PDA

View Full Version : Spikes, Peterson, or Adams?


casdhf
03-03-2003, 08:05 PM
Well, Who do you think will help the most?
MissBuffalo
03-03-2003, 08:09 PM
I'm going with Takeo. :pray: Please TD, work your magic!
venis2k1
03-03-2003, 08:14 PM
Spikes, Adams, Peterson in that order
Ingtar33
03-03-2003, 08:19 PM
99% of the time I'd say DT over OLB... but Spikes is such an outstanding impact player I'll have to go with Spikes.
The_Philster
03-03-2003, 08:32 PM
I'm with you 100% Ingtar33. :up:
If there were a higher impact DT there instead of Adams...I'd go with him over Spikes though.
casdhf
03-03-2003, 08:35 PM
Well ****, I didn't think it'd be this much of a friggin sweep
The_Philster
03-03-2003, 08:38 PM
Well....everyone's had Spikes on the brain since the regular season...especially after Eddie Robinson got juked out by Pennington.
Ingtar33
03-03-2003, 08:43 PM
that was painful, even sickening to watch... Eddie is a great guy, but it really is time he hangs it up...
TigerJ
03-03-2003, 08:56 PM
I'm the lone dissenter. It's not that I don't think Spikes is the best player in the group. He is. My rationale is that the difference between the salaries Peterson will earn next year and what Spikes will earn would pay for another free agent who could help the team. Please don't hate me for it. LOL
DraftBoy
03-03-2003, 08:59 PM
Spikes, Petersen, Adams

Dont want anymore aging vets
angneli
03-03-2003, 10:25 PM
I like Chris Claiborne he has played both outside and middle. Also he was on the Dan Patrick show and mentioned he was interested in the Bills.
northernbillfan
03-04-2003, 12:55 AM
Spikes would be good, but I'm leaning towards Peterson.

Spikes would cost us dearly, and Peterson would allow us some extra cash to throw around.

I think Peterson is a bundel of talent, at a cheaper price.
Fatwhite02
03-04-2003, 01:01 AM
Spikes (if the price is right) but I think peterson will be cheaper and perform just as well. Adams for a mil a year
WG
03-04-2003, 01:06 AM
I'll fall right in line w/ the consensus:

At the same price I'd take Spikes hands down. But he'd likely cost significantly more than Peterson, so I'd go w/ Peterson b/c he'd allow us to address more of our other D issues too. Adams, I kept my eye on him in Oakland last season and I wasn't real impressed. He'd help us for one year but if he tapers off the way he did from Baltimore to Oakland, he'll be finished in two seasons, so he'd be only a S/T signing and a S/T fix. I'd rather grab a guy like Thornton instead who's just entering his prime and who would come at around half the price or so.

So my vote is for Spikes, but the assumption is that all three would cost us the same.
kgun12
03-04-2003, 01:37 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wys Guy
I'll fall right in line w/ the consensus:

At the same price I'd take Spikes hands down. But he'd likely cost significantly more than Peterson, so I'd go w/ Peterson b/c he'd allow us to address more of our other D issues too. Adams, I kept my eye on him in Oakland last season and I wasn't real impressed. He'd help us for one year but if he tapers off the way he did from Baltimore to Oakland, he'll be finished in two seasons, so he'd be only a S/T signing and a S/T fix. I'd rather grab a guy like Thornton instead who's just entering his prime and who would come at around half the price or so.

So my vote is for Spikes, but the assumption is that all three would cost us the same. [/QUOTE

Assuming the cost was the same Spikes.

We all know Peterson is a cheaper FA, so sign him and I think we could still get Thorton and than we wouldn't be hostage to PP. Than we resolve the PP issue and fix all our problems!