nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Front page story on TBD has jags issuing a statement to say that are nearing completion of a deal for TH. This is VERY good news. I can;t stand the speculation! What I think this does for the Jags is make them into a seriously competitive team. I'm glad they're not on our schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Nope. Not on the schedule - unless we meet on the way to the SB. "They" kept us out of the playoffs last year - according to many. Stepped on Johnson Coming Out of the Gate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Thanks for the link Nanker. Week 2 of the 2003 season, our last 300 yard passing game. I wonder if that is the longest streak in the league...30 games. Glad this Henry situation seems to be working its way to conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Is the deal a conditional 2nd? Straight up 3rd? Just remember, we kept RJ over Flutie....and now we will keep WM over TH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Is the deal a conditional 2nd? Straight up 3rd? Just remember, we kept RJ over Flutie....and now we will keep WM over TH. 382247[/snapback] Not sure what u mean with the RJ comment - seems irrelevant to me. The details of the deal are not mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Just remember, we kept RJ over Flutie....and now we will keep WM over TH. 382247[/snapback] So what is your point? Is there something relevant about this comment? Please expand how the situations are similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Front page story on TBD has jags issuing a statement to say that are nearing completion of a deal for TH. This is VERY good news. I can;t stand the speculation! What I think this does for the Jags is make them into a seriously competitive team. I'm glad they're not on our schedule. 382239[/snapback] This whole situation reminds of me of my fishing theory. It goes like this: Fishing is inherently an activity completely bereft of anything even resembling excitement. It only seems to be exciting. Fishing is like stepping into a sensory deprivation tank so that anything that happens, anything at all, seems exciting. Thus holding on to a string which is occasionally tugged by a mindless, mercury ridden fish seems like a trip to Vegas. The TH news is like that. The off season is a football deprivation tank into which we have all been immersed. Anything that happens, any tid bit of football news actually seems exciting in our deprived state of mind numbing football-less-ness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 This whole situation reminds of me of my fishing theory. It goes like this: Fishing is inherently an activity completely bereft of anything even resembling excitement. It only seems to be exciting. Fishing is like stepping into a sensory deprivation tank so that anything that happens, anything at all, seems exciting. Thus holding on to a string which is occasionally tugged by a mindless, mercury ridden fish seems like a trip to Vegas. The TH news is like that. The off season is a football deprivation tank into which we have all been immersed. Anything that happens, any tid bit of football news actually seems exciting in our deprived state of mind numbing football-less-ness. 382256[/snapback] My God Mickey your analogy reeks of someone who needs constant stimulation. Your comparison of "excitement" to "trip to vegas" fits in perfectly. I certainly can undersatnd what you are saying but I don't happen to agree with it. To help you understand, try replacing the word "exciting" with "enjoyable". Thus SOME people (not you evidently find fishing ENJOYABLE while others (such as yourself) find it BORING. SOMEpeople ENJOY going camping, others enjoy going to Vegas. You couldn't pay me to use my free time in a casino. You, on the other hand, apparently would have to be roped and thrown physically into a rowboat or canoe to ever get you to go out into nature. Different strokes for ...... As to the Henry news: Fine. You're bored. To the rest of us, the idea of FINALLY ending the Travis henry era in Buffalo AND getting a decent draft pick IS exciting to SOME of us. sigh Good luck in Vegas Mickey. I hope you win but , more importantly, I hope you have fun. watching the red-tailed hawks out my window (which I find exciting) RichNJoisy www.cnjbbb.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Is the deal a conditional 2nd? Straight up 3rd? Just remember, we kept RJ over Flutie....and now we will keep WM over TH. 382247[/snapback] First of all, there is no deal. If one does happen, a 4th/conditional 3rd would allow TD to save face, and would be a steal for the Bills; addition by subtraction of a dumbass, and a 4th round pick to boot. As for the RJ/Flutie comparison, are you telling us that you prefer Travis to Willis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 So what is your point? Is there something relevant about this comment? Please expand how the situations are similar. 382249[/snapback] Ahh...grasshopper you learn well. The point is that we let Flutie go (albeit via FA) to keep RJ as our starting QB. Here we are letting TH go to keep WM. Both RJ and WM played well when they replaced the starting player. I am curious to see if we made the right choice. Remeber Flutie went on to play well in SD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Ahh...grasshopper you learn well. The point is that we let Flutie go (albeit via FA) to keep RJ as our starting QB. Here we are letting TH go to keep WM. Both RJ and WM played well when they replaced the starting player. I am curious to see if we made the right choice. Remeber Flutie went on to play well in SD. 382269[/snapback] I'm sure nobody doubts that TH will play well when he moves on, but he has squealed to high heaven about backing up what the Bill regards as a higher quality RB in WM. So we need to deal him. As for the implication of WM dropping off as 'full time starter' - he basically was annointed the full time starter from week 6 last year and only improved from then on. That's 11 games of being #1 rather than stand-in #1... And to me he has proved his worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Taylor said last week that he would welcome Henry's arrival as long as Henry realizes the Jaguars "are my team.'' "I'm all for bringing him in, because that's just going to make us better,'' Taylor said. "But this is my team.'' Interestig...Henry is going to be in no different situation as Taylor is going to be on he field during camp....The only difference is going to be TH will sign an extension and get more upfront money than 1.25M.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Taylor said last week that he would welcome Henry's arrival as long as Henry realizes the Jaguars "are my team.'' "I'm all for bringing him in, because that's just going to make us better,'' Taylor said. "But this is my team.'' Interestig...Henry is going to be in no different situation as Taylor is going to be on he field during camp....The only difference is going to be TH will sign an extension and get more upfront money than 1.25M.... 382271[/snapback] There is a much larger difference than that. Travis is coming into a team that is clearly demonstrating that it wants him. The Bills made no such showing. I am all for keeping Willis over Travis, but I can see why Travis feels so unwanted in Buffalo. Not to mention, and this is important, everybody and their brother knows Taylor couldn't play an entire season even if his life depended on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm sure nobody doubts that TH will play well when he moves on, but he has squealed to high heaven about backing up what the Bill regards as a higher quality RB in WM. So we need to deal him. As for the implication of WM dropping off as 'full time starter' - he basically was annointed the full time starter from week 6 last year and only improved from then on. That's 11 games of being #1 rather than stand-in #1... And to me he has proved his worth. 382270[/snapback] The glasses my friend, the rose colored glasses! Travis is a running back who was able to compile good yardage for 2 years, while playing poorly at every other phase of his position. I predict that his career will flounder on whatever team he is traded to. Yardage notwithstanding, he is NOT a good football player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ennjay Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 About half an hour ago on Mike 'n' Mike (ESPN Radio), Chris Mortensen said a deal would be announced maybe by the end of today (Friday) or early next week. He said Tennessee looks like the favorite but TH and his agent favor Jax because the Jags would pay him more. The ESPN guys, including Mort, talked about Tennessee as "home" for TH because he went to the U of T. Apparently none of them know he's from Florida. The deal would be a third round pick either way. I'd much rather have the Tenn #3 than the Jax #3. With Travis, the Jags will be good enough to win some games even without Fred Taylor. Adding Travis to the Titans won't make them that much better, especially in that division. Even with TH the Tenn #3 in 2006 may be ten to 15 picks better than the Jax #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Ahh...grasshopper you learn well. The point is that we let Flutie go (albeit via FA) to keep RJ as our starting QB. Here we are letting TH go to keep WM. Both RJ and WM played well when they replaced the starting player. I am curious to see if we made the right choice. Remeber Flutie went on to play well in SD. 382269[/snapback] The situations are completely different. I think you are prone to using brown-colored glasses regarding everything Bills. Comparing WM to RJ is not valid. WM, even at 85% and in his first NFL action, looked like a superstar. Rob Johnson NEVER looked like a superstar. Neither did Fwootie, for that matter. In keeping RJ, we took a flyer on a guy that was young and could be worked with - supposedly. If we kept Fwootie, we would have had a guy whou could have handled the starting position for one year - two at most. By keeping WM, we get a guy who has superstar skill and has shown consistently he's a back who is at least equivalent to TH, but with far more upside. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to have the issues TH has. Also, Travis being under contract allows us to get SOMETHING for him. If we wait until next year, we get NOTHING. That's the biggest way the situations are different. I really think you might have extended this analogy a bit too much. The only comparison to the two situations you can make that would be valid are that they are all football players. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgang Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 On Mike and Mike this a.m., they were interviewing Mort and they started right off with TH. Mort believes we should know definitively about a trade either by the end of the day today or tomorrow. He also thinks that Ten. is still the front runner with Jax. playing catch up (something about how Ten. has shown Bills mgmt. more commitment in terms of the pick). But TH's agent is really working on Jax. because the agent believes there is more money there for TH. Interestingly, Mort also said that he could not understand why the Bills were criticised for holding on to TH in events leading up to the draft and insisting on a 3rd round pick. He said something like "Can you imagine what Bills fans would do to Bills mgmt. if it turns out that Willis goes down with an injury and the Bills settled for something less than a 3rd rounder?" Just passing this on.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I fully agree that if it is really "a third round pick either way," I don't see why TD would pick Jax over Tenn. That leads me to believe Mort is wrong about that part -- or at least not totally right. It may come down to who sets more obtainable conditions to turn the pick into a second rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'd much rather have the Tenn #3 than the Jax #3. With Travis, the Jags will be good enough to win some games even without Fred Taylor. Adding Travis to the Titans won't make them that much better, especially in that division. Even with TH the Tenn #3 in 2006 may be ten to 15 picks better than the Jax #3. 382284[/snapback] Agree with you on that one. Jacksonville is going to be tough this year and has a very strong possibility at the playoffs, while Tennessee is basically in a rebuilding year (although they don't see it that way). But either way it would be nice to see this saga finally over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 This is just speculation with a basis in general knowledge of the issue but without specific knowledge of this case (which is used mostly on entertainment forums like TSW, Fox News, or CNN) but it does make sense to me that the debate between the two choices (either of which, neither of which, or both ,ay not really exist) is: 1. Jax and TN have both offered a third for TH. 2. TD has countered to Jax that he can get the same pick offer from a team whose draft pick is likely to be better than Jax since Jax may make the playoff, thus if he is going to take the Jax deal they need to make it a conditional second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's amazing to me that Travis would prefer the more money scenario in Jack over the clear-starter scenario in Tenn. I guess so many of these guys talk about wanting to be "the man" on a team, or wanting to have the team be "their team," but when it comes right down to it, they just want the most money possible. And I agree...for the Bills, dealing him to Tenn would probably work out better come next years draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 First of all, there is no deal. If one does happen, a 4th/conditional 3rd would allow TD to save face, and would be a steal for the Bills; addition by subtraction of a dumbass, and a 4th round pick to boot. As for the RJ/Flutie comparison, are you telling us that you prefer Travis to Willis? 382266[/snapback] Psssssst, hey Bill, bet you a pint it is at least a #3 (possibly conditional #2). TD hasn't wavered on this one, and he won't now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ennjay Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 This is just speculation with a basis in general knowledge of the issue but without specific knowledge of this case (which is used mostly on entertainment forums like TSW, Fox News, or CNN) . . . 382299[/snapback] I agree about the "entertainment" types, especially if you're distinguishing Mort from the rest. He's one of the few reporters who, I think, really does his homework and doesn't speak up unless he has something to say. That doesn't mean he's always right, but he's always worth a listen. He said he spoke with TH's agent, which is more than the Buffalo News could say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's amazing to me that Travis would prefer the more money scenario in Jack over the clear-starter scenario in Tenn. I guess so many of these guys talk about wanting to be "the man" on a team, or wanting to have the team be "their team," but when it comes right down to it, they just want the most money possible. And I agree...for the Bills, dealing him to Tenn would probably work out better come next years draft. 382300[/snapback] It depends on what Tenn plans to do. If they want a wait and see approach, and not sign Henry to a long term deal yet, or not nearly what the Jags are offering, he would definitely want to go to the Jags. Futhermore, he wants to play. He thinks he's great. If he goes to Tenn he likely has to wait until Brown gets hurt or wears down. If he goes to the Jags he starts right away and probably thinks he's not going to give the job up (or perhaps Taylor isnt going to be back the whole season). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 The glasses my friend, the rose colored glasses! Travis is a running back who was able to compile good yardage for 2 years, while playing poorly at every other phase of his position. I predict that his career will flounder on whatever team he is traded to. Yardage notwithstanding, he is NOT a good football player. 382274[/snapback] Not rose coloured glasses. Travis has his flaws, sure, but he can go in an be a Running Back in the NFL on most teams and have success. He proved that for 2 seasons with us - and I think he has 2 more in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 Psssssst, hey Bill, bet you a pint it is at least a #3 (possibly conditional #2). TD hasn't wavered on this one, and he won't now. 382303[/snapback] And I'll buy him a pint too... Theres now way having waited this long that TD takes anything less than 3 (possibly with conditions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Don't believe any of this rubbish. We all know that TD was a moron in not dealing Henry for a 5th Rd pick and a bag of medical tape during the draft back in April and that we'll be stuck with Travis for the rest of his career... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Don't believe any of this rubbish. We all know that TD was a moron in not dealing Henry for a 5th Rd pick and a bag of medical tape during the draft back in April and that we'll be stuck with Travis for the rest of his career... 382320[/snapback] I recall a retatta-maker or two who wanted us to cut him outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 15, 2005 Author Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's amazing to me that Travis would prefer the more money scenario in Jack over the clear-starter scenario in Tenn. I guess so many of these guys talk about wanting to be "the man" on a team, or wanting to have the team be "their team," but when it comes right down to it, they just want the most money possible. And I agree...for the Bills, dealing him to Tenn would probably work out better come next years draft. 382300[/snapback] FWIW I don't necessarily agree that he'd be the clear starter in Tenn. Chris Brown has a shot to out play Travis in camp if he get's healthy in time. It would all depend on Tenn's running game on who get's the start - they being built for a slightly bigger back than Travis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I recall a retatta-maker or two who wanted us to cut him outright. 382323[/snapback] They must have been drunk on fermented pickle juice or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Ahh...grasshopper you learn well. The point is that we let Flutie go (albeit via FA) to keep RJ as our starting QB. Here we are letting TH go to keep WM. Both RJ and WM played well when they replaced the starting player. I am curious to see if we made the right choice. Remeber Flutie went on to play well in SD. 382269[/snapback] However, you do not note a significant differences between the RJ/Flutie situation and the TH/WM situation that makes these cases not comparable even though both involve keeping on player over the other. In the TH/WM case, the Bills have decided to keep WM because they view WM as almost certainly being able to do the job and TH as having some trade value that even though the Bills also judge him capable of doing the job it makes more sense to move him in a trade leaving us with a starter we have confidence in and a draft pick. In the RJ/Flutie case TD was simply trying to make the best of a bad situation. He suspected (and really knew) that neither RJ or Flutie could do the job needed at QB for the Bills (the job being punch the clock in the 2001 season because there was no way we were going to produce a winner or even a good record as we entered cap hell and also to potentially be a ood QB for the future as we exited cap hell). TD made a judgment that Flutie was not the man for the Bills is the short-term or long-term as his personality would have chafed under the 2001 loser we were certain in cap hell to have and also due to his age, he could not be counted upon to be the QB of the future. The RJ cum se/cum sa personality and need to prove himself personally regardless of the team record meant that he was a more palatable choice as the Bills simply punched the clock regarding W/L in 2001 and though he did not seem to have what it took to be our long-term choice at QB perhaps lightening would strike (or a radioactive spider would bite him or his parents would be killed in front of him and he would respond by donning a mask and playing great football) and RJ wuld work out. The two cases are similar only in that the Bills will keep one and get rid of one (for cap reasons in 2001 and in exchange for a first day draft pick in 2005) and really are not comparable as the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I agree about the "entertainment" types, especially if you're distinguishing Mort from the rest. He's one of the few reporters who, I think, really does his homework and doesn't speak up unless he has something to say. That doesn't mean he's always right, but he's always worth a listen. He said he spoke with TH's agent, which is more than the Buffalo News could say. 382312[/snapback] Peronally, I only trust Lions fans as the only credible source of information. Lions Fan Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The glasses my friend, the rose colored glasses! Travis is a running back who was able to compile good yardage for 2 years, while playing poorly at every other phase of his position. I predict that his career will flounder on whatever team he is traded to. Yardage notwithstanding, he is NOT a good football player. 382274[/snapback] I don't think the facts support the argument that he has played poorly at every other phase of his position. The context for this is an argument about what in fact are the phases of the RB position and what is the relative importance of those phases. In my mind, one can probably list a bunch of phases important to the RB position and go as far as you want but as the list gets longer they diminish in importance. My incomplete list stopping at the point where the phases are of important but small import that I can do without them if the RB cannot do them are: 1. He is a running threat. 2. He is a receiving threat. 3. He is adequate as a blocker. 4. Other issues of import which they are great if he does them but I can live with it easily if he does not (ex: Positive ST play, On-field captain, Option passing threat, Does not fumble, Good locker room guy, Etc.) Further, there are a variety of positive % of each element that can vary and a player is still a positive force overall if he has the right combination of abilities and you run the right O to make use of them. However, in a standard approach to an O I would assign the following percentages of import: 1. Running: 66%- The main jobby far of a running back is to run. It's great if my RB is a receiving threat like a Marshall Faulk or a Thurman Thomas but if he can run the ball this is why I have him in. Jerome Bettis is a wildly good example of an RB that exemplifies the point. He has generally caught less than 10 passes for several years running and historically gains 100 yards or less as a receiver each year, but who cares the Bus is a great RB. 2. Receiving 25%- Again there are some wild cases where an RB is such a good runner, i do not require him to pick up a lot of yards receiving in order to judge him good. However, for the standard NFL O and player he must show some ability to catch the ball in order to make the O work and the running game effective. Most fans might make judgments about this based on a player having a critical or few outragous drops. if it is a few this is wrong particularly if the drops are accompanied by the player having recorded a good season as a receiver. I think this is the Henry story and where some obsservers are simply in error claiming he is a dysfunctional or bad receiver. Like it or not the 43 receptions he had in 2002 and was selected to the Pro Bowl as a reserve because of his running yardage and because he caught the ball is a clear indicator that he is a receiving threat. His rookie year of 2001 where he caught less than 30 but also was not the starting RB for all the season and actually had a better YPC than his very good receiving year in 2002 ae signs his best year was consistent and not a fluke. His receiving total dropped to 28 catches in 2003 even though he rushed for 1300+ yds. but our O was so ineffectual that year, Kevin Killdrive's gamecalls were so predictable and Bledsoe is not one known for his touch on short passes that his downturn is far more likely to be caused by other factors than Henry not being able to play the receving phase of the game well enough. 3. Blocking- 5%- Again if a player is a total stiff in various regards of the game this can be a problem, but outside of badly missing a blitz pick-up as a rookie which got even Flutie sacked, Henry has been adequate at blitz pick-up in my judgment. There is not stat which exemplifies him being good or bad at this so its tough to argue beyond folks fact-free opinions (mine and others). However, it says a lot whether this is an issue which was cited a lot in the a players career by fans and pundits in terms of assessing an assessment. The fact is that Henry was revered by many Bills fans as a roolkie with promise in 2001 and as a leading player in 2002 and 2003 and the blitz pick-up complaint about his work in this facet of the game only emeged as folks were shopping for any reason to indict him. The other thing I would say generally about blocking is that though blitz pick-up is an important part of this much lesser facet of the RB game, an RB's ability to block to make the accompanying FB a threat to run can be just as important as the blitz pick-up blocking depending on the offense a team uses. The other factors are important also but a I said if a player sucks at them fine as I can find another player who is bright enough to be my on field captain even if the RB is such a dimbulb he can only run and catch or he never plays ST. I did mention one non-negative that it is of import that an RB have which is that he holds onto the ball. This factor needs to be noted for a player whose job it is to carry the ball a lot. However, this also is only a factor and even if a player sucks holding onto the ball it is not a disqualifier for me if he performs well in other parts of the game. For example, Henry racked up almost a fumble a game in 2002 and lost 8 of them to opponents (who returned them for long scores a couple of times though the result of an opponent score is more determined by how the funny shaped ball bounces after the RB makes the mistake of letting it go). Howerver, he earned a Pro Bowl appearance despite his horrendous funble record because fumbling is bad but is easily outweighed by being a running threat and receiving threat. If you think this was just an odd case that was solely Travis look at some of Tiki Barber's years until he like TH solved his fumbling problem, the bottomline for me is that the claim that he sucks at all phases of the position except for running is simply wrong and is unsupported by the stats. Further, running and getting yards running is by far the most important part of an RBs job that 1300+ yard performances in two of his four years (the other two were a promising rookie season that was good in my judgment and a lost fouth year when he gave up on his teammates (the real reason a trade is the correct thing to do) because he perceived the team gave up on him. TH is way far away from a cancer on this team because though he was clearly unhappy and not a positive in trying to reach a goal that is hard enough to reach with everyone giving 110%, he was not a cancer. I have seen cancer's and clearly during the season he was no where near being one. Even in the off-season, though TH moved his bags and said he wanted to go, this situation could be repaired if he and the Bills were forced to do that (and he would have had no real choice but to suck it up an make good if he remained a Bill and he wanted to get a big payday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadian bill Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Chris Brown can't stay healthy so he has good chances to start on either team. Brown gets injured all last year and doesn't know how to play threw pain. Taking Travis for a 3rd round pick is such a steal for whatever team decides to do so. He is defiantly worth at least a second I can't believe coaches and personnel have let it get this far. What an amazing duo Mcgahee and Travis would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's amazing to me that Travis would prefer the more money scenario in Jack over the clear-starter scenario in Tenn. 382300[/snapback] I read it just the opposite. Chris Brown (when healthy) is just as good as TH. Why would Henry want to go there. In Jax he'd be the man, as Taylor's probably going to end up as a spot duty guy from here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadian bill Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Travis is way to good of a running back to get rid of. This is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I recall a retatta-maker or two who wanted us to cut him outright. 382323[/snapback] I recall a couple of people thinking we should offer a Henry and a draft pick in order to get someone to take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I think the Jax situation is the best one by far for Travis. It's his home state, the Jags are a contender, Taylor likely won't be back soon, if ever, and they're offering him more allegedly. Tennessee would be the best for the Bills, since if it's a 3rd rounder either way, the pick would be higher, they're not a contender and thus not a threat to the Bills, and potentially Travis could help them beat the Jags. I'm just hoping it gets done either way, but I'd like it to be the Jags for Travis' sake (I don't really care if he makes them a contender since I want the Bills to do it on their own), but then the pick would have to be a conditional 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 "I'm all for bringing him in, because that's just going to make us better,'' Taylor said. "But this is my team.''.... 382271[/snapback] Taylor's fooling himself if he actually thinks that. His days are numbered and everyone (probably even him) knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts