owens, Denney or Reed for 2010 I won't be surprised if CIN expresses interest in Reed. They bought Coles last year, to replace Houshmanzedeh. He had early dropsies, and ended up with 43 receptions - had a respectable 5 tds. Palmer didn't distinguish himself, and CIN definitely worked the run game, finishing 9th. Coles did a terrific job in pass - and especially, run blocking. My guess is that he gets shown the gate for money reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 My point hasn't changed a bit. You must be confusing me with yourself. The Bills' offense was bad but would have been much worse without TO. In the grand scheme, they still would have missed the playoffs, the coaching staff still would have been fired, and a new regime would have been hired. But instead of 5-11, they'd probably have been 1-15 and owning the 1st overall pick in the draft. There was no "bench warmer" that was going to magically become the Bills' leading WR last season, as TO was, much less be a WR to take coverage away from Evans. How do you know there was not someone onthe bench who could equal TO's modest production? No doubt you felt the same way about Dalls without TO (and with WIlliams as their #! going into this season). Also, Evans had over 1000 yards the season before he had the great benefit of TO "drawing coverage" for him. So the only benefit, as far as you can describe accurately, of having TO is that he may have saved us from picking first in the draft. Hmmmm. OK. And now your point (it changes) with Moss is he was dogging it? Whereas before you blamed Kerry Collins and the Raiders' offense? Moss was ridiculed by the press for his childish behavior/legal problems--and rightly so. He was also widely called out by many for absolutely dogging it in Oakland--where he was a pathetic quitter. . Oops. That was in October. You can only revise so much history Doc. But okay, tell me which WR's the Patriots fans would rather have: Moss/Welker or Branch/Patten/Givens? I already answered that---see above. Moss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts