grammer_police Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Could our "plan" actually be to simply have insane depth at one position? Will this really be able to even out the negative that comes out of the QB position? If this is actually our plan, then it is a gutzy attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Nice avatar. Why did you use the picture of him with that little bit of father Sullivan on his chin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grammer_police Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 Nice avatar. Why did you use the picture of him with that little bit of father Sullivan on his chin? dude. natch is the man. whoooooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Odds are very high we keep all 3. Nobody says you can't have 3 good back and use them all. Anyone remember Earth, Wind, and Fire that pummeled us in December 2007 on the way to a Super Bowl win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Could our "plan" actually be to simply have insane depth at one position? Will this really be able to even out the negative that comes out of the QB position? If this is actually our plan, then it is a gutzy attitude. I think chances are 80-20 for keeping all 3. Freddie will get the most work. Spiller will be the home run hitter after Fred wears them down. Remember injuries play a part in the grand scheme of things. We have the deepest backfield in the league... on paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 We have the deepest backfield in the league... on paper. I don't know, the Redskins have Clinton Portis, Willie Parker, and Larry Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sllib olaffub Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 They aren't going to give Lynch away - and they're right. He's too good on the field - could be a starter, a 1500 yard back, on probably ten teams in the nfl besides ours. With the way we've brought in other running backs my guess is the Bills will get an offer by training camp, or package him in to get a LT or QB prospect, if not for draft picks outright. Still, if there isn't interest the Bills have nothing to lose by keeping him, and a lot to lose by letting him go for some low round pick. He's young, tough, and has to produce to improve his value. What are the odds of Jackson and Spiller staying healthy all year? And, if it were a straight up competition for the #1 RB spot, who's to say Lynch wouldn't win the job? So, they keep them and are looking good there no matter what unless they get what they think is good value for him - probably a second round pick or a package for another player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I wouldn't be surprised to see us keep all three. Chan wants to pound the ball and throw a short passing game ala Brady and the Pats. Slants, sidelines and slot stuff to Spiller will be featured. It's not a bad way to establish a new offense and to make the Bills a tough team to play. Pounding Jackson, Lynch and changing up with Spiller is going to be fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I wouldn't be surprised to see us keep all three. Chan wants to pound the ball and throw a short passing game ala Brady and the Pats. Slants, sidelines and slot stuff to Spiller will be featured. It's not a bad way to establish a new offense and to make the Bills a tough team to play. Pounding Jackson, Lynch and changing up with Spiller is going to be fun to watch. The pats pound the ball and throw short passes? Look, you could have 10 1500 yard RBs on the team, it won't make us any better. You have to throw the ball. No amount of RB talent will change the poor passing performance of our QBs and Chan's record as an OC reveals a history of lackluster passing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I don't know, the Redskins have Clinton Portis, Willie Parker, and Larry Johnson. All tired backs...wouldnt you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 As it presently stands Lynch doesn't want to be on the team. Does anyone really believe that he would graciously share the backfield with another two backs? The Bills are not going to merely give him away; however, they would certainly be willing to take any reasonable offer to get this malcontent off their roster. The reality of the situation is that Lynch doesn't have much trade value. He doesn't want to be with the Bills. And everyone knows it. The Bills are tired of his irritating solo act. He has already participated in the Commissioner's doghouse suspension program. There will soon come a time when the team will let him go for a pittance and then claim that the transaction was an example of addition by subtraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastRochBillsfan Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 The pats pound the ball and throw short passes? Look, you could have 10 1500 yard RBs on the team, it won't make us any better. You have to throw the ball. No amount of RB talent will change the poor passing performance of our QBs and Chan's record as an OC reveals a history of lackluster passing games. I have to disagree with you. a very strong running attack WILL help the passing game. When oppossing teams try to keep 8 in the box to try to stop the run, eventually, thats going to open up some people down field. and, I really don't care if we are tops in the league in passing anyways. We are in a tough division in an area where the weather later in the season dictates having to run the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 They aren't going to give Lynch away - and they're right. He's too good on the field - could be a starter, a 1500 yard back, on probably ten teams in the nfl besides ours. With the way we've brought in other running backs my guess is the Bills will get an offer by training camp, or package him in to get a LT or QB prospect, if not for draft picks outright. Still, if there isn't interest the Bills have nothing to lose by keeping him, and a lot to lose by letting him go for some low round pick. He's young, tough, and has to produce to improve his value. What are the odds of Jackson and Spiller staying healthy all year? And, if it were a straight up competition for the #1 RB spot, who's to say Lynch wouldn't win the job? So, they keep them and are looking good there no matter what unless they get what they think is good value for him - probably a second round pick or a package for another player. Good post. All the RB's the regime is bringing in, is getting a tad alarming.. Especially given that there are so damn many of them out there and available, even a mid/late-season rash of injuries to the position can be pretty easily filled from outside the team. We could do worse than have the Big-3 make the final roster, but I suspect something's being cooked up @ OBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifefan Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I wouldn't be surprised to see us keep all three. Chan wants to pound the ball and throw a short passing game ala Brady and the Pats. Slants, sidelines and slot stuff to Spiller will be featured. It's not a bad way to establish a new offense and to make the Bills a tough team to play. Pounding Jackson, Lynch and changing up with Spiller is going to be fun to watch. Keeping all three just for depth or in the wish that they will all play up to cababilities is a big risk. What is to say that Lynch, already seeing himself as a #2 behind Jackson, will become a "problem" in the locker room and bench on a team trying to re-make itself? My guess is that a potential reward from Lynch won't be worth the obvious risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastRochBillsfan Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Keeping all three just for depth or in the wish that they will all play up to cababilities is a big risk. What is to say that Lynch, already seeing himself as a #2 behind Jackson, will become a "problem" in the locker room and bench on a team trying to re-make itself? My guess is that a potential reward from Lynch won't be worth the obvious risk. Marshawn is under contract for 3 more years. I don't think he wants to be here but it's fairly obvious, and refreshing, that our GM has some gonnads and has made it known that Lynch doesn't get to decide if he gets traded. If he wants to collect a paycheck then he plays. And if he eventually wants a BIG paycheck down the road, he trys to play to best of his ability. He is not in a position of power in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I don't know, the Redskins have Clinton Portis, Willie Parker, and Larry Johnson. And San Diego had LT, Turner and Sproles all on the roster when Nix was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Could our "plan" actually be to simply have insane depth at one position? Will this really be able to even out the negative that comes out of the QB position? If this is actually our plan, then it is a gutzy attitude. IMHO 70 - 80%. I don't see anything gutsy about it. It's just the best alternative unless we get a really good trade offer. With Spiller getting very limited reps, we'll still need both of the other guys. Marshawn is under contract for 3 more years. I don't think he wants to be here but it's fairly obvious, and refreshing, that our GM has some gonnads and has made it known that Lynch doesn't get to decide if he gets traded. If he wants to collect a paycheck then he plays. And if he eventually wants a BIG paycheck down the road, he trys to play to best of his ability. He is not in a position of power in this situation. Exactly. I think they just should have paid Peters. But they started to play hardball, and once you do that, you should go all the way. This is what they should have done with Peters too, once they decided not to pay him full market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Long Beach Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 I also agree that it's around 75% we keep all three. I personally wouldn't mind the possibility that we trade Lynch if we get a really good value for him (2nd rounder on up). I especially wouldn't mind it if we got a surprise success story such as J. Bell is more elusive than he looks. Many years during training camp/pre-season a very important RB goes down with injury on a team that doesn't have a good backup. That team becomes desperate to get a quality RB. Lynch is a quality RB and expendable/available for the right price. I'll take somebody overpaying us because their desperate. That's much better than us being desperate to get rid of him. He's useful to keep him and under a long contract. We hold the power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 I'd say about 95% chance. The only way Lynch is moved is if the FO gets blown away by an offer for him. Some Teams are starting to move to using 3 backs. As pointed out, the Giants did it in their SB year, The Chargers did it, the Redskins currently look to be going in that direction. Theres no rule that says you can't have 3 backs and run them each equally. All 3 of them have different styles and are completly different players, they all bring something different to the table. And where is all this "Lynch has made it known he wants out" talk coming from? Just because he didn't come out to a VOLUNTARY workout with the team? Alot of veteran players do that, it doesn't mean they want to be traded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 Its not like the additional backs the Bills have added are top level guys. Simpson was left to walk from the Colts, they already let Mendenhall go. These are guys they are taking a look at early incase they need someone later in the year due to injuries, or for special teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts