Would you trade Lynch for Boldin?

[Lv-Bills]

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...

Very lame. It just shows, at the very least, they relied on the pass as much as the run. Oh, so there CAN be a passing game in Buffalo huh? Wow, and so many act like they never knew this.

[Anzaloha]

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.

NO kidding THE pass is just as important. Tt was evenly balanced and thats the point. You were the one stating that you only run the ball because the receivers suck. Thats not true. Good teams are evenly balanced which both you and alpo dawg don't seem to understand. If you doubt that Im telling the truth, look it up yourself clown.

[Alphadawg7]

NO kidding THE pass is just as important. Tt was evenly balanced and thats the point. You were the one stating that you only run the ball because the receivers suck. Thats not true. Good teams are evenly balanced which both you and alpo dawg don't seem to understand. If you doubt that Im telling the truth, look it up yourself clown.

 

All I said was that your post about Bills running 52% of time when they had K-Gun offense and Thurman was lame because it had little to do with this topic...

 

I dont care if you run 70% or 30%...its not indication of effectiveness...percentages have nothing to do with success is my only point, and running 52% of the time is low to begin with...

 

You also have a much higher yards per attempt in the passing game than the run game, so even if you run more doesnt mean it is your bread and butter either...

[Alphadawg7]

By the way, to be succesfu in the NFLl you need the threat of the other...you cant pass consistently (generally) with no threat of the run, and you usually cant run consistently without much threat from Passing game...how often you run or pass has little to do with that...

 

Case in point is the Eagles. They pass more than they run (rare but true), yet teams still fear Westbrook in the running game and have to respect it because of how explosive he is. So even though they run less than 50% of the time, teams still have to respect the run game as if they ran more because on any given play he can burn you. In fact, most teams key on him to beat the Eagles even though they pass more than they throw.

 

Again, pass/run ratios dont tell the whole story of what goes on in a game...

 

By the way...when was the last time you saw a team go to the running game during the two minute drill or late in a game while they are down? Never...

 

It's hard to win in this league if you can not pass the ball because that means you struggle to win games you fall behind in or that are high scoring. To be able to rely on the running game as your primary offense only and still consistently win, you need a DOMINANT defense as the score needs to stay low as these teams cant play from behind.

 

Case in point...NY Giants...after they lost Plax they lost four of five games and were "one and done" in playoffs. They no longer had the passing threat as Eli and passing game struggled and teams keyed on stopping the run game

[Bill from NYC]

So, does that mean you think Evans, Reed/Johnson, and Lynch is a better lineup than Boldin, Evans, and Jackson?

 

We don't play in Arizona. This team has played well while deep at running back, ala Thurman/Davis.

The K-Gun notwithstanding, it is more important for a cold weather team to have a solid running game and stop the run than it is for teams that play in the tropics.

[lets_go_bills]

Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock.

 

Interesting question though.

 

If you stayed with the same position and asked Evans for Boldin, then I'd say Q for sure. Love Lee and nothing against him, but I love Q more and I honestly think he's the best WR in the league.

[Alphadawg7]

Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock.

 

Interesting question though.

 

If you stayed with the same position and asked Evans for Boldin, then I'd say Q for sure. Love Lee and nothing against him, but I love Q more and I honestly think he's the best WR in the league.

 

 

The problem I have with your post on this is that you act like trading Lynch would leave us with no running game. I agree full heartedly with how important a running game is...however, trading Lynch does not take away our running game.

 

Name one thing that Lynch is superior to Jackson at...just one...you can't because there is no area of Lynch's game that is superior to Jackson. Sure, Lynch probably runs harder, but its not by much as Jackson is almsot as tough. In fact, Jackson is actually more explosive than Lynch, and quite honestly, hits the hole a LOT better than Lynch. Jackson also is a better reciever to this point as Lynch tends to drop too many balls.

 

So, I say again, trading Lynch for Boldin will not result in a loss of a running game in Buffalo, but will result in a superior passing game to what we have now and likely IMPROVES the running game because you MUST respect Boldin at all times and teams MUST also still cover Lee and that translates to more running lanes for Jackson.

 

If Oman was our only other back who is unproven, I would agree to not trade him. But with a stud like Jackson who is a starting caliber RB, we can take a chance on moving Lynch to get back ELITE talent at a position we need it and that is so HARD to fill...RB's are the easiest skill position to replace anyway...

[BuffOrange]

I like Lynch and lol @ anybody that wouldn't do this.

 

Elite WR >>> Good RB.

[Fan in San Diego]

I'd trade Oman Xavier for Boldin.

[Bufcomments]

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.

Good thought BUT..........

 

Boldin is 29 and has had injury issues during his career.

Plus you would have to draft Lynch replacement

and Jackson himself is over 26

 

I like the thought but I would get TJ Housmandsadah from Cinny if you want an all Pro with little locker room problems and keep Lynch

 

I would trade Roscoe Parish and a draft pick for TJ.

[Anzaloha]

All I said was that your post about Bills running 52% of time when they had K-Gun offense and Thurman was lame because it had little to do with this topic...

 

I dont care if you run 70% or 30%...its not indication of effectiveness...percentages have nothing to do with success is my only point, and running 52% of the time is low to begin with...

 

You also have a much higher yards per attempt in the passing game than the run game, so even if you run more doesnt mean it is your bread and butter either...

 

wait...its lame because it had little to do with the topic?

who brought it up?

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.

[Kingfish]

Yes.

[billsfreak]

No way in Hell! A diva who has health problems for a young stud RB? If they ever made that move, drug tests should be given to all concerned.

[Beerball]

Love Q but, hell no. RB is way more important than WR. All you have to do is hand the RB the ball. WRs are useless unless you can get them the football. I believe in run-first offences. You run to set up the pass, you run to wear down defenses, you run to control the clock.

The Bills did win the time of possession battle this year. Are you celebrating?

[BillsFan74]

That is a tough question my answer is maybe. First I feel if the Bills are going to win a Super Bowl they need to be a run first team to set up play action and they need a top 5 defense. I say that based on weather conditions late in the year in Buffalo. I know NE is pass first and it works for them but they have Brady we have Edwards big difference. So based on that formula you might think no, but RB's usually have a 5 year window before injuries and hits slow them down and a good O-line can make an avg back look very good. WR's like Bolden are hard to find and he should be productive for another 6 - 8 years. So I think I would make that trade to balance the offense and find another back to play with Fred Jackson.

[300yrds]

that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more.

 

oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city.

 

boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn.

[EndZoneCrew]

heck yes!

[MRW]

that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more.

 

oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city.

 

boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn.

Again, I don't get this. You're saying the coaching staff sucks, so don't improve the talent level on offense. And Trent won't throw the ball, so don't improve the receivers. That makes no sense to me.

[Alphadawg7]

wait...its lame because it had little to do with the topic?

who brought it up?

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 are quoting the wrong guy...I never said that...the other guy you were arguing with said that, not me. I did not bring this up...

[Alphadawg7]

that would be great. lets get rid of the best player on the team for a wr. that way we can not throw the ball down field some more to somebody else making more money than they deserve. if we are lucky we win a few games, then we call our games even closer to the chest. we can rely on the running back we just traded to take most of our passes out of the backfield, and our wr can run even shorter routes. making boldin only more necassary. oh wait the best part of this hole plan will be when trent goes down for 4-6 games and we dont have a good back up behind him, so we can not get boldin the ball even more.

 

oh yeah and there wont be any problems with him here either because he already said he does not want to play in a cold weather city.

 

boldin would be a supreme addition to this offense, but not under this coaching staff/organization, and most definitely not at the cost of marshawn.

 

FYI...if Boldin was on this team with Lynch, Boldin would still be the best player on this team. Boldin is ELITE at his position, a position we need help at that is very hard to find ELITE talent at. Lynch is a stud, dont get me wrong, but if both were on the same team Boldin would be the best player on that team.

 

Not to mention, Jackson is pretty good himself and would replace Lynch nicely...you act like trading Lynch means we have no one to run the ball when in fact we probably run the ball even BETTER with Jackson and Boldin because the passing game will open up the running game. Not to mention, Jackson is a bigger threat as a reciever too....

[lets_go_bills]

The problem I have with your post on this is that you act like trading Lynch would leave us with no running game. I agree full heartedly with how important a running game is...however, trading Lynch does not take away our running game.

 

Name one thing that Lynch is superior to Jackson at...just one...you can't because there is no area of Lynch's game that is superior to Jackson. Sure, Lynch probably runs harder, but its not by much as Jackson is almsot as tough. In fact, Jackson is actually more explosive than Lynch, and quite honestly, hits the hole a LOT better than Lynch. Jackson also is a better reciever to this point as Lynch tends to drop too many balls.

 

So, I say again, trading Lynch for Boldin will not result in a loss of a running game in Buffalo, but will result in a superior passing game to what we have now and likely IMPROVES the running game because you MUST respect Boldin at all times and teams MUST also still cover Lee and that translates to more running lanes for Jackson.

 

If Oman was our only other back who is unproven, I would agree to not trade him. But with a stud like Jackson who is a starting caliber RB, we can take a chance on moving Lynch to get back ELITE talent at a position we need it and that is so HARD to fill...RB's are the easiest skill position to replace anyway...

 

Lynch is 22, Jackson is 27. Lynch IS the better RB and that's why he starts, Jackson spells him. They are a great one two punch.

 

You're a fool if you believe we'd be fine with just Jackson. It would destroy our ground attack. Your trade scenario is unrealistic and makes no sense.

 

And as I stated, what good is a strong stable of WRs when we don't have a QB who can consistently get them the ball? None.

 

I think it's funny that just because you have a keyboard and access to the internet, you think you can be a GM. A RB for a WR, Lynch for Boldin ridiculous.

[KRT88]

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.

 

 

ah hello, he wants a big new contract...we're gonna pay him and Evans big deals at WR. there's only one ball. I'd rather have a 1-2 punch at RB with Lynch and Jackson. We do need to find another WR but he's not the guy!

[Alphadawg7]

ah hello, he wants a big new contract...we're gonna pay him and Evans big deals at WR. there's only one ball. I'd rather have a 1-2 punch at RB with Lynch and Jackson. We do need to find another WR but he's not the guy!

 

we are way under the cap, we can afford his salary...

[Thoner7]

I can name a lot of things Lynch is better at than Jackson.

 

Power, size, Leg Drive, Short Yardage runs, top end speed, more elusive, lateral movement/quickness, never tackled by arm tackles, never tackled by one defender, making people miss in the open field, and hitting Canadian women with Porsches

 

Maybe the Cards share your opinion about Jackson and we can trade him for Boldin...

[Alphadawg7]

Lynch is 22, Jackson is 27. Lynch IS the better RB and that's why he starts, Jackson spells him. They are a great one two punch.

 

You're a fool if you believe we'd be fine with just Jackson. It would destroy our ground attack. Your trade scenario is unrealistic and makes no sense.

 

And as I stated, what good is a strong stable of WRs when we don't have a QB who can consistently get them the ball? None.

 

I think it's funny that just because you have a keyboard and access to the internet, you think you can be a GM. A RB for a WR, Lynch for Boldin ridiculous.

 

So your answer to the question "Name one thing Lynch is superior to Jackson in?" is age? Really? First off, by the time Jackson's age gets to a point that he will decline, our window of opportunity for this team as we know would have passed anyway. In todays NFL, a teams window is a mere few years because of free agency. We can get 3 or 4 years out of Jackson atleast, and given the light work load to this point, 4 years is more probable. So who cares about the age difference if we can field a team that allows us to win now.

 

There is nothing that Lynch is superior to Jackson at...nothing. Sure, you say he may be a little better at this or that, but the drop off is small in those areas and to counter it Jackson is better than Lynch in some areas too...like hitting the hole and catching passes out of the backfield.

 

To even further negate your case, Jackson performed great when filling in for Lynch, so on what grounds do you say Jackson wouldnt be succesful as our full time RB?

 

More so than that, RB's are a DIME A DOZEN in the NFL...heck, even Cedrick Benson had a good season in Cincy playing on a horrid team with a O Line worse than ours, including 3 100 yard games despite joining the team late in the season. It is the easiest position to replace and easiest position for Rookies to excel at...

 

WR's not so much...therefore an ELITE WR is more valuable than a PRETTY GOOD RB.

[Tonawanda Troy]

No Way! You can never have enough quality RB's!

[Alphadawg7]

Maybe the Cards share your opinion about Jackson and we can trade him for Boldin...

 

Because Jackson has had less game time, his value isnt going to be as high as Lynch's...so just Jackson would net an Elite player like Boldin...maybe a combo of Jackson and decent draft pick...

 

To prove how much MORE valuable a WR is than a RB, last year TWO #1 draft picks were offered for that head case Ocho Cinco...Dallas gave up a ton of draft picks for Roy Williams, and neither is as good as Boldin. If we put Lynch on the market for draft picks, we would be likely be looking at getting a 2nd round pick for him in terms of his market value and would be lucky to get a 1st round pick. Not because Lynch isnt any good, but he hasnt been Elite and the RB trade market is a tougher market.

 

When S. Alexander was in his prime and Edge was in his prime still in Indy all in the same offseason, both teams tried to trade the players because of contract reasons and neither team could get any real offers, even from teams who needed RB's. No one offered even more than a 3rd round pick...and why is that, because RB's are the easiest to replace and nobody wants to give up a lot for them, yet top WR's are netting a ton in trade value (recently Moss was an exception because it was believed he had lost a step and his passion, so NE fleeced Oakland for him, but when he was traded to Oakland from Minn, Minn got quite a bit for him).

[Thoner7]

Because Jackson has had less game time, his value isnt going to be as high as Lynch's...so just Jackson would net an Elite player like Boldin...maybe a combo of Jackson and decent draft pick...

 

To prove how much MORE valuable a WR is than a RB, last year TWO #1 draft picks were offered for that head case Ocho Cinco...Dallas gave up a ton of draft picks for Roy Williams, and neither is as good as Boldin. If we put Lynch on the market for draft picks, we would be likely be looking at getting a 2nd round pick for him in terms of his market value and would be lucky to get a 1st round pick. Not because Lynch isnt any good, but he hasnt been Elite and the RB trade market is a tougher market.

 

When S. Alexander was in his prime and Edge was in his prime still in Indy all in the same offseason, both teams tried to trade the players because of contract reasons and neither team could get any real offers, even from teams who needed RB's. No one offered even more than a 3rd round pick...and why is that, because RB's are the easiest to replace and nobody wants to give up a lot for them, yet top WR's are netting a ton in trade value (recently Moss was an exception because it was believed he had lost a step and his passion, so NE fleeced Oakland for him, but when he was traded to Oakland from Minn, Minn got quite a bit for him).

 

Im not argueing the point that WR are more valuable than RB, Im not sure anyone is debatign that (they are). You are spot on in saying that a Boldin is more useful than a Lynch because his position is much harder to dominate, and RBs are a dime a dozen, any rookie can fill in. However your argument about how Jackson is better than Lynch is like a blind guy shooting a cannon... completely off the mark.

[lets_go_bills]

So your answer to the question "Name one thing Lynch is superior to Jackson in?" is age? Really? First off, by the time Jackson's age gets to a point that he will decline, our window of opportunity for this team as we know would have passed anyway. In todays NFL, a teams window is a mere few years because of free agency. We can get 3 or 4 years out of Jackson atleast, and given the light work load to this point, 4 years is more probable. So who cares about the age difference if we can field a team that allows us to win now.

 

There is nothing that Lynch is superior to Jackson at...nothing. Sure, you say he may be a little better at this or that, but the drop off is small in those areas and to counter it Jackson is better than Lynch in some areas too...like hitting the hole and catching passes out of the backfield.

 

To even further negate your case, Jackson performed great when filling in for Lynch, so on what grounds do you say Jackson wouldnt be succesful as our full time RB?

 

More so than that, RB's are a DIME A DOZEN in the NFL...heck, even Cedrick Benson had a good season in Cincy playing on a horrid team with a O Line worse than ours, including 3 100 yard games despite joining the team late in the season. It is the easiest position to replace and easiest position for Rookies to excel at...

 

WR's not so much...therefore an ELITE WR is more valuable than a PRETTY GOOD RB.

 

I disagree. The age thing is a huge deal and you know it. Don't misunderstand me, Jackson is a great runner, but he's excelled only in relief of Lynch. These two guys make each other better, pure and simple. You bust that up and our offense gets a lot worse, even with Boldin.

 

They run different and this keeps teams off balance. I must say again that having two legit RBs is the norm in the NFL, and is what you need to succeed. Peterson/Taylor, Williams/Stewart, Johnson/White, Jacobs/Ward, Lynch/Jackson.

 

Jackson did great when he came in and I said that all along, read my post. Lynch and Jackson are an awesome combo and both are great RBs. My point all along has been how insane your post is, lol.

 

Keep in mind, I think Anquan Boldin is the best WR in the NFL and love him, he's a beast. But a great RB for a great WR makes no sense.

 

And no one is denying how it is easier to learn RB than WR in the NFL neither.

 

You don't exile RBs for WRs, EVER.

[Alphadawg7]

Keep in mind, I think Anquan Boldin is the best WR in the NFL and love him, he's a beast. But a great RB for a great WR makes no sense.

 

And no one is denying how it is easier to learn RB than WR in the NFL neither.

 

You don't exile RBs for WRs, EVER.

 

 

I dont understand this statement...you say WR is harder to learn and excel at, making an ELITE WR more valuable...then you say RB is easier to learn...after that, you say you dont trade RB's for WR's ever...that makes no sense. So you dont trade a common commodity for a rare more valuable commodity?

 

That is why WR's are going for #1 picks and some change, even 2 #1's for Ocho was offered last year and they said NO!

 

Plus in relation to your post and some others...I didnt say Jackson is better than Lynch...I really like Lynch. I said the drop off is not as drastic as some posters are making it out to be. Jackson runs real hard too. There are some things that Lynch does better, but he is not superior to Jackson. On the flip side, Jackson does some things better too, and some of those are real important to a RB like how he hits the hole a lot better than lynch (who tends to dance too much at the line) and he is more effective in the passing game. We can add a backup through FA and the draft...our run game would be fine.

 

So, yes, Lynch is better, however, the dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is far less than the massive upgrade we get at WR which is a way harder position to fill. Not to mention, the passing game will open up the running game, so that will make Jackson even more effective.

 

Now do I think this trade happens, no...but its been fun talking about it and debating it...nice to see a thread stay mostly on the topic and about football regardless of the opinnion rather than gibberish insults and bickering...espcially for 6 pages now...

[lets_go_bills]

I dont understand this statement...you say WR is harder to learn and excel at, making an ELITE WR more valuable...then you say RB is easier to learn...after that, you say you dont trade RB's for WR's ever...that makes no sense. So you dont trade a common commodity for a rare more valuable commodity?

 

That is why WR's are going for #1 picks and some change, even 2 #1's for Ocho was offered last year and they said NO!

 

Plus in relation to your post and some others...I didnt say Jackson is better than Lynch...I really like Lynch. I said the drop off is not as drastic as some posters are making it out to be. Jackson runs real hard too. There are some things that Lynch does better, but he is not superior to Jackson. On the flip side, Jackson does some things better too, and some of those are real important to a RB like how he hits the hole a lot better than lynch (who tends to dance too much at the line) and he is more effective in the passing game. We can add a backup through FA and the draft...our run game would be fine.

 

So, yes, Lynch is better, however, the dropoff from Lynch to Jackson is far less than the massive upgrade we get at WR which is a way harder position to fill. Not to mention, the passing game will open up the running game, so that will make Jackson even more effective.

 

Now do I think this trade happens, no...but its been fun talking about it and debating it...nice to see a thread stay mostly on the topic and about football regardless of the opinnion rather than gibberish insults and bickering...espcially for 6 pages now...

 

Our opinions differ, and it obviously won't change. What I'm saying is Jackson and Omon cannot get it done and our run game would be bad, allowing defense t key in on the WRs. We need both Lynch and Jackosn. I'm not denying Boldin's presence wouldn't bolster our offense, but the pros/cons of the trade of Lynch for Boldin favour Lynch in my honest opinion.

 

I value RBs much higher than WRs. Pure and simple.

 

So to answer your original thread question, "Would you trade Lynch for Boldin?" In a word: No.

[bobobonators]

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

Six pages are given to a trade that wouldn't even happen in a video game, let alone in real life.

 

And no, I would not do this trade.

[Alphadawg7]

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

Six pages are given to a trade that wouldn't even happen in a video game, let alone in real life.

 

And no, I would not do this trade.

 

lmao...no kidding...im as surprised as you and I started this thread. More surprising was how the discussion remained mostly on the debateable aspects of the thread instead of just being pages of gibberish insults...even when there were disagreeing points...rare on this board...

[Bufcomments]

If Jackson was 23 or 24 this trade might work . I love Boldin but giving up Lynch would not be a wise move

 

Lynch at this point of his career has more upside than Boldin.

Boldin production will drop off in a year or 2 while Lynch production will go up behind a better center and guards

Lynch behind the right line is a potential 1500 yd back.

 

no way you give him up

 

Beast Mode BABY over B word Mode (Boldin)

[Anzaloha]

Our opinions differ, and it obviously won't change. What I'm saying is Jackson and Omon cannot get it done and our run game would be bad, allowing defense t key in on the WRs. We need both Lynch and Jackosn. I'm not denying Boldin's presence wouldn't bolster our offense, but the pros/cons of the trade of Lynch for Boldin favour Lynch in my honest opinion.

 

I value RBs much higher than WRs. Pure and simple.

 

So to answer your original thread question, "Would you trade Lynch for Boldin?" In a word: No.

I agree with you.

Alpo=dog just wants to make himself sound like he is the gm and knows what he is talking about, which he doesn't.

Let him have his dream as Fantasy Football GM.

[Beerball]

lmao...no kidding...im as surprised as you and I started this thread. More surprising was how the discussion remained mostly on the debateable aspects of the thread instead of just being pages of gibberish insults...even when there were disagreeing points...rare on this board...

oh fug off you girly man.

[bobobonators]

lmao...no kidding...im as surprised as you and I started this thread. More surprising was how the discussion remained mostly on the debateable aspects of the thread instead of just being pages of gibberish insults...even when there were disagreeing points...rare on this board...

 

ya, insults tend to be unwarranted..not that anyone should really take them personally here anyway.

[billybob]

Sure I'd make that trade right now- you could always over pay Brandon Jacobs and have your tandem back add Darren Sproles and you'd have a three headed monster.