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.

[VOR]

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.

Wait, we're supposed to be impressed that Taylor had 18 more yards on 9 fewer carries, while more importantly having 5 fewer TD's (which would explain the difference in yardage/YPC) than Rhodes? Not to mention 29 fewer receptions and 3 fewer receiving TD's? In 13 games and starts, versus 15 games and 4 starts?

 

Taylor chose the Pats because he had a 0% chance of being a starter in Buffalo, and a 100% chance of being one in NE for a significant portion of the season. Neither team made the playoffs last year and just because Brady is back, it's no guarantee that the Pats will make them again.

 

Virtually no one was gaga over Fred Taylor when he visited Buffalo. And virtually no one knew that Rhodes was available, or the type of season he had last year, until he visited the Bills. When that was made known, it was a no-brainer.

[John from Riverside]

I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........

 

We get it.....New England is the better team as of right now.......unless of course Tom comes back and has an off year due to being out of football last year.......then you are @ucked

[VOR]

I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........

That would be like Bungles fans rubbing it in our faces that they got Coles and we got TO.

[MattM]

I think AFC's real purpose here is basically a attempt to rub it in our faces that Fred Taylor chose the patriots over buffalo because they are the better team........

 

We get it.....New England is the better team as of right now.......unless of course Tom comes back and has an off year due to being out of football last year.......then you are @ucked

 

Don't worry, he's got that all figured out, too--he'll just go back to being a Cowboys fan or may even be really daring and bandwagon his way onto whoever is the new hot team. Yeah, he's a real Pats* "fan", alright. I'm curious, dude, do you even live in Boston? Or are you like 90% of their fans who grew up and live somewhere else but just magically became Pats* fans over the last nine years. Just curious....

[afcfan1]

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.

 

Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!!

[billsfan89]

Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!!

 

Well Coles was released by the Jets who have a huge need for a WR so how good was he. Now I know Coles is a good WR at the #2 slot but who would you rather have for one year only TO or Coles. Who cares about the money the Bills weren't capped strapped. TO is better than Coles for this one year and TO won't be a cancer because he needs the Bills as a way to tryout for the league next year.

 

Coles isn't exactly young either he will be 32 by the end of the season.

[afcfan1]

Well Coles was released by the Jets who have a huge need for a WR so how good was he. Now I know Coles is a good WR at the #2 slot but who would you rather have for one year only TO or Coles. Who cares about the money the Bills weren't capped strapped. TO is better than Coles for this one year and TO won't be a cancer because he needs the Bills as a way to tryout for the league next year.

 

Coles isn't exactly young either he will be 32 by the end of the season.

 

He's 3.5 years younger than Owens any way you cut it, and he is not a frickin cancer to the extent of Owens. Combine that with the fact Owens doesn't even want to be in Buffalo. Good luck.

[The Dean]

There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it.

 

Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one.

[afcfan1]

There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it.

 

Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one.

 

 

The problem is the chances are greater that it could completely blow up in the face of the franchise. TO was a problem when he had all of his skills. Now that his skills are diminishing, it's only going to get worse. I seriously can't envision a scenario where this doesn't end badly. When the Bills are eliminated from playoff contention, how do you think he is going to act?

[MattM]

Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!!

 

Declining skills? I'll take 69 catches and 10 TDs and over 1000 yards any day from a number 2--and that was with his QB out for 3 weeks and Brad Johnson throwing to him. So far, he's done and said all the right things. Not to say that will continue, but so far, no complaints from me. Beats the heck out of Joey Galloway and Greg Lewis, no? Those were your WR additions. Don't look now, but Randy's due for his tight hammy or some other injury costing him 5-6 games and his explosiveness for the rest of the year--I should know, I've had him in my fantasy leagues those seasons he could never quite gets through all of (in Oakland and Minn, in 2004 and 2006). "He plays when he wants to play", you know--and when things go south, he has a tendency to check out mentally. That was the knock on him once upon a time, wasn't it? If he's changed, why not TO? Especially when there's plenty of cash at stake for good behavior in the form of a one-year deal......

 

And I'll take your ignoring my post about where you come from to confirm my strongly held suspicion that you're a Johnny-come-lately Pats* "fan" with no connection to the city of Boston or the region of New England. I've given you plenty of chances over the last few weeks to come back on that and yet you never have. Funny, isn't it......

[afcfan1]

Declining skills? I'll take 69 catches and 10 TDs and over 1000 yards any day from a number 2--and that was with his QB out for 3 weeks and Brad Johnson throwing to him. So far, he's done and said all the right things. Not to say that will continue, but so far, no complaints from me. Beats the heck out of Joey Galloway and Greg Lewis, no? Those were your WR additions. Don't look now, but Randy's due for his tight hammy or some other injury costing him 5-6 games and his explosiveness for the rest of the year--I should know, I've had him in my fantasy leagues those seasons he could never quite gets through all of (in Oakland and Minn, in 2004 and 2006). "He plays when he wants to play", you know--and when things go south, he has a tendency to check out mentally. That was the knock on him once upon a time, wasn't it? If he's changed, why not TO? Especially when there's plenty of cash at stake for good behavior in the form of a one-year deal......

 

I stopped reading at the Brad Johnson comment. Please explain to me how Trent Edwards is an upgrade over Brad Johnson. I think you really overevaluate the level of talent on your team. Trent Edwards hasn't shown to be anything other than below avg - avg.

[MattM]

I stopped reading at the Brad Johnson comment. Please explain to me how Trent Edwards is an upgrade over Brad Johnson. I think you really overevaluate the level of talent on your team. Trent Edwards hasn't shown to be anything other than below avg - avg.

 

 

Uhh, the Bills got their number 2 last year (the mighty Josh Reed) the ball 56 times and Reed didn't play almost 4 games. So having a number 2 with TO's talent for hopefully a full season you're saying it's a stretch that he'll catch 70 balls from our number 1 QB (Losman played in a number of the games Reed did while Trent was out)? Now who's displaying "magical homerish thinking".....

 

Still no answer on where you live and/or grew up, dude.....

[nucci]

Yes, I firmly believe they would have rather had Coles. $6.5 million for a guy nobody else wanted. Sorry to say, your front office is a joke. When TO got that offer I bet his response was, "$6.5 million??????? Are they serious??????? I guess I'll go anywhere for that. I don't know what I have to do to make all 32 teams not want me." $6.5 million for an aging, skills declining cancer. There is a zero % chance this works. I'll bet TO is inactive for the last few games of the season. No O Line and a sub-mediocre QB throwing to him? Yes, this is going to end well. LOL!!!

I'm willing to take that bet. Let me know how much you would like to wager.

[Dan]

There is no team in the NFL, where if Coles and TO were both on the roster, Coles would be higher on the depth chart. It's silly to even discuss it.

 

Had the Bills signed Coles, it would have been a nice addition to their WR unit. The addition of TO has a chance to be a transformative addition to an offense in need of one.

With the troll, yes. I agree. I'm not even sure why I responded in the first place. I guess I was just bored.

 

But, you're right. If you entered into the off season with the idea of upgrading your WR corps, TO is by far the most productive receiver any team could have acquired. Coles, Galloway, anyone, not even close. I would put Boldin up there, but last I heard he was still a Cardinal. So hard to say you should have signed a guy who's team doesn't seem to want let go.

 

With that said, if I had a team that was close (ala the Colts); I might be concerned about TO because we all know with that production comes a fair amount of baggage. However, for a team like Buffalo, they have little to lose.

[billsrcursed]

I'm willing to take that bet. Let me know how much you would like to wager.

 

 

Seconded. Put your money where your mouth is afcfan1. So far you've done nothing but belittle our FO and our off-season moves while being owned in virtually every post you make. I look forward to you making good on your blabbery....

[The Dean]

With the troll, yes. I agree. I'm not even sure why I responded in the first place. I guess I was just bored.

 

But, you're right. If you entered into the off season with the idea of upgrading your WR corps, TO is by far the most productive receiver any team could have acquired. Coles, Galloway, anyone, not even close. I would put Boldin up there, but last I heard he was still a Cardinal. So hard to say you should have signed a guy who's team doesn't seem to want let go.

 

With that said, if I had a team that was close (ala the Colts); I might be concerned about TO because we all know with that production comes a fair amount of baggage. However, for a team like Buffalo, they have little to lose.

 

 

Agreed. It's clear why some teams wouldn't be interested in TO, but the reason has nothing to do with his ability. The Bills TO match is perfect, in so many ways, IMO. The Bills need that kick in the ass, and TO is just the kind of guy to provide it. And, he has NEVER been a negative influence in his first season with a team. I'm counting on that history to repeat itself.

 

But, perhaps most importantly, his presence on the team will help the team make the final determination on Edwards, IMO. People forget that Romo hadn't started one NFL game before he took over the #1 QB job for the Boys, a few games into TO's first season there. I think TO played a huge part in Romo's early development. Expect Edwards to really come out of his shell, this year.

[Dan]

Agreed. It's clear why some teams wouldn't be interested in TO, but the reason has nothing to do with his ability. The Bills TO match is perfect, in so many ways, IMO. The Bills need that kick in the ass, and TO is just the kind of guy to provide it. And, he has NEVER been a negative influence in his first season with a team. I'm counting on that history to repeat itself.

 

But, perhaps most importantly, his presence on the team will help the team make the final determination on Edwards, IMO. People forget that Romo hadn't started one NFL game before he took over the #1 QB job for the Boys, a few games into TO's first season there. I think TO played a huge part in Romo's early development. Expect Edwards to really come out of his shell, this year.

I would add that I think the Bills are a great fit for TO as well. In Buffalo, TO is THE star. There's no one here to compete with. By default, he's the center of attention and, if the Bills have a good season, regardless of TOs actual performance, it will be seen largely because TO is here. So, he's going to remain the center of attention regardless of what Evans or Lynch or Trent does.

 

I'm really hoping that TO can pull Trent out of his shell. What happened last year was... well.. just sad. Trent started as hot as you'd want a QB to start. But, with a few hard hits followed by a few mistakes, his confidence just appeared to be shot. He needs to keep his head on straight. In the past, I could see Trent and his receivers just going back to the bench and sit in quiet. Well, you know TO isn't going to do that. He'll be in Trent's face after good and bad plays. And that's what Trent seemed to need last season.

 

Ya know, it strikes me as I write this, that what myself and several other posters are saying about TO's influence.. should really be the coaches job. What does that say about our coaches?

[Commander]

He's 3.5 years younger than Owens any way you cut it, and he is not a frickin cancer to the extent of Owens. Combine that with the fact Owens doesn't even want to be in Buffalo. Good luck.

 

I see. So being three years younger is a big deal with receivers when you're comparing Owens to Coles, but no big deal when you're comparing Taylor to Rhodes. How convenient.

 

You're logic is impervious to all reasoning. Wide receivers have a much better chance of playing well into their 30s than running backs. Look it up.

[BillsGuyInMalta]

If this were a prize fight and facts were punches, someone would have to throw in the towel on afcfan. Kid is getting pummeled here.

[HurlyBurly51]

I see. So being three years younger is a big deal with receivers when you're comparing Owens to Coles, but no big deal when you're comparing Taylor to Rhodes. How convenient.

 

You're logic is impervious to all reasoning. Wide receivers have a much better chance of playing well into their 30s than running backs. Look it up.

 

sfpwned!