Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I don't have the time to read 22 pages, but has anyone discussed why a good organization - KC - may have cut him? I have heard that he has a chronic bum ankle, and that the ankle problem may never go away.$10m cap hit that they can spread out. They could have designated him post June 1 but I'm sure that they wanted to see how things played out. They may try to sign Boldin for example and save a couple million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I don't have the time to read 22 pages, but has anyone discussed why a good organization - KC - may have cut him? I have heard that he has a chronic bum ankle, and that the ankle problem may never go away. Also a huge cap hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 would love to have Maclin, just please don't become Percy Harvin part 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billieve420 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) No...whatcha smoking? Maclin has more talent in his pinky toe than Barnidge has in his entire body. So if you owned an NBA basketball team and had Lebron James and Shawn Bradley as your center with no other backup at the Center position. And you had the chance to sign Kobe Bryant or Robin Lopez in free agency, you'd pick Robin Lopez over Kobe because you had Lebron and there's no depth at the Center position? Obviously Maclin isn't as dominant as Kobe was in his respective sport but I hope you get the idea and realize how ridiculous you sound I am looking towards the future. Guys like Maclin and Barnidge don't fit in those plans as they are short term gaps to fill positions while we accumulate younger players who can contribute. If Sammy was healthy and durable. I rather have Barnidge on a 1 yr deal vs Maclin for 2-3 yrs. However, with the questions surrounding Sammy who will be gone after this year if he fails to stay on the field. Maclin can fill that spot temporarily and reason why i lean that way. Both players have had injury concerns so it makes sense to me to double down at that position. However, this team has a long way to go. Breaking the playoff streak is important to some people but for me building a super bowl roster that can contend for years is where I would want the Bills focused on. Brady can't play forever but for now he is there and I don't see anyone knocking them off the AFC east barring injuries and even then Patriots have shown they are resilient. Edited June 5, 2017 by billieve420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I don't have the time to read 22 pages, but has anyone discussed why a good organization - KC - may have cut him? I have heard that he has a chronic bum ankle, and that the ankle problem may never go away. Salary Cap considerations primarily in addition to the emergence of Tyreek Hill as a multidimensional threat with a much lower cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Your valuation of Sammy and his "reliability" is unfair when you don't account for Maclin's reliability due to injury. Why don't you mention that Maclin has only played in 43 of his last 64 games? They are independent events. It's not unfair. The point raised above was the value of Maclin versus Barnidge for this team. Do you disagree that Maclin has more to offer? Even if you do, do you consider that "bashing" Sammy rather than raising a valid point about availability? Maclin played 27 out of his last 32 games compared to Sammy's 21/32 in the same timespan, btw... 6 games difference in between two seasons is significant, IMO, but still irrelevant to the larger picture that we need good to great WR depth more than good to great TE depth, especially with TT's deficiencies. Anyway you slice it, Maclin makes more sense than Barnidge. Edited June 5, 2017 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 They are independent events. It's not unfair. The point raised above was the value of Maclin versus Barnidge for this team. Do you disagree that Maclin has more to offer? Even if you do, do you consider that "bashing" Sammy rather than raising a valid point about availability? Maclin played 27 out of his last 32 games compared to Sammy's 21/32 in the same timespan, btw... 6 games difference in between two seasons is significant, IMO, but still irrelevant to the larger picture that we need good to great WR depth more than good to great TE depth, especially with TT's deficiencies. Anyway you slice it, Maclin makes more sense than Barnidge. Of course they're independent events but you are the one comparing them. You brought up Sammy but are comparing him to signing a team. Which to me are not necessarily fair to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I would also say that he comes into a pretty good situation of already having Watkins and Zay Jones Maclin could work in as the 3rd wide out and OWN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Really? And if you had to choose between owning a Bugatti Veyron and a 1990 Honda Civic, what would you lean towards? I cant afford the tires for a Veyron. 42,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I would also say that he comes into a pretty good situation of already having Watkins and Zay Jones Maclin could work in as the 3rd wide out and OWN Zay will move to the slot and Maclin as the number 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Zay will move to the slot and Maclin as the number 2. Im ok with that as well Bottom line......this would not be a team biult to tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Civic hands down. Who wants to be the douchebag in a Bugatti Well the veyron is old news. The Chiron is the new cat's meow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Tank? No way. 6, 7, 8 wins? More likely. why would we be having less wins then last year with a better team? It could actually be better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 why would we be having less wins then last year with a better team? It could actually be better many around here think we are destined to that low win total as long as TT is the QB...I disagree, but thats neither here nor there in regards to Maclin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 How about the Bills getting a QB before spending money on a WR who will be past his prime in a couple years? Let's face it - the likelihood of Tyrod Taylor being a Bill after this season is very slim. The likelihood of this team being competitive in 2017 or 2018 is very slim. So why should/would they invest money in a WR? Not only invest ... but overpay? If this team was a WR away from being contenders, I'd get it. This team is A LOT more than just a WR away. I think this is a stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 why would we be having less wins then last year with a better team? It could actually be better The league has turned into a pinball machine with higher scores from the rule changes. The Bills boast a weak passing game with a QB who doesn't do anything presnap. They also have an overhauled secondary and calling it inexperienced might be considered a compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) How about the Bills getting a QB before spending money on a WR who will be past his prime in a couple years? Let's face it - the likelihood of Tyrod Taylor being a Bill after this season is very slim. The likelihood of this team being competitive in 2017 or 2018 is very slim. So why should/would they invest money in a WR? Not only invest ... but overpay? If this team was a WR away from being contenders, I'd get it. This team is A LOT more than just a WR away. I think this is a stupid idea. They are considering it because the offense has a chance to be elite. They were 7th in points through 16 weeks and could be trading Mills, Woods & Goodwin for Dawkins, Maclin and Zay Jones. That is a great exchange!! The new scheme will certainly play a role but if the Bills are a top 5 scoring offense, with the Ryan brothers away from the defense and a new kicker, we shouldn't expect regression. Edited June 5, 2017 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 They are considering it because the offense has a chance to be elite. They were 7th in points through 16 weeks and could be trading Mills, Woods & Goodwin for Dawkins, Maclin and Zay Jones. That is a great exchange!! The new scheme will certainly play a role but of the Bills are a top 5 scoring offense, with the Ryan brothers away from the defense and a new kicker, we shouldn't expect regression. Near dead last in passing. It wasn't the receivers. If the Bills sign Maclin, it's just the annual splash for ticket sales. I was hoping they'd be more fiscally responsible with the new guys in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Near dead last in passing. It wasn't the receivers. If the Bills sign Maclin, it's just the annual splash for ticket sales. I was hoping they'd be more fiscally responsible with the new guys in charge. We know that you hate Tyrod. Last in passing attempts will keep your yardage down. It doesn't change the fact that they were 7th in scoring when he played. That's not up for debate. What is up for debate (I suppose) is "which group is better (Woods, Goodwin & Mills) or (Maclin, Jones & Dawkins)?" I'm not sure that a valid argument could be made for the former but that's all that is up for debate. The offense won't get worse with better weapons. Edited June 5, 2017 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts