Would you trade Lynch for Boldin?

[bobobonators]

Boldin tremendously upgrades our WR spot...The dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is minor...so we take a minor (and even thats debateable) hit at RB and MASSIVELY upgrade WR which is a much harder position to fill in the first place...

 

Wow dude. I really can't agree with you on anything. The dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is minor? Fine then, just send arizona Jackson instead. He's apparently THAT good.

[Anzaloha]

Sorry man, I hate this logic. What happens if Payton Manning goes down in Week 2? Should INDY be trying to trade with NE to get Cassel or Brady as insurance? You cant pass up a chance to get an ELITE every down player at a skill position like WR just to have insurance at an easily filled position like RB...

 

One, RB is the easiest position to replace...look around the NFL, they constantly find producers in late rounds or even undrafted at RB...heck, look at Jackson in Buffalo. Two, Oman I think can be a capable backup who never got to show what he can do. Three, even if Oman isnt, we can find another backup in the draft or FA market that could fill in nicely if that was case.

 

It would much easier to find a competent backup also becasue our Passing game now would command much more respect which in turns opens up the ground game.

 

Boldin averages 3 missed games a year. Do you really think RW will rip up his contract and give him a new one and have your two WR's make that kind of money on a team that needs to be able to run the ball in Buffalo to be successful? please.

[thebandit27]

I KNOW this is just speculating and is unlikely to happen, but what else do we have to do right now but speculate and wonder about possibilities right, even unlikely ones...lol

 

What if we offer AZ Lynch for Boldin in trade this offseason?

 

Given Boldins conract situation, the money they have in Fitz, and the emergance of Breston, the Cards may look to trade Boldin. Plus, Boldin has stated he would not sign again in AZ as he has felt lied to. Don't know if he still feels the same way now, but that was earlier this year and not that long ago.

 

AZ has a glaring hole at RB going into next year with Hightower having the worst YPC in the league and not looking like an everydown back and Edge on his last legs and likely gone next year.

 

We need a Boldin type WR badly and have 2 stud RB's...so, would it make sense to offer AZ Lynch for Boldin? I think Lynch is great, but we also have Jackson who I think is capable of being a really good everydown back too.

 

What line up would look better...Evans, Boldin, Jackson...or Evans, Reed/Johnson, Lynch?

 

Its a win win...AZ gets a proven young stud RB, we get a proven stud WR in his prime...fills huge needs with both teams and neither team loses too much given they have capable replacements for the departed players...We can handle Boldins contract demands too given how far under the cap we likely are.

 

Hang on, I've got an even better idea: instead of trying to find a way to get rid of good players, why don't the Bills KEEP THE GOOD PLAYERS THEY HAVE AND GET A REAL QUARTERBACK.

 

Everything else will fall into place if the guy behind center can play. And by play, I mean play well against good teams; not have slightly-above-average games against the worst teams in football (Edwards) or look like a spastic fool most of the time (Losman).

 

Alright, cue the idiosyncratic posters that will tell me how bad the rest of the team is and that Edwards is amazing.

[bobobonators]

Bingo. LMAO. Gotta love the what if X player gets hurt stuff. Hell, what if Evans gets hurt in the current offense. I'd be hard pressed to think we could actually complete more than 5 passes per game to our WR's.

 

With Boldin, he would have 5 catches automatic.

 

you two live in a fantasy world. I really can't take it. Are you two the same person? Because your mentality is strangely similar. Talk about delusions of grandeur..

[Lv-Bills]

The passing game would demand more respect? Ya, and the running game would demand much LESS respect. The problem with this ENTIRE thread is that you're automatically assuming that the addition of Boldin will make Edwards better. What if Edwards/and the Bills playcalling make Boldin worse? Boldin is great but he can't pass himself the ball.

 

I think the fundamental disagreement you and I have is that I feel that our main problem last year, and the year before has NOT been our WR's, but instead it's clearly been our QB's and playcalling. Whereas you feel that it's simply our WR's that are the problem. That way, under your logic, improve the WR and everything is better. Well, I disagree fundamentally with your logic. Sure, we could use an improvement at WR...but we don't necessarily need Boldin to improve, and this point is stressed even more by the fact that we would have to give up our heart and soul of the offense , in lynch, to get Boldin.

You are missing the point. BOLDIN IS A STUD player. He's a playmaker. He's a gamebreaker. Period. It's not totally about improving the WR's. He'd improve our WR's to the point where it would create tremendous pressure on defenses to defend us. Amani Toomer would also improve our WR corps. However, he would not improve us to the point where it would make us explosive. Big difference.

 

When you add in Fred Jackson, and his body of work over the last two years, you start to think that maybe a deal like this could work. Then, you look around the league, and you see that RB's are the most easily replaced position in the NFL, and you really start to warm up to the idea.

 

Marshawn is a fantastic player, and would be a great fit in Arizona. Boldin is a stud and would be a great fit in Buffalo. Both teams have sufficient help in the areas they would be losing talent, while SIGNIFICANTLY upgrading the position they would be acquiring.

 

I've gotta say, this makes way too much sense to actually happen. You usually see some dumb things proposed about trades, but this one has legs.

 

I gotta give it to AD on this one. Deifinately worth the discussion.

[Lv-Bills]

you two live in a fantasy world. I really can't take it. Are you two the same person? Because your mentality is strangely similar. Talk about delusions of grandeur..

Then you obviously don't watch football if you don't think Boldin could get 5 catches a game in ANY offense. Happen to see Boldin's double digit catch games this season?

 

Better yet, see.....Johnson, Calvin in Detroit. See his year, with maybe the worst Qb play in NFL history. Those are what studs do for your team.

 

Boldin is a stud.

[MRW]

Again, this kind of logic revolves around one thing: the ability of our QB to get the ball into their hands.

 

I could name you 3-4 games last season where we could've had God at WR, Moses at TE, and Jesus Christ in the backfield, and Trent still wouldn't have found them open in coverage.

 

Maybe trent improves this season (i hope), but maybe he won't. NOw, imagine if Trent doesn't improve much at all, and now we're down Lynch as well. Boldin's addition will be meaningless and in fact, turn out to be detrimental.

Here's the thing though. If Edwards is as bad as you fear the Bills are screwed either way. That's not a reason to hold off on stocking the cupboard for when they get the right guy in. And as much as I like Josh Reed as a player, Evans/Reed is nowhere close to a potential Boldin/Evans combo in terms of setting up a QB for success.

 

Holding off on upgrading offensive weapons because you don't think Edwards will take advantage of them doesn't make sense. Let's get the players to improve the offense and see what Edwards can do. If he doesn't improve, move on.

[Magox]

Hang on, I've got an even better idea: instead of trying to find a way to get rid of good players, why don't the Bills KEEP THE GOOD PLAYERS THEY HAVE AND GET A REAL QUARTERBACK.

 

Everything else will fall into place if the guy behind center can play. And by play, I mean play well against good teams; not have slightly-above-average games against the worst teams in football (Edwards) or look like a spastic fool most of the time (Losman).

 

Alright, cue the idiosyncratic posters that will tell me how bad the rest of the team is and that Edwards is amazing.

I agree with the idea of not trading our good players, but totally disagree with your perception of Trent Edwards. He is a keeper and is gonna be a really good one for us for years to come . 'patience young grasshopper'

[bobobonators]

You are missing the point. BOLDIN IS A STUD player. He's a playmaker. He's a gamebreaker. Period. It's not totally about improving the WR's. He'd improve our WR's to the point where it would create tremendous pressure on defenses to defend us. Amani Toomer would also improve our WR corps. However, he would not improve us to the point where it would make us explosive. Big difference.

 

When you add in Fred Jackson, and his body of work over the last two years, you start to think that maybe a deal like this could work. Then, you look around the league, and you see that RB's are the most easily replaced position in the NFL, and you really start to warm up to the idea.

 

Marshawn is a fantastic player, and would be a great fit in Arizona. Boldin is a stud and would be a great fit in Buffalo. Both teams have sufficient help in the areas they would be losing talent, while SIGNIFICANTLY upgrading the position they would be acquiring.

 

I've gotta say, this makes way too much sense to actually happen. You usually see some dumb things proposed about trades, but this one has legs.

 

I gotta give it to AD on this one. Deifinately worth the discussion.

 

LOL. Apparently this only makes THAT MUCH SENSE to the two of you. Because to others here, it isn't that clear-cut as you make it out to be.

 

I'm sorry...I just don't agree with you. I simply think you're giving too much credit to Boldin's ability to affect a game (for our team at least). Put Boldin in New England, and I agree. Put Boldin in Indy, and I agree. Put Boldin in Pitt or on the Giants and I agree. Put Boldin on the Bills, who play in cold, windy, snowy/wet weather, with a still green/very mediocre QB so far, while hampering the Bills running attack, and no, I don't agree.

[Lv-Bills]

The dropoff is minor?????

 

How did you come to this conclusion? I would love to have to Boldin, but not at the expense of Lynch.

 

I can see it now, The Bills QB happens to not throw to Boldin enough (in his view) he starts complaining and running his mouth, then everyone here on this message board will be suggesting that we trade Boldin for someone else.

 

Lynch has shown heart, dedication, production. He is a keeper, we Build around him not look to shop him.

OK great.....you know what.......we need someone on this team who actually wants the damn ball. I'm so sick of the goody two shoes crap that goes on. Seriously, that's what you get when have playmakers.

 

Reed bitched. Thomas bitched. Kelly told everyone to shut up, and the Bills dominated games. You know why, cuz those guys wanted the ball. Boldin's timing was awful on Sunday, but jesus, isn't anyone else sick of seeing the Bills without some friggin attitude on the field.

 

Boldin opposite of Lee Evans would be sick. SICK. Marshawn with Lee and Josh and the boys would continue to be anemic. I want to actually win football games again. An offense with Boldin and Lee would be sick. Especially if have a guy waiting in the wings, who can play........Fred Jackson. Add a pass catching TE in FA'cy and that offense would be devastating.

[bobobonators]

Here's the thing though. If Edwards is as bad as you fear the Bills are screwed either way. That's not a reason to hold off on stocking the cupboard for when they get the right guy in. And as much as I like Josh Reed as a player, Evans/Reed is nowhere close to a potential Boldin/Evans combo in terms of setting up a QB for success.

 

Holding off on upgrading offensive weapons because you don't think Edwards will take advantage of them doesn't make sense. Let's get the players to improve the offense and see what Edwards can do. If he doesn't improve, move on.

 

Listen, I don't know how good Edwards will be. He might be great, he might not. But as of RIGHT NOW, he's very, very mediocre.

 

And again, what's with the assumption that removing Lynch by adding Boldin would actually constitute "upgrading" our offense? That's faulty logic, and that's the fundamental premise of this entire thread.

[Lv-Bills]

Boldin averages 3 missed games a year. Do you really think RW will rip up his contract and give him a new one and have your two WR's make that kind of money on a team that needs to be able to run the ball in Buffalo to be successful? please.

Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's.

 

You have to run the ball in Buffalo when your WR's suck. Moulds had a good opposite one year, and Peerless turned out the be a fluke.

 

Funny that passing the ball never seemed so damn scary until Jim Kelly and the boys were all washed up.

[Lv-Bills]

LOL. Apparently this only makes THAT MUCH SENSE to the two of you. Because to others here, it isn't that clear-cut as you make it out to be.

 

I'm sorry...I just don't agree with you. I simply think you're giving too much credit to Boldin's ability to affect a game (for our team at least). Put Boldin in New England, and I agree. Put Boldin in Indy, and I agree. Put Boldin in Pitt or on the Giants and I agree. Put Boldin on the Bills, who play in cold, windy, snowy/wet weather, with a still green/very mediocre QB so far, while hampering the Bills running attack, and no, I don't agree.

No, you actually need to re-read, it actually makes sense to a few more. And at least while we've xcited examples of our positions succeeding in multiple places, you seem to only hang your hat on how bad Trent is at QB.....which is grossly exaggerated by you.

[Alphadawg7]

The dropoff is minor?????

 

How did you come to this conclusion? I would love to have to Boldin, but not at the expense of Lynch.

 

I can see it now, The Bills QB happens to not throw to Boldin enough (in his view) he starts complaining and running his mouth, then everyone here on this message board will be suggesting that we trade Boldin for someone else.

 

Lynch has shown heart, dedication, production. He is a keeper, we Build around him not look to shop him.

 

 

Yes the dropoff is minor...how did I come to this conclusion? Simple, our running game didnt miss a beat with Jackson filling in for Lynch and has proven to also be a more reliable recieving option and is about the same on picking up the blitz. During the season many were even debating who the better back was...

 

However, outside of Buffalo, Lynch has more trade value so I say trade him to AZ for Boldin because Jackson is a starting caliber RB in this league, runs just as hard, is more explosive and has better hands to this point. I see the drop off is minor...not saying Lynch isnt a stud, because I think he is, but I also feel Jackson can be as productive, maybe even more when you factor in the fact he has better hands to this point.

 

Let me ask you this...if Jackson started all 16 games for us this year do you think he would have amassed at least 1200 yards and 10 TD's...case closed on the dropoff issue in my opinnion...

[Lv-Bills]

Yes the dropoff is minor...how did I come to this conclusion? Simple, our running game didnt miss a beat with Jackson filling in for Lynch and has proven to also be a more reliable recieving option and is about the same on picking up the blitz. During the season many were even debating who the better back was...

 

However, outside of Buffalo, Lynch has more trade value so I say trade him to AZ for Boldin because Jackson is a starting caliber RB in this league, runs just as hard, is more explosive and has better hands to this point. I see the drop off is minor...not saying Lynch isnt a stud, because I think he is, but I also feel Jackson can be as productive, maybe even more when you factor in the fact he has better hands to this point.

 

Let me ask you this...if Jackson started all 16 games for us this year do you think he would have amassed at least 1200 yards and 10 TD's...case closed on the dropoff issue in my opinnion...

No one will admit this. You know why? Because Marshawn is the only player that we have that comes close to being a top notched player in this league. So, despite having a capable, PROVEN #2 take over a position that is the most easily replaced in the NFL with a stud WR, they won't do it.

 

This team is so void on superstar talent, that everyone thinks Lynch is not expendable just because he is our only "name" player.

 

This logic is the same reason we are the Buffalo Bills (the new replacement for the old Arizona Cardinals). This type of stuff, is Bill Polian type of Buffalo Bills guts.

 

Love Marshawn.......but in this one......he would lose, IMO. Easily.

[bobobonators]

Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's.

 

You have to run the ball in Buffalo when your WR's suck. Moulds had a good opposite one year, and Peerless turned out the be a fluke.

 

Funny that passing the ball never seemed so damn scary until Jim Kelly and the boys were all washed up.

 

No, we need to run the ball because we haven't had a capable passing QB here since Bledsoe, and before that, Kelly.

 

Ask anyone that knows one iona of football, and they'll clearly tell you that 9 times out of 10, it's the QB that makes the WR, and not the WR that makes the QB.

 

Give me any of the QB's that made the playoffs this year, put him on this team for this past season, and we probably make the playoffs, or at least finish 10-6 with these "mediocre" set of WRs.

 

But I guess that's my opinion, like you have yours.

[bobobonators]

No, you actually need to re-read, it actually makes sense to a few more. And at least while we've xcited examples of our positions succeeding in multiple places, you seem to only hang your hat on how bad Trent is at QB.....which is grossly exaggerated by you.

 

I'm sorry, what examples?

[MRW]

Listen, I don't know how good Edwards will be. He might be great, he might not. But as of RIGHT NOW, he's very, very mediocre.

 

And again, what's with the assumption that removing Lynch by adding Boldin would actually constitute "upgrading" our offense? That's faulty logic, and that's the fundamental premise of this entire thread.

I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea.

 

My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate.

 

I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have.

 

And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Lv-Bills]

No, we need to run the ball because we haven't had a capable passing QB here since Bledsoe, and before that, Kelly.

 

Ask anyone that knows one iona of football, and they'll clearly tell you that 9 times out of 10, it's the QB that makes the WR, and not the WR that makes the QB.

 

Give me any of the QB's that made the playoffs this year, put him on this team for this past season, and we probably make the playoffs, or at least finish 10-6 with these "mediocre" set of WRs.

 

But I guess that's my opinion, like you have yours.

Let's look at the top 5 WR's in football, and then let's rush you to the doctor to get your head examined.

 

If you think Warner made Boldin and Fitzgerald, you must be crazy.

If you think any of the Detroit QB's this season made Calvin Johnson, you must be crazy.

If you think Matt Schaub or Sage Rosenfels made Andre Johnson, you must be crazy.

If you think the only reason Steve Smith is Steve Smith because of Jake Delhomme, well......well.....you know.

 

Please!

[bobobonators]

I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea.

 

My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate.

 

I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have.

 

And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

Well, I don't disagree with the people who say that it's reasonable. I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side.

 

Again, I respect those who disagree with me.

 

I just don't see a point in arguing any further b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen.

[Alphadawg7]

I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea.

 

My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate.

 

I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have.

 

And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

I am not very high on Edwards myself, but adding Boldin would be a tailor fit to Trents passing style...short over the middle passes, except now we have a guy that thrives once the ball is in his hands and finds a way to get open.

 

So, Trent would be better with him here in my opinnion and hopefully will start to show some consistency and expedite his development. Worst case scenario, Trent doesnt develop, in which case we were screwed either way, but it at least it would expedite his departure in that case because if he cant develop with both Boldin and Evans to throw to then he is never going to develop.

[Lv-Bills]

I'm not 100% sold on the trade idea, and there's no way in hell it will happen, but it is an intriguing idea.

 

My point was not "Edwards is great", it was just that using "Edwards is not great" as a reason to argue that Boldin would not be a good pickup does not make sense. Edwards may be good, he may be bad, he may be mediocre, but right now the receiving corps is inadequate.

 

I think a trade of Lynch for Boldin is absolutely, 100%, an upgrade for the offense, if Jackson stays healthy. But that's a big question mark. It would leave us thin at running back. But then again, as it stands the Bills are under-talented and thin at receiver. So a trade would at least leave the team with a better starting lineup than they currently have.

 

And yeah, that's an assumption, but it's an assumption based on seeing how Boldin and Jackson have performed in their time in the league. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

There isn't a person in his right mind today.......that if they were offered ownership of the Bills from Ralph himself.....if their team scored a TD vs Pittsburgh, and they only had one drive to do it, and they had to take one of two lineups to do it, would not pick this lineup:

 

WR Boldin

WR Evans

WR Reed

RB Jackson

TE Free Agent

QB Edwards

 

over this one.....

 

WR Evans

WR Reed

WR Parrish / Hardy

RB Lynch

TE Free Agent

QB Edwards

 

Its not even close. The ONLY place I might miss lineup #2 is at the 3 yard line on first and goal. That's where Lynch is valuable, comparibly, in these two lineups. However, we've also forgot what's it's like to throw a ball up for grabs and have a stud go up and get it. That's what Boldin gives you there.

 

Ummmmm, yeah,.......I take lineup one....as I don't even think lineup two would make it past the fifty.

[MRW]

I just don't see a point in arguing any further b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen.

Well, what else is there to talk about? Welcome to January as a Buffalo Bills fan.

[Lv-Bills]

Well, I don't disagree with the people who say that it's reasonable. I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side.

 

Again, I respect those who disagree with me.

 

I just don't see a point b/c this trade is clearly not going to happen.

I feel ya on that one! And I fixed the comment for ya.

 

[MRW]

I am not very high on Edwards myself, but adding Boldin would be a tailor fit to Trents passing style...short over the middle passes, except now we have a guy that thrives once the ball is in his hands and finds a way to get open.

 

So, Trent would be better with him here in my opinnion and hopefully will start to show some consistency and expedite his development. Worst case scenario, Trent doesnt develop, in which case we were screwed either way, but it at least it would expedite his departure in that case because if he cant develop with both Boldin and Evans to throw to then he is never going to develop.

Absolutely zero question in my mind that the Bills need to bring in another legitimate receiving threat, regardless of anyone's opinion of Trent. If they don't it will be criminal. I think all options need to be on the table, whether it's finding a receiver in the draft who can step in and contribute, or a high-profile trade.

[Alphadawg7]

I think it would be reasonable in terms of talent for talent. I'm just not sure on how much of an upgrade it would be to our offense. I'm not arguing tha Boldin isn't a great player..all I'm saying is that I think his production would be greatly diminished on our team, with our QB, and with our suspect playcalling..and that's without even touching on the loss of lynch on the offensive side.

 

Who's stat line is this? 101 rec, 1377 yards, 8 TD's for a season that included a 217 yard performance in the first game of that season? Anquan Boldin and it was his ROOKIE year. Do you know who is quarterback, or should I say quarterbackS were that year? Washed up Jeff Blake and rookie Josh McCown rotating in and out of roster, and that was BEFORE he had Fitz to take pressure off him, NO running game, NO offensive line, and NO tight end...

 

So, why would you say his production would just drop off here? Where is the logic?

 

In fact, until Warner he has never had a good QB throwing him the ball, still has never had a running game, and yet ALWAYS been top of the class in production, even when Fitz is out and they key on him...

[thebandit27]

I agree with the idea of not trading our good players, but totally disagree with your perception of Trent Edwards. He is a keeper and is gonna be a really good one for us for years to come . 'patience young grasshopper'

 

I must respectfully ask what you've seen Edwards do against even a mediocre defense that makes you believe this? His best game of his career came against San Diego this year before they fired Ted Cottrell. The rest of his success both this past season and in 2007 came against defenses in the bottom quarter of the league.

[bobobonators]

Let's look at the top 5 WR's in football, and then let's rush you to the doctor to get your head examined.

 

If you think Warner made Boldin and Fitzgerald, you must be crazy.

If you think any of the Detroit QB's this season made Calvin Johnson, you must be crazy.

If you think Matt Schaub or Sage Rosenfels made Andre Johnson, you must be crazy.

If you think the only reason Steve Smith is Steve Smith because of Jake Delhomme, well......well.....you know.

 

Please!

 

Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. What did Leinert do with those receivers? The same thing Edwards would probably - nothing.

 

Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10

 

Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB.

[Alphadawg7]

Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in.

 

Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10

 

Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB.

 

Boldin has produced at Elite levels when on the field since his first game and season where he was only rookie to make Pro Bowl and Blake/McCown were throwing him balls. That was 2 years before they got Fitz.

 

Boldin has produced NO MATTER who was the QB in AZ, and they have all pretty much been bad until Warner took over a season and a half ago...

[Lv-Bills]

Who's stat line is this? 101 rec, 1377 yards, 8 TD's for a season that included a 217 yard performance in the first game of that season? Anquan Boldin and it was his ROOKIE year. Do you know who is quarterback, or should I say quarterbackS were that year? Washed up Jeff Blake and rookie Josh McCown rotating in and out of roster, and that was BEFORE he had Fitz to take pressure off him, NO running game, NO offensive line, and NO tight end...

 

So, why would you say his production would just drop off here? Where is the logic?

 

In fact, until Warner he has never had a good QB throwing him the ball, still has never had a running game, and yet ALWAYS been top of the class in production, even when Fitz is out and they key on him...

And I hate to defend Boldin's behavior, but the only reason Boldin is disgruntled is because he was a stud before Fitz got there. A mighty stud. And they chose to re-up Fitz over or before Boldin. Seems legit to me to be angered by that somewhat. That being said, to do what he did Sunday, was just stupid. The timing was awful.

 

Make no mistake about this though......If the Cards lose Boldin (which they will), and while Warner gets one year older.......they will NOT be the same team next year. Fitz is probably the best WR in the league. But, Boldin is easily top 5 and maybe top three. The Cards will struggle. They are the Cardinals because they have Fitzy AND Boldin. Without Boldin, and unless they change their philosophy to a more power running attack first, pass second, they Cards will not be the same next year.

 

Write it down. They are who people think they are......Fitzy, Boldin and an aging QB just barely capable and smart enough to get them the ball.........next year though.........does Warner hit the wall, and struggle when he has only one automatic ooption in Fitzy?

 

Boldin is the real deal.

[bobobonators]

Boldin has produced at Elite levels when on the field since his first game and season where he was only rookie to make Pro Bowl and Blake/McCown were throwing him balls. That was 2 years before they got Fitz.

 

Boldin has produced NO MATTER who was the QB in AZ, and they have all pretty much been bad until Warner took over a season and a half ago...

 

In his second season, how many TD's did Boldin have in 10 games?

 

Again, his career year came when Warner arrived.

 

Steve Smith's career year came when Jake arrived.

 

Fitzgerald doubled his production when Warner arrived.

 

Listen, I must go. I did enjoy debating with you. Nothing against your ideas, I just disagree!!!

 

Hopefully we can continue this later.

[Lv-Bills]

Warner is arguably in the Hall of Fame. Boldin had a career year when Warner came in. Fitzgerald DOUBLED his numbers the season Warner came in. What did Leinert do with those receivers? The same thing Edwards would probably - nothing.

 

Calvin Johnson, well he had this year. I wouldn't say he's "made" anything yet.. Did Evans make JP that one year? Lets say that's the 1 of 10

 

Steve Smith had his career year when Delhomme took charge..and whether you like Jim or not, several of his first seasons in Carolina, he was a premier QB.

Ummm yeah ok. How do think the Hall of Fame QB would have looked anywhere else this year than in Arizona? I love Warner, but he's in about the only spot in the NFL this year where he could succeed. And that's because Fitz and Boldin are there.

 

Calvin Johnson is an elite WR. Already. Done deal. That's known by anyone who watches the NFL from scouts to fans to GM's to well......canadian fans know this. What he did this year with the crap they had on offense is beyond disgusting.

 

You failed to answer Andre Johnson.

 

And yeah, Steve Smith was good with or without Delhomme. About the only guy Smith was hampered with was Vinny Testerverde, the year Delhomme went down. Even at that, he caught almost all of their passes, although it was far less. I also think Smith inujured his hammy that year if I'm not mistaken.

 

If you want to tell me Manning made Reggie Wayne. OK, I can live with that. If you want to tell me Brady revived life into Moss and Welker.....OK....I'll buy it I guess.

 

Don't tell me that the likes of any Detroit QB, Delhomme, Schaub, Rosenfels, or Warner made any of these guys. I don't think many would buy that.

 

Smith - Best player on his team.

Johnson - Best player on his team

Fitz - Best player on his team. Boldin - 2nd best player on his team.

Johnson - Best player on his team

 

On the other hand......

 

Manning - Best player on his team

Brady - Best player on his team

[Lv-Bills]

In his second season, how many TD's did Boldin have in 10 games?

 

Again, his career year came when Warner arrived.

 

Steve Smith's career year came when Jake arrived.

 

Fitzgerald doubled his production when Warner arrived.

 

Listen, I must go. I did enjoy debating with you. Nothing against your ideas, I just disagree!!!

 

Hopefully we can continue this later.

You did state that Warner played in, not even start in, 10 games in 2005 right? Oh, and he played in 6 games, not starts, in 2006 right?

 

I'm just checking?

 

You also wanted to state that Anquan had 101 RECEPTIONS in 2003 right? Ummm, Warner wasn't there in 2003. Or, did you conviently forget?

[Alphadawg7]

Boldins career and who the QB was...rookie year is 2003 where he was only rookie to make probowl and set rookie recieving records in his first game that still stand today.

 

2003 Jeff Blake & Josh McCown - 16g, 101rec, 1377yds, 8tds

2004 Josh McCown & little bit of Shaun King - 10g (was hurt), 56rec, 623yds, 1td

2005 Josh McCOwn & Kurt Warner - 14g, 102rec, 1402 yards, 7td

2006 Matt Leinart & Kurt Warner - 16g, 83rec, 1203yds, 4td's

2007 Kurt Warner & Matt Leinart - 12g, 71rec, 853yds, 9td's

2008 Kurt Warner - 12g, 89rec, 1038, 11td.

 

He produced every year at very high levels while on the field despite never having a consistent starting QB until this year. Every year, there were 2 QB's seeing high number of snaps through the season until Warner finally took the job over for good last year when Matt was hurt.

 

Jeff Blake? Josh McCown? Shaun King? Matt Leinart? I mean come on, he still produced no matter who was in there! How can anyone say he won't be as affective with Trent throwing him the ball? Oh, and his first year playing with Fitz he still had 102 catches and over 1400 yards in ONLY 14 games despite a QB carousel between Warner and McCown...

[Lv-Bills]

Boldins career and who the QB was...rookie year is 2003 where he was only rookie to make probowl and set rookie recieving records in his first game that still stand today.

 

2003 Jeff Blake & Josh McCown - 16g, 101rec, 1377yds, 8tds

2004 Josh McCown & little bit of Shaun King - 10g (was hurt), 56rec, 623yds, 1td

2005 Josh McCOwn & Kurt Warner - 14g, 102rec, 1402 yards, 7td

2006 Matt Leinart & Kurt Warner - 16g, 83rec, 1203yds, 4td's

2007 Kurt Warner & Matt Leinart - 12g, 71rec, 853yds, 9td's

2008 Kurt Warner - 12g, 89rec, 1038, 11td.

 

He produced every year at very high levels while on the field despite never having a consistent starting QB until this year. Every year, there were 2 QB's seeing high number of snaps through the season until Warner finally took the job over for good last year when Matt was hurt.

 

Jeff Blake? Josh McCown? Shaun King? Matt Leinart? I mean come on, he still produced no matter who was in there! How can anyone say he won't be as affective with Trent throwing him the ball? Oh, and his first year playing with Fitz he still had 102 catches and over 1400 yards in ONLY 14 games despite a QB carousel between Warner and McCown...

And in 2005-06, Warner started in less than half of the teams games over the two year span. He didn't seem to want to include that.

[Alphadawg7]

And in 2005-06, Warner started in less than half of the teams games over the two year span. He didn't seem to want to include that.

 

Well thats why in those years I didnt list Warner first as he wasnt the designated starter...but yes, he started less than 50% of those games in those 2 years which furthers my point that Boldin produced no matter who was throwing him the ball and even when a bunch of journeyman bumbs were passing to him...

 

He would be a stud here...

[Billsrhody]

The only problem with the Lynch Jackson combo is that only one of them is on the field at a time. Both are great but with a guy like Boldin you get a player who will be on the field for 90% of the snaps (assuming he's healthy). We have two great running backs and I love Lynch but if you can get a guy like Boldin and keep Jackson it means more weapons on the field at once.

 

On another note, as great as Lynch is, he comes down to being a grinder type running back. He doesn't have a great YPC and the majority of his runs go for 3 yards up the middle. We didn't get to see to much of Oman this year but he is built in the same way and could be that pounding back. You never know he could compliment Jackson perfectly

[Anzaloha]

Yeah, cuz Jim Kelly's teams never threw the ball, ever. We need to run the ball, because we haven't had a decent WRing corps since the 90's.

 

You have to run the ball in Buffalo when your WR's suck. Moulds had a good opposite one year, and Peerless turned out the be a fluke.

 

Funny that passing the ball never seemed so damn scary until Jim Kelly and the boys were all washed up.

 

I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman!

[Alphadawg7]

I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman!

 

Its rare that a team doesnt run more than 50% of their plays, even on great passing teams...running 52% is still a modestly low running percentage...oh, and they had hall of famer Thurman Thomas to hand the ball to, so why on earth would they not balance out the game, so this is a lame point...

[Lv-Bills]

I guess you missed the pt. as you always do. By the way, the Bills SB teams of 1990-94 ran the ball more than they passed it, even with Kelly, Reed, Beebe, Lofton, etc. They ran over 52% of the time. Look it up Thurman!

Whoa......52% to 48%. So, it was a balanced attack, and that's assuming that you are telling the truth. I remember Andre and Lofton running into the endzone many times, along with Thurman out of the backfield. So, in all, yeah, the Bills threw the ball a ton. Especially considering that the Bills were killing the clock many times because they were totally dogging the opponent.

 

That attack was evenly balanced, which means the PASS was just as important to them as the RUN.

 

Look that up Thurman.