Bring Back TO

[The_Philster]

The guys afraid of snow. Enough said.

guess you didn't see the season finale against Indy

[Mr. WEO]

I only mentioned Edwards because he was supposed to prove that 2008 was a fluke and/or excused by his concussion. Throw in Fitz as well that the offense sucked and rendered the WR's ineffectual. You're only making my case further for me, because both had exponentially more to do with the passing game stinking than TO himself. To go along with firing the OC and cutting the starting LT just days before the opener, and then the injuries along the O-line.

Not arguing that the offense "stunk" because of TO. Just that none of the promised effects of his signing came true.

[billsfan89]

The reason we aren't bring back TO is because we are rolling with the young guys and we don't want the possible distraction TO brings to young QB's like Brohm or Brown. Also TO is more expensive which factors into the decision.

 

All in all we are rebuilding this season and we would rather see guys like Hardy and Johnson (And Easley to an extent) get more snaps rather then have TO take away snaps and receptions from the young guys.

 

Does having TO makes us better this upcoming season? Yes he is currently better then any reviver on the roster (With the possible exception of Lee Evans) but is the long term impact of having James Hardy and Steve Johnson getting more playing time outweight the boost in talent TO brings? Well we are about to find out because if one of those two develop into something worth while we will see the benefit of not having TO on the roster.

 

Also getting rid of the distraction TO brings could go to help a guy like Brohm develop.

[bbillyfootballcoach]

After reading Fitzpatrick's comments regarding TO, I'm still wondering why we didn't resign the guy. Granted, I wouldn't pay him anywhere near what we paid for him last year. However, he was the best receiver on our team last year. Right now, it looks like he'd be the best receiver on our team this year if we had kept him (sorry LEE).

 

Oh well, he's not coming back; therefore, I'll drop it.

 

so best receiver means the guy with the most drops? Or drops on third down only? Or least effort on getting to balls not thrown perfectly? or I know....worst blocking by 220lb reciever?

 

Do u watch football? Did u just read one stat line and come up with "best reciever"

 

Fitz is being nice, he knows hes washed up but why rip him.

[Sisyphean Bills]

He may not have been the solution, but he clearly wasn't the problem. Poor blocking and passing were the biggest problems we had. Sure T.O. could have fough harder for a few passes, and yes he dropped a few as well, but he was a net positive.

 

I know people love to throw around meaningless aphorisms about one player pulling the rest of the team up with them, but sometimes that's not realistic. When you've got a revolving door at O-line, and guys who were riding the couch on Wednesday starting on Sunday there's only so much a WR can do, especially when the QB's getting hit before he can get through his route.

I remember Dick Jauron trying, awkwardly, to explain why he allowed Terrell to miss one practice a week, the practice where they finished putting in the game plan for the next opponent. So, yes, I'd have to question Terrell's motivation and leadership and it isn't at all clear he wasn't part of the problem.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

I think one of the other receivers are going to standout this year. I think we have some good young talent here. Coaching and given a chance are whats going to work.

[stuckincincy]

I think one of the other receivers are going to standout this year.

 

How? Will he be hawking beer in the stands?

[rocwocka]

Oh well, he's not coming back; therefore, I'll drop it.

Don't worry, if you don't drop it , T.O. WILL!!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

TO was great for buf last year. But it is time to move on. Every WR on the roster aside from evans is a ?. Time to find out what we have in Hardy, Johnson, Parrish, Jackson and the rooks

[Doc]

Not arguing that the offense "stunk" because of TO. Just that none of the promised effects of his signing came true.

Well, the DB's played well. And who knows, maybe Hardy and Johnson learned something from him? But are you ready to put money on one of them (or Easley) becoming the next Miles Austin?

 

The "promised effects" (by whom?) didn't factor-in the Bills firing Schonert, cutting Walker, Trent regressing, and injuries. And while Gailey will undoubtedly create a better offense, if for no other reason than he won't fire himself and cut the LT days before the season starts, having more weapons will only help the team, until Hardy, Johnson, and Easley have proven themselves.

[reddogblitz]

The reason we aren't bring back TO is because we are rolling with the young guys and we don't want the possible distraction TO brings to young QB's like Brohm or Brown. Also TO is more expensive which factors into the decision.

 

All in all we are rebuilding this season and we would rather see guys like Hardy and Johnson (And Easley to an extent) get more snaps rather then have TO take away snaps and receptions from the young guys.

 

Does having TO makes us better this upcoming season? Yes he is currently better then any reviver on the roster (With the possible exception of Lee Evans) but is the long term impact of having James Hardy and Steve Johnson getting more playing time outweight the boost in talent TO brings? Well we are about to find out because if one of those two develop into something worth while we will see the benefit of not having TO on the roster.

 

Also getting rid of the distraction TO brings could go to help a guy like Brohm develop.

I hate this reasoning and I hope so does Coach Gailey. I'm not interested in "developing" young QBs or anyone else for that matter. Or, in "finding out what the young guys can do" or "upside". The thing that will help our QBs more is having better receivers who can get open. The thing that will help our offense is having more weapons.

