boyst Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 per rotoworld: "According to Fox Sports' Jay Glazer, the Saints would have parted with a third-round pick in exchange for Marshawn Lynch at the trade deadline. Glazer reported at the time of the trade that the Bills failed to shop Lynch around, and multiple teams would have surrendered more than Seattle's fourth-round pick." translation = a team would have given a 4th round pick and a stapler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 per rotoworld: "According to Fox Sports' Jay Glazer, the Saints would have parted with a third-round pick in exchange for Marshawn Lynch at the trade deadline. Glazer reported at the time of the trade that the Bills failed to shop Lynch around, and multiple teams would have surrendered more than Seattle's fourth-round pick." Once again, the Bills got MORE than just Seattle's 4th round pick. If it were just the difference between a 3rd and a 4th, you and the others slamming the trade would have a point. And Seattle looked to be a bad team in a division expected to be dominated by the Cards and 49'ers. While the Saints were defending SB champs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 apparently the saints wanted Lynch and would have given up atleast a 3rd rounder Where is the proof that this was the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjl4sam Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Everyone knew Lynch was available, so I don't buy the Bills not shopping him around enough theory. If the Saints were willing to give a better deal than the Seahawks, then they would have made the offer and Bills would have accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) That's BS....the Saints would have called when they knew a deal with imminent Seattle. Not to mention, the Saints backfield wasn't banged up as they were at the end of the season when the deal was made. Ummm bush broke his leg week 2, Pierre was hurt week 3, ivory was inactive the first few weeks with a hammy which everyone knows can linger and lynell Hamilton was on IR in preseason. That's there top 4 backs. Edited January 10, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit of '66 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Maybe nix is looking to establish a reputation as a get to the point negotiator. He likely had talks with New Orleans and said, "we're tradinig Lynch, make your best offer" and N.O. gave him a low ball offer. Now everyone knows to make your best offer. It could benefit Nix in the long run. And, having gambled on the low ball offer and lost, New Orleans front office is trying to save face by claiming they weren't done negotiating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 apparently the saints wanted Lynch and would have given up atleast a 3rd rounder apparently some people believe everything they hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I call absolute bull **** on Glazer.... I could not agree more. When trades are being discussed, it is up to the team that wants the player to make an offer. If the Saints wanted to offer a third, they would have and Buffalo would have taken it. Glazer is full of crap. And that's why Curt Menafee is still Curt Menafee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS 56 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I call absolute bull **** on Glazer.... I totally agree with this one. All they had to do is pick up the phone. I say its fiction. If its not then heads should roll. Unfortunately Glazer is known for his off the cuff facts and BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRT88 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 here was a concept...how about not trade the beast and using the #9 pick on a guy we needed. or trying to trade the pick...Denver had little trouble finding a partner with the #11 pick. nope we need to draft a running back to replace the running back who replaced back the running we drafted when we had Travis Henry. TD great pick with MaGahee, because all this mess started way back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkc Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is just the Saints covering their asses . If they wanted Lynch al lthey had to do was put up a good offer. It is not like it was a sectret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is just the Saints covering their asses . If they wanted Lynch al lthey had to do was put up a good offer. It is not like it was a sectret they TOLD nix they would beat any other team's offer. that means they put up the BEST offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Saints put up 36 points yesterday, easily enough to win. Instead of trading for Marshawn, they should have traded for some run D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nostradamus Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not exactly correct. Buddy was not actively shopping Lynch as hard as many thought he should or might have. Lynch's Availability It's early, but after one year of Buddy as GM, there are serious questions about his ability to handle being a NFL GM. Not shopping Lynch is consistent with him running to the mic on draft day to announce his picks as soon as we were on the clock, and him stating he was sleeping for the start of free agency. Sometimes, it seems like he's treating the job like a senior citizen just having some fun at a part time gig after he's already retired. I don't mean that as a shot at his age, merely his work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 In the spirit of DC Tom, you're a !@#$ing moron. Great idea, blow things up year after year and expect the Bills to make the Super Bowl every time they do so. Life must be quite easy for you believing everything you hear. But anyways, continue with you're trolling. In the spirit of DC Tom, the word is "your". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This story = history, revisionist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This front office has been far from perfect, and has already made some questionable calls, but I'll just say this... If the Saints wanted Lynch, and it was widely known that the Bills were shopping him, then why didn't they call the Bills with an offer? Just sayin'. Yeah, I am thinking this is "after the fact" grumbling by the Saints...I am sure if they would have stuffed Lynch for 25 yards on 15 carries they wouldn't have said anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Everyone in the world knew that Marshawn was on the trading block. As others have said, all the Saints had to do is call. It would not surprise me if Greggo is the source for this. Glazer presumably is just reporting what he was told. Yet, there is no getting around the fact that all the Saints had to do is call. Everyone on this board and in the NFL knew that the Bills were looking to trade Marshawn. Maybe Glazer's story should have been why didn't the Saints call the Bills. If they had traded for him, he would not have had that run against them. P.S. Just for context, I am one of those people who thought that, if the Bills were going to trade Marshawn, they should have traded him for more than they did. Edited January 10, 2011 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearwater cadet Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 After the Fact Bull Sh#t, glazer needed a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I call absolute bull **** on Glazer.... Glazer is the best information man in the biz. Glaser is a jerk and is wrong as much as he's right. No he's not. He's actually always right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts