- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,511
- Reaction score
- 13,167
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.More importantly how dumb does Buffalo look for replacing Marshawn Lynch with CJ Spiller.
It's also a beautiful stadium. Was disappointed the Pats game was so late in the season when they played there, I would have liked to have driven out there.
Because Lynch is having a good game?
Besides, they replaced him w/ Jackson; not Spiller.
If you'd bother to watch the NFL, you'd realize Lynch is having a very good season, in particular down the stretch.Because Lynch is having a good game?
Besides, they replaced him w/ Jackson; not Spiller.
If you'd bother to watch the NFL, you'd realize Lynch is having a very good season, in particular down the stretch.
Jackson + Lynch is better than Jackson + Spiller. If you don't agree, that's your problem.
oh come on! you don't kneel on the 1... BB would have got the TD then said "I thought a dream team could come back in that twenty seconds."
Wildly inconsistent? You haven't been watching him play in 2011 have you? He's back in 2007/2008 form behind a patchwork offensive line with a QB struggling with arm injury issues.He's doing okay; he's still pretty inconsistent.
But the point is, they made the decision to start Jackson. They're not going to pay Lynch 1st rounder money to sit. And Jackson is way better.
Wildly inconsistent? You haven't been watching him play in 2011 have you? He's back in 2007/2008 form behind a patchwork offensive line with a QB struggling with arm injury issues.
Lynch was on about 3 million per season with the Bills. That's not outrageous, that's value for money. Jackson's never been the starter for 16 games in a season either.
It was a dumb move and the Bills have a history of dumb moves (as presented to you). I'm sure a quick search of my post history will substantiate that I would have liked the Patriots to bring him in and use him in our system. He seems like the type of back who would have flourished.
A fourth round selection and conditional 2012 pick (6th with potential to become 5th) is considered good value for someone you project to be a feature back? if that's your POV, then fair enough.I didn't say wildly. He's a good back, and he would have been good on the Pats.
But it wouldn't make sense for a team to keep him as a backup, imo. It's the equivalent of the Pats keeping Bledsoe on after Brady became the starter, just to have a better backup. Instead, they got good trade value for him. Ty Warren contributed much more than Bledsoe ever would have.
He's doing okay; he's still pretty inconsistent.
But the point is, they made the decision to start Jackson. They're not going to pay Lynch 1st rounder money to sit. And Jackson is way better.
I didn't say wildly. He's a good back, and he would have been good on the Pats.
But it wouldn't make sense for a team to keep him as a backup, imo. It's the equivalent of the Pats keeping Bledsoe on after Brady became the starter, just to have a better backup. Instead, they got good trade value for him. Ty Warren contributed much more than Bledsoe ever would have.
A fourth round selection and conditional 2012 pick (6th with potential to become 5th) is considered good value for someone you project to be a feature back? if that's your POV, then fair enough.
The Seahawks pantsed the Bills at this stage of that deal.