Gabe Northern Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I see absolutely no gain to the Bills organization addressing off the record comments relayed through a reporter. The Bills failed to hold an informal auction for his services. They look stupid and have a choice of A.) confirming that they failed to maximize value or B.) flat-out lie about activities, or C.) say something ambiguous about how they called around the league and this is what was on the table. Since none of those sound good, saying nothing is probably best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 if it is bogus the bills would have denied it Why? They have to deny every ridiculous assertion that comes before them now, or it's true? If that was the case, all they would ever do, all day long, is deny malicious rumors about the team. They don't owe it to anyone, especially people who *think* they do, to personally deliver special denials on every ridiculous report that comes out of the woodwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why? They have to deny every ridiculous assertion that comes before them now, or it's true? If that was the case, all they would ever do, all day long, is deny malicious rumors about the team. They don't owe it to anyone, especially people who *think* they do, to personally deliver special denials on every ridiculous report that comes out of the woodwork. a respected media member told us how inept buddy nix is on national television. don't you think the bills would have released a denial by now if the report was a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) The Bills failed to hold an informal auction for his services. They look stupid and have a choice of A.) confirming that they failed to maximize value or B.) flat-out lie about activities, or C.) say something ambiguous about how they called around the league and this is what was on the table. Since none of those sound good, saying nothing is probably best bet. What more, other than leasing some facility space and putting Marshawn Lynch on a literal auctioning block would the Bills have to do to let people know he was up for trade? The entire league knew it. The national media spent two weeks talking about it. There was literally no one in the entire football stratosphere who was not intimately aware of the fact that the Bills were shopping Lynch around and that they wanted a high mid-round draft pick for him. And what else, the Bills are either guilty of talking to the Saints and being told to call them back or not knowing what the Saints wanted and having no idea that they wanted Lynch? It is literally impossible for a rational person to find fault in the way the BIlls handled the situation. The only negligent team in such a situation is the Saints. a respected media member told us how inept buddy nix is on national television. don't you think the bills would have released a denial by now if the report was a lie? No, a "respected media member" (which is false, by the way), also said this season that it was profoundly disconcerting that Buddy Nix did not speak on the record about the failings of the team, and Nix didn't hold a public press conference for upwards of three weeks after this accusation when this happened. Regardless of whatever notion you have that the Buffalo Bills are interested in "appearing good in the eyes of the media", the multitude of evidence that suggest otherwise, that suggest that they don't care what the media thinks at all is staggering. I'm quite certain that if this was true (which it most likely is not), that even then, Buddy Nix would not care. He, like the rest of the Buffalo Bills organization, absolutely, positively do not care if you or Jay Glazer think he's inept. Edited January 10, 2011 by wardigital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Bill Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yeah i'm a science guy, so the simplest explanation to me is to wonder why, if the saints felt so spurned, did they wait until now to leak the story? Their timing is extremely fishy seeing how the guy they supposedly would have given anything for (yet never actually made a real offer) just steamrolled their asses out of the playoffs. Seems like sour grapes by everyone involved. +1 10 pages of this?? Really? The Saints should have won this game. Of course, they want to change the topic! There's a thousand reasons to question the Bills FO; this isn't one of them. Let's feel bad when we lose, not when the Aints lose!! :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uticaclub Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 don't know if someone said this. but is one 3rd better then a 4th & 6th. you got 2 chances to hit instead of just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joemac Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 New Orleans is saying this now after Marshawn drove a stake throught their playoff life. Yeah I am sure it is a 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWest Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) We are all hearing about Lynch's big run over the weekend. It was a pretty impressive play. He always had that ability, but face it...The guy was a doosh of monumnetal proportions. He got off on a very bad foot in Buffalo right away and continued to act like a turd the entire time he was there. The hit and run, gun and weed incident, stealng money from locals at bars, not introducing himself to Gailey, skipping OTA's etc... It just wasnt going to work and getting rid of him was the right thing to do. He doesnt fit in with what they look to be doing. He's a bruiser, but his numbers this season were pretty pedestrain 16 games, 787 yards, 6 tds....Jackson did better in 12 games than Lynch did in 16. Hope the picks we get for him turn into something worthwhile.... Edited January 10, 2011 by BuffaloWest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUTE Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I agree with you BuffaloWest. The problem is (and i am sure this is what most Bills Fans are upset about)that it was revealed yesterday that the Saints were willing to give up at least a 3rd round pick for Lynch and told the Bills to call them and of course the Bills didn't. So now the Bills will pick about 50 picks (or something like that) later than what they should have. "AND THAT IS WHY THE BILLS ARE THE BILLS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I don't put much stock in the report that the Saints said they'd have traded a 3rd round pick for Lynch. First, how do we (or the reporter) know that is true? Why would a Saints' "insider" now reveal such a thing? Would it have been a "conditional" 3rd and, if so, what were the conditions? Even if you believe that the Bills front office is totally incompetent (which I don't happen to believe), it is hard for me to imagine them deciding "Hey, let's trade Marshawn and we'll only offer him to Seattle - heck, we don't want to maximize the compensation that we might get" There is no tie that I know of to Seattle's front office - what possible motivation could the Bills' front office have had for not shopping him to all the teams? Sounds kinda suspicious to me, but I know lots of folks here want to believe stuff like this. Of course, I can't prove that this wasn't the case, it just makes no sense at all to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I agree with you BuffaloWest. The problem is (and i am sure this is what most Bills Fans are upset about)that it was revealed yesterday that the Saints were willing to give up at least a 3rd round pick for Lynch and told the Bills to call them and of course the Bills didn't. So now the Bills will pick about 50 picks (or something like that) later than what they should have. "AND THAT IS WHY THE BILLS ARE THE BILLS" you realize that is hearsay. gb apparently was interested too. under what circumstances would any franchise pass up an offer. is it possible that that is the partial story. maybe no wanted more than marshawn for the 3rd (player/pick) maybe not this years 3rd. also is it possible that lynch prefered to be closer to home in seattle rather than in no, bills did him a favor. if this is true why is it coming out in a little blub comment 11 weeks later? maybe i am wrong about all of this, but it is only speculation, just like that half-assed reporting during the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It was a nice thing to see...my favorite part was the push he gave to the DB that tried to tackle him. It was vintage Marshawn...when he really was trying to prove himself to the Bills. After that first season, he just started to lose focus. I mean, we have Fred, CJ...I don't miss Marshawn at all. He was becoming a big distraction. Hitting Canadiens...ok, that was not so bad...but leaving the scene, drinking and driving, guns in the trunk (why?)...I mean the whole "thug" image is idiocy at its most primal. Why can't a professional athlete just be clean cut, responsible, AND good? Why does idiotic behavior have to go hand-in-hand with being a good athlete? I'm happy for Marshawn, and I'm ok with what we got for him. One scene from the game that really hit home for me, was that after the TD run, one of the coaches came over and was holding Marshawn and talking to him...Marshawn was listening and really in that moment. It was nice to see. Congrats, Marshawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Greek Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Reminded me of that run he had vs the bengals his rookie season.. The Seahawks suck on par with the dick juror days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Coulda, shoulda, woulda, but didn't. Please move on. None of us can do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I don't put much stock in the report that the Saints said they'd have traded a 3rd round pick for Lynch. First, how do we (or the reporter) know that is true? Why would a Saints' "insider" now reveal such a thing? Would it have been a "conditional" 3rd and, if so, what were the conditions? Exactly. I have no idea why everyone and their mother is treating this anonymous rumor as Gospel. Besides, at the time of the trade, the difference between a Seahawk 4th and a Saint 3th was probably only about ten picks; and they got the extra 6th to make up for that. Time to move on folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreReed83 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Marshawn > Spiller. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Marshawn > Spiller. Enough said. Jackson > Lynch enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Marshawn > Spiller. Enough said. More exactly Marshawn > (Spiller minus #9 pick) We didn't just give up Lynch for Spiller. We gave up Lynch and a #9 in exchange for Spiller, a fourth and a sixth. Not a very good trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 More exactly Marshawn > (Spiller minus #9 pick) We didn't just give up Lynch for Spiller. We gave up Lynch and a #9 in exchange for Spiller, a fourth and a sixth. Not a very good trade. Not defending the Spiller pick, but who would you have taken at 9? The only logical thing seems to be the Bills identified a major need for an offensive playmaker/home run threat. What player fits that bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Not defending the Spiller pick, but who would you have taken at 9? The only logical thing seems to be the Bills identified a major need for an offensive playmaker/home run threat. What player fits that bill? Oh, I agree that Spiller was the best option if they decided we needed a playmaker/home run threat. I just think that is a backward priority; you don't draft homerun hitters when you have no pitching staff -- unless you just want to sell tickets. I would have prefered an OT (Bulaga and Safford both seem to be developing as starters) or one of the DEs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts