major Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=5151045 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=5151045 Would have to battle if out w/ Felton Huggins and C.J. Hawthorne to make our practice squad. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasNootz Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Would have to battle if out w/ Felton Huggins and C.J. Hawthorne to make our practice squad. Seriously. Crayton would be a viable option on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Crayton would be a viable option on this team. Look at his numbers last year as a starter for half the season on the Cowboys. Now tell me what his numbers would have looked like on the Bills last year. He would easily be our 6th receiver behind Evans, Johnson, Hardy, Roscoe (yes Roscoe) and Easley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Crayton would be a viable option on this team.He'd immediately be the 2nd-best WR on the team, but I think there will be better choices later in pre-season.... and no, I don't want Roy Williams either. See what Hardy can do first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasNootz Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Look at his numbers last year as a starter for half the season on the Cowboys. Now tell me what his numbers would have looked like on the Bills last year. He would easily be our 6th receiver behind Evans, Johnson, Hardy, Roscoe (yes Roscoe) and Easley. As the 4th option in the receiving corp (Austin, Witten and Roy Williams) he out performed everyone on the Bills last year not named TO. Patrick Crayton would start on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 As the 4th option in the receiving corp (Austin, Witten and Roy Williams) he out performed everyone on the Bills last year not named TO. Patrick Crayton would start on this team.I'd rather have T.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Our need at WR is obvious but we don't need another burner. We've got Evans for speed. We need a big, physical possession receiver who can move the chains and make tough catches over the middle. Crayton's inconsistency is a concern for me. He can be great one game and then disappear for two or three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Why don't we take this year and figure out what we have on the roster. Open competitions at QB, WR, RB, DE, NT, and WR to see who can earn a starting spot moving forward. Let the young guys come in and show what they can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 see if they'll take roscoe for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 I'd rather have T.O. Agreed! I think Crayton has become a bigger, loud-mouthed prick than Owens! I don't like Crayton and signing him would be a step in the wrong direction...especially for the LOCKER ROOM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Our need at WR is obvious but we don't need another burner. We've got Evans for speed. We need a big, physical possession receiver who can move the chains and make tough catches over the middle. Crayton's inconsistency is a concern for me. He can be great one game and then disappear for two or three. Obvious? No, it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted April 30, 2010 Share Posted April 30, 2010 Obvious? No, it is not. Yes it is. How can you say it isn't? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts