Bills made Pisa Tinoisamoa a contract offer before he left

[Pete]

He's not visiting the eagles.

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dneagle...sit_Eagles.html

Posted by inquisitor 02:20 PM, 05/20/2009

Who can say his name anyway?

[Thurman#1]

This guy is doing what most free agents who visit the Bills do, looking for another option.

 

 

 

Possible, I guess, but I think it's more likely that he either wasn't thrilled with the offer or just wants to make sure that he gets a good look at all his options.

 

What this tells us is that the Bills didn't bowl him over.

[BillsFan74]

You would rather have Rhodes over Fred Taylor???? I have heard it all now. That could be the most pathetic/homer thing I have heard on this board.

 

Look Fred Taylor did not want to be the 3rd RB on the depth chart so he signed in NE. Rhodes is a good fit here, he is not going to carry a team with 30 carries per game.

 

As far a Pisa is concerned if he signs great, but he is not a difference maker. i would love to have Brooks here.

[Red]

I've never seen more UFA's go to Buffalo and leave unsigned. Certainly, management doesn't want to overpay for a player, but if a released and undersized T2 OLB leaves town without a deal, where else is he going to sign?

 

Perhaps it's PT's way of saying thanks but no thanks. We'll never know, but if a player receives an invite to OBD, it must mean they and the team are interested in each other. Already, Fred Taylor, Kevin Jones, Freddie Keiaho, Cato June, and now Tinoisamoa have left without signing and receiving offers. That's not comforting, in that all would have had defined roles, either as starters or primary backups at positions of weakness.

 

Well, I don't really think that Fred Taylor can be used anymore.

 

The Bills signed Rhodes and he should perform admirably. Taylor was released by Jacksonville, and wanted to go to (win) a Super Bowl, so he chose the Patriots over the Bills. He's on the wrong side of 30, and for a running back, that is serious.

 

Rhodes is solid and certainly not lesser of a talent.

 

I have to be honest, none of those linebackers really stick out in my mind as being dominant. As many have posted here, the type of defense that the Bills and a small handful of teams use in the NFL really limits where these guys can go. You can't fault Pisa for wanting to leverage his value (as all we here about is how the NFL is a business- alright already, we get it), but the market is just not that great for an undersized LB that only fits a style of defense what, 3 or 4 teams use?

 

I think that the Bills can afford to be (and are) in the driver's seat on this one.

 

I can see Pisa signing with the Bills and helping; but if not, no spilled milk.

[Red]

Possible, I guess, but I think it's more likely that he either wasn't thrilled with the offer or just wants to make sure that he gets a good look at all his options.

 

What this tells us is that the Bills didn't bowl him over.

 

This quote and all the others really don't grasp the business of the NFL.

 

You don't overpay for a player, and get locked into a contract for years down the road (crippling your team's future ability to find and retain talent) as did John Butler prior to heading to San Diego.

 

I would argue that the Bills probably offered a reasonable contract based on Pisa's age, history of injury, position, stats, team need, etc and based it upon the current market for this type of LB.

 

With only a small number of teams running the 'Tampa-2' or an off-shoot, this sets the market and I believe really serves the teams more than the players.

 

Pisa is talented, but how many teams are really bidding for his services? Buffalo and Chicago?

 

No, I think that the Bills should be credited for an amazing offseason and truly searching to improve all areas on the field.

 

Just because Pisa left without a deal, should not be reflected as poor handling by the Bills, rather it should be viewed as shrewd business sense and responsible management.

 

Now, if we could just find a way to reduce Kelsay's contract....

[Magox]

He's not visiting the eagles.

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dneagle...sit_Eagles.html

Linebacker not visiting Eagles, sources say Free-agent linebacker Pisa Tinoisamoa is not scheduled to visit the Eagles next week, according to team sources, despite an ESPN.com report indicating a visit has been arranged.

 

Tinoisamoa, 27, was cut two weeks ago by the St. Louis Rams. He visited with the Buffalo Bills last week and is in Chicago today meeting with the Bears, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. In 2003, Tinoisamoa was the first rookie to lead the Rams franchise in tackles, playing under current Bears head coach Lovie Smith and defensive coordinator Bob Babich.

 

Tinoisamoa has spent most of his career on the weak side, although he has played on the strong side, and led the Rams in tackles in four of his six seasons.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder who wrote that report?

[afcfan1]

Great analysis on why Taylor is better than Rhodes.

 

I'm shocked you didn't suggest that both Galloway and Greg Lewis were better individual signings than TO.

 

Taylor is not going to be asked to carry the ball more than 10-12 times a game. I would guess neither is Rhodes. To say you would rather have Rhodes over Tayor in that role is insanity, and I bet if you search the internet outside of Buffalo, you won't find a single respected analyst that puts the Rhodes signing ahead of Taylor. As a matter of fact, your own front office tried to sign Taylor before Rhodes. Rhodes was a consolation prize because you didn't get Taylor. And if he is such a good backup, why would the Colts take a RB in the 1st round when they already have a starter and they could resign Rhodes cheap. There is a reason he is now bouncing around the league.

 

By the way Taylor had more yards than Rhodes last year, despite playing in fewer games, having less carries and playing in one of the worst passing offenses in the league. At no point in their careers has Rhodes been a better player than Taylor, including now.

[MattM]

Taylor is not going to be asked to carry the ball more than 10-12 times a game. I would guess neither is Rhodes. To say you would rather have Rhodes over Tayor in that role is insanity, and I bet if you search the internet outside of Buffalo, you won't find a single respected analyst that puts the Rhodes signing ahead of Taylor. As a matter of fact, your own front office tried to sign Taylor before Rhodes. Rhodes was a consolation prize because you didn't get Taylor. And if he is such a good backup, why would the Colts take a RB in the 1st round when they already have a starter and they could resign Rhodes cheap. There is a reason he is now bouncing around the league.

 

By the way Taylor had more yards than Rhodes last year, despite playing in fewer games, having less carries and playing in one of the worst passing offenses in the league. At no point in their careers has Rhodes been a better player than Taylor, including now.

 

What he was referencing was all-purpose yards, in that Rhodes can catch out of the back field, which has never been Taylor's strong suit. He is correct about that, as Rhodes had about 190 more all purpose yards and an absolute ton more TD's (like 9 to 1 IIRC). Rhodes didn't play in one game last year (the last)--Taylor in the last 3. Rhodes is also 3 years younger--Taylor is a one-year fix at age 33. I won't argue that Taylor career-wise is the better back--that's obvious. However, for the roles being asked by Buffalo--2nd-3rd back, with potential use on 3rd down--I'd honestly take Rhodes over Taylor at this point in their careers, but that's just me.....

[afcfan1]

What he was referencing was all-purpose yards, in that Rhodes can catch out of the back field, which has never been Taylor's strong suit. He is correct about that, as Rhodes had about 190 more all purpose yards and an absolute ton more TD's (like 9 to 1 IIRC). Rhodes didn't play in one game last year (the last)--Taylor in the last 3. Rhodes is also 3 years younger--Taylor is a one-year fix at age 33. I won't argue that Taylor career-wise is the better back--that's obvious. However, for the roles being asked by Buffalo--2nd-3rd back, with potential use on 3rd down--I'd honestly take Rhodes over Taylor at this point in their careers, but that's just me.....

 

 

Are you saying Rhodes is more than a 1 yr fix. Like I said before, your own front office would have preferred to get Taylor. Rhodes was what was left over. Over the last 4 yrs Fred Taylor has averaged almost 4.7 yds/carry while Mr Rhodes is about 3.5. As for third down, he was sent packing by the Colts because he isn't willing to stand in and block, which is something third down backs should be able to do. This is another Fred Taylor strength. The only people who would take a guy like Rhodes over Fred Taylor, right now in their careers, are in this forum. It's no wonder why this team is tied for the longest playoff drought in the NFL. Rhodes over Taylor, you've got to be kidding.

[Fingon]

Are you saying Rhodes is more than a 1 yr fix. Like I said before, your own front office would have preferred to get Taylor. Rhodes was what was left over. Over the last 4 yrs Fred Taylor has averaged almost 4.7 yds/carry while Mr Rhodes is about 3.5. As for third down, he was sent packing by the Colts because he isn't willing to stand in and block, which is something third down backs should be able to do. This is another Fred Taylor strength. The only people who would take a guy like Rhodes over Fred Taylor, right now in their careers, are in this forum. It's no wonder why this team is tied for the longest playoff drought in the NFL. Rhodes over Taylor, you've got to be kidding.

Yes, we haven't made the playoffs in 10 years because of our selections of 3rd string RBs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Taylor didn't want to come here because he would have had a 0% chance of starting.

[rstencel]

What he was referencing was all-purpose yards, in that Rhodes can catch out of the back field, which has never been Taylor's strong suit. He is correct about that, as Rhodes had about 190 more all purpose yards and an absolute ton more TD's (like 9 to 1 IIRC). Rhodes didn't play in one game last year (the last)--Taylor in the last 3. Rhodes is also 3 years younger--Taylor is a one-year fix at age 33. I won't argue that Taylor career-wise is the better back--that's obvious. However, for the roles being asked by Buffalo--2nd-3rd back, with potential use on 3rd down--I'd honestly take Rhodes over Taylor at this point in their careers, but that's just me.....

 

I would like to have had Taylor for the games that Lynch misses, but for the rest of the season, would prefer Rhodes for the reasons you point out.

 

Although we have a pretty good backup already who can catch and is exciting in the open field when he does in Jackson. He doesn't run routes as precise as Rhodes does. I think that is why he doesn't see as many balls come his way as one would think with a QB like TE. With Rhodes as 3rd down back, I think the passing numbers to the backs goes way up, since the confidence TE will have on knowing the RB will be were he should on the play will be higher.

 

So while we may have been better off in the short term with Taylor, I think Rhodes brings more to the Bills over the course of the season.

[John from Riverside]

I dont understand the arguement over Rhodes and Taylor.....

 

We brought in Fred Taylor first......but to be honest the fan base was really luke warm on him because he was so old....and afc fan if you go back and take a look at the posts at the time I think it will bear that out.....

 

Then you have Rhodes......who is not the name that Fred is but has been a "solid" back who does everything well and isn't too old......and we signed him knowing he wasn't going to be our starter.....

 

I would have preferred either one honestly.....and in the big scheme of things neigher makes or breaks either the pats or the bills seasonss.

[afcfan1]

Yes, we haven't made the playoffs in 10 years because of our selections of 3rd string RBs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: Taylor didn't want to come here because he would have had a 0% chance of starting.

 

 

Taylor didn't go to Buffalo because he 0% chance of making the playoffs. He's not going to be a starter in NE either.

[Fingon]

Taylor didn't go to Buffalo because he 0% chance of making the playoffs. He's not going to be a starter in NE either.

He has a 1000x better chance of starting in NE than Buffalo... Maroney is on his way out.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Taylor didn't go to Buffalo because he 0% chance of making the playoffs. He's not going to be a starter in NE either.

Who do you expect the Pats* starter will be?

[Lurker]

What this tells us is that the Bills didn't bowl him over.

Huh? It tells me he's an intelligent NFL vet who's exploring his options, with no need to make a rush decision or sign the first contract offer put in front of him.

[Dan]

Taylor is not going to be asked to carry the ball more than 10-12 times a game. I would guess neither is Rhodes. To say you would rather have Rhodes over Tayor in that role is insanity, and I bet if you search the internet outside of Buffalo, you won't find a single respected analyst that puts the Rhodes signing ahead of Taylor. As a matter of fact, your own front office tried to sign Taylor before Rhodes. Rhodes was a consolation prize because you didn't get Taylor. And if he is such a good backup, why would the Colts take a RB in the 1st round when they already have a starter and they could resign Rhodes cheap. There is a reason he is now bouncing around the league.

 

By the way Taylor had more yards than Rhodes last year, despite playing in fewer games, having less carries and playing in one of the worst passing offenses in the league. At no point in their careers has Rhodes been a better player than Taylor, including now.

Flawed logic. The Bills' FO also brought in Coles before TO. Does that also mean they'd rather have Coles as the second WR? No, it just means they brought in FAs as they were available. The fact that they didn't offer Taylor "an offer he couldn't refuse" says more to how they valued him than when they brought him in.

[The Dean]

Flawed logic. The Bills' FO also brought in Coles before TO. Does that also mean they'd rather have Coles as the second WR? No, it just means they brought in FAs as they were available. The fact that they didn't offer Taylor "an offer he couldn't refuse" says more to how they valued him than when they brought him in.

 

 

Exactly. Taylor is a nice vet, but he wouldn't see much time with the Bills. At this stage in their careers, Rhodes and Taylor are fairly close in skill level, I think.

The biggest difference here is, Taylor is the best RB on the Pats*. He would be the Bills 3rd string RB, which is likely the role Rhodes will have on the team.

[BillsGuyInMalta]

Pisa must be upset, his thread got hijacked by Fred Taylor.

[Dan]

Exactly. Taylor is a nice vet, but he wouldn't see much time with the Bills. At this stage in their careers, Rhodes and Taylor are fairly close in skill level, I think.

The biggest difference here is, Taylor is the best RB on the Pats*. He would be the Bills 3rd string RB, which is likely the role Rhodes will have on the team.

In addtion, if you consider the early reports that the Bills want to go more no huddle, that would imply pass catching RBs. Of the 2, Rhodes is definitely the better pass catcher. So, sure, at the time Taylor looked like he would have been a good signing. However, given the sum of the offseason moves and reports of how the offense may be changing, I'm glad we got Rhodes.