 

Everyone always goes on and on about how we are in the toughest division in the NFL, blah. blah blah. Last year 9-7 won our division. The combined record of our division was 31 - 33. The three other teams besides the Bills were 25 - 23 combined. WOW !!

 

We're not that far off. I say bring in the best guys. Put the best guys on the field, and let's try to win this thing this year.

[AxelRipper]

I hate this reasoning and I hope so does Coach Gailey. I'm not interested in "developing" young QBs or anyone else for that matter. Or, in "finding out what the young guys can do" or "upside". The thing that will help our QBs more is having better receivers who can get open. The thing that will help our offense is having more weapons.

 

Everyone always goes on and on about how we are in the toughest division in the NFL, blah. blah blah. Last year 9-7 won our division. The combined record of our division was 31 - 33. The three other teams besides the Bills were 25 - 23 combined. WOW !!

 

We're not that far off. I say bring in the best guys. Put the best guys on the field, and let's try to win this thing this year.

 

 

Yep... That has worked out real well for the Redskins...

[PromoTheRobot]

The reason we aren't bring back TO is because we are rolling with the young guys and we don't want the possible distraction TO brings to young QB's like Brohm or Brown. Also TO is more expensive which factors into the decision.

 

All in all we are rebuilding this season and we would rather see guys like Hardy and Johnson (And Easley to an extent) get more snaps rather then have TO take away snaps and receptions from the young guys.

 

Does having TO makes us better this upcoming season? Yes he is currently better then any reviver on the roster (With the possible exception of Lee Evans) but is the long term impact of having James Hardy and Steve Johnson getting more playing time outweight the boost in talent TO brings? Well we are about to find out because if one of those two develop into something worth while we will see the benefit of not having TO on the roster.

 

Also getting rid of the distraction TO brings could go to help a guy like Brohm develop.

I seriously doubt Owens is much better than any WR on the Bills roster right now. If he were, he'd be signed somewhere by now. And while he may possess the skill he fails to use them, except when he feels like it. That alone makes him a POS.

 

PTR

[Haven Moses]

I seriously doubt Owens is much better than any WR on the Bills roster right now. If he were, he'd be signed somewhere by now. And while he may possess the skill he fails to use them, except when he feels like it. That alone makes him a POS.

 

PTR

 

TO hasn't signed because TO isn't going to get $6.5 mil from anyone.

 

I'm sure if TO would take what Hardy makes, he would have been signed long ago.

[Mr. WEO]

Well, the DB's played well. And who knows, maybe Hardy and Johnson learned something from him? But are you ready to put money on one of them (or Easley) becoming the next Miles Austin?

 

The "promised effects" (by whom?) didn't factor-in the Bills firing Schonert, cutting Walker, Trent regressing, and injuries. And while Gailey will undoubtedly create a better offense, if for no other reason than he won't fire himself and cut the LT days before the season starts, having more weapons will only help the team, until Hardy, Johnson, and Easley have proven themselves.

The magical pending repercussions of TOs signing were well documented here last summer.

 

Cutting the starting RT who was tossed in at LT before being dismissed is a stretch as "cut the LT days before the season starts".

 

I'm pretty sure you had written TE off after '08, so not why his "regression" would factor into your otherwise predictable TO apologia.

 

As OC, CG has not been able to "create a better offense"--his passing game was never any good. Why would it be better with this crew at QB?

[Doc]

The magical pending repercussions of TOs signing were well documented here last summer.

 

Cutting the starting RT who was tossed in at LT before being dismissed is a stretch as "cut the LT days before the season starts".

 

I'm pretty sure you had written TE off after '08, so not why his "regression" would factor into your otherwise predictable TO apologia.

 

As OC, CG has not been able to "create a better offense"--his passing game was never any good. Why would it be better with this crew at QB?

Did whoever it was that "promised" you the "magical pending repercussions of TOs signing" give you a money back guarantee? Do you blindly/naively believe alleged "promises" people make to you, or only when it's convenient to do so?

 

True, it's a stretch to think a 7th year veteran, who actually started games at LT in the past, getting cut before the season started and replaced by a 2nd year former 7th round pick, who had never started an NFL game at ANY position and who didn't get the starter's reps in training camp, would hurt the offense. What was I thinking? It's also a stretch to think that losing Brad Butler in game 2 meant anything, because he was a converted RG, and because, well, you were promised that TO would make the offense great.

 

I sized-up TE after the 2008 season. Yet I still gave him a chance in 2009 and he continued to unimpress, despite some excellent receiving targets. And while I think Gailey will be the best OC the Bills have had in a decade, unfortunately some of the things that are wrong with Trent (lack of confidence, injury-proneness), can't be fixed by him, while having just 1 proven WR, who will go back to being double-teamed, won't help matters any. But once again, tell me who you think the Bills' Miles Austin will be.

 

The Cowboys were 8th in offense in 1998, after being 20th in 1997. And he got more out of Tyler Freakin' Thigpen than Haley got out of your boy Matty Cassel, who you promised us was the real deal. But you see, that's why I'm advocating getting TO. Because more talent at WR will help the shaky QB situation, while going into the season with what they have won't.