View Full Version : Cutting Rhodes was STUPID
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 02:15 PM
Like every move this inept organization makes, the Bills cut a proven veteran (I said proven, not spectactular) veteran in lieu of a no-talent, unproven player who doesn't belong on an NFL roster.
Let's hear it Zoners..... if you were a GM looking to pick up a running back off waivers, and you had your choice of Domenic Rhodes or Corey McIntyre, who would YOU choose?
I should make this a poll....
you said it yourself the guy was old.
He wasn't impressive at ALL in preseason but I still would've kept him.
The Juice Is Loose
09-05-2009, 02:22 PM
knows what it takes. good blitz pickup.
Nighthawk
09-05-2009, 02:22 PM
They should have kept him...no doubt.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 02:33 PM
you said it yourself the guy was old.
I NEVER said he was old. Mikey did. I called him out and showed him Rhodes' statistics over the past few years.
Dr. Lecter
09-05-2009, 02:34 PM
Like every move this inept organization makes, the Bills cut a proven veteran (I said proven, not spectactular) veteran in lieu of a no-talent, unproven player who doesn't belong on an NFL roster.
Let's hear it Zoners..... if you were a GM looking to pick up a running back off waivers, and you had your choice of Domenic Rhodes or Corey McIntyre, who would YOU choose?
I should make this a poll....
If the role is # 3/4 RB and the salaries are whet they are now, McIntyre is just as worthy. (assuming he even made the team)
I NEVER said he was old. Mikey did. I called him out and showed him Rhodes' statistics over the past few years.
at some point the word Veteran means old you know.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 02:36 PM
He wasn't impressive at ALL in preseason but I still would've kept him.
Brad...this preseason was the most WORTHLESS I have ever seen, as far as looking at potential contributions or evaluating present/future talent.
This coaching staff did NOTHING this year to evaluate present talent nor evaluate future talent. It was a waste of five games (that, BTW, could have had some REAL value in evaluating talent).
Hemlepp53
09-05-2009, 02:37 PM
you said it yourself the guy was old.
He was old in years but not in wear and tear.... He never played a season where he carried the whole load.... he still had gas in the tank and plenty of tread... Mistake on this one...
He was old in years but not in wear and tear.... He never played a season where he carried the whole load.... he still had gas in the tank and plenty of tread... Mistake on this one...
The guy hasn't been performing. All you know is his name is more recognizable than the other guy. It's not a popularity contest.
patmoran2006
09-05-2009, 02:42 PM
He wasn't impressive at ALL in preseason but I still would've kept him.
In his defense, its the PRESEASON.. He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season. Kawika Mitchell wasnt impressive in the preseason either, but he's going nowhere.
Like I said earlier, Rhodes was cut large in part because he didnt want to accept a 3rd RB role on a team like this. He figured he'd be able to at least unseat Jackson as Lynch's backup, and it didnt happen. He was starting to become a discontent in the locker room, from what I've learned.
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Your 3rd RB typically should be a young guy......he has Lynch and Jackson in front of him, doesn't matter to me that he got cut.
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 02:45 PM
In his defense, its the PRESEASON.. He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season. Kawika Mitchell wasnt impressive in the preseason either, but he's going nowhere.
Like I said earlier, Rhodes was cut large in part because he didnt want to accept a 3rd RB role on a team like this. He figured he'd be able to at least unseat Jackson as Lynch's backup, and it didnt happen. He was starting to become a discontent in the locker room, from what I've learned.I agree that he wouldn't accept being the #3 back. Wouldn't at all surprise me if he asked to be released.
HHURRICANE
09-05-2009, 02:45 PM
In his defense, its the PRESEASON.. He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season. Kawika Mitchell wasnt impressive in the preseason either, but he's going nowhere.
Like I said earlier, Rhodes was cut large in part because he didnt want to accept a 3rd RB role on a team like this. He figured he'd be able to at least unseat Jackson as Lynch's backup, and it didnt happen. He was starting to become a discontent in the locker room, from what I've learned.
The fact that this team cannot manage it's players says it all.
Nighthawk
09-05-2009, 02:47 PM
Your 3rd RB typically should be a young guy......he has Lynch and Jackson in front of him, doesn't matter to me that he got cut.
Lynch isn't playing in the first 3 games...you can't just ignore that.
He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season.
That's why I said I would've kept him.
Brad...this preseason was the most WORTHLESS I have ever seen, as far as looking at potential contributions or evaluating present/future talent.
This coaching staff did NOTHING this year to evaluate present talent nor evaluate future talent. It was a waste of five games (that, BTW, could have had some REAL value in evaluating talent).
Overall I agree but he made countless mistakes, especially when blocking and catching punts... That's not something a proven veteran should be doing, even during preseason IMO, against backups!
jamze132
09-05-2009, 03:07 PM
In his defense, its the PRESEASON.. He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season. Kawika Mitchell wasnt impressive in the preseason either, but he's going nowhere.
Like I said earlier, Rhodes was cut large in part because he didnt want to accept a 3rd RB role on a team like this. He figured he'd be able to at least unseat Jackson as Lynch's backup, and it didnt happen. He was starting to become a discontent in the locker room, from what I've learned.
That makes the most sense to me as that was the first thought that popped in my mind after I heard he was cut. Locker room BS.
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 03:28 PM
Lynch isn't playing in the first 3 games...you can't just ignore that.And we just signed Jackson to a nice contract.....problem solved! How many teams have a vet as their #3 guy? None because it's rare that you ever have to go to the 3rd guy....that happens once in a blue during the season.
Nighthawk
09-05-2009, 03:35 PM
And we just signed Jackson to a nice contract.....problem solved! How many teams have a vet as their #3 guy? None because it's rare that you ever have to go to the 3rd guy....that happens once in a blue during the season.
He's not the 3rd RB in the first 3 weeks...he would be the 2nd string! If you want to cut him after Lynch gets back, fine...
Billz_fan
09-05-2009, 03:38 PM
He's not the 3rd RB in the first 3 weeks...he would be the 2nd string! If you want to cut him after Lynch gets back, fine...
Exactly, I say bad move to cut him.
Nighthawk
09-05-2009, 03:41 PM
Exactly, I say bad move to cut him.
I just cannot believe some of the logic coming from some people on this board. It's truly amazing to me that people would be comfortable with Omon as the 2nd string RB for the first 3 weeks instead of Rhodes.
tampabay25690
09-05-2009, 03:46 PM
Don't think it was stupid at all...
Who cares anyway he is gone. MOVE ON
bigbub2352
09-05-2009, 03:47 PM
i think this offense needs a big back and maybe watching the wire for someone being released
that being said this cut would have and should have been made after week 3
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 03:49 PM
I just cannot believe some of the logic coming from some people on this board. It's truly amazing to me that people would be comfortable with Omon as the 2nd string RB for the first 3 weeks instead of Rhodes.You act as if Jackson cant carry the load for the 1st 3 weeks! He's more than capable of getting the ball 20-30 times a game for the 1st 3 weeks.....people were saying that Jackson would be a starter on half the teams in the NFL....well guess what....starters get all the touches and only come out for a rest! I cant believe your logic that you have no confidence in a very good RB carrying the load for a few games with Omon spelling him for 2-3 carries a game...sheesh!
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Not every team in the NFL has a RB by commitee approach.......some teams let their starter handle the rock till he gets tired!
streetkings01
09-05-2009, 03:54 PM
Come to think of it.....who spelled Jackson in the Patriots game last season? How about the 2nd half of the Bronco's game last year? How about the Redskins game in 2007? Fred can handle the load.....people need to stop crying over this.....it's such a non issue its sad.
Nighthawk
09-05-2009, 03:59 PM
You act as if Jackson cant carry the load for the 1st 3 weeks! He's more than capable of getting the ball 20-30 times a game for the 1st 3 weeks.....people were saying that Jackson would be a starter on half the teams in the NFL....well guess what....starters get all the touches and only come out for a rest! I cant believe your logic that you have no confidence in a very good RB carrying the load for a few games with Omon spelling him for 2-3 carries a game...sheesh!
Where, oh where did I say he couldn't carry the load??? I'm arguing the fact that the Bills should have kept a capable backup for Jackson for the first 3 weeks.
ParanoidAndroid
09-05-2009, 04:50 PM
I wonder if it had to do with his wishes as well. I'm thinking he had plans to push for the #2 spot but found out Jackson is not going anywhere. He doesn't want to be #3 and I don't think he wants to be around for just 3 games before he is waived. Waiving a veteran like Rhodes after using him for 3 weeks will get you zero respect among players who could potentially play for you down the road. Omon can handle it for a few weeks. It wouldn't be ideal, but using your #3 never is.
patmoran2006
09-05-2009, 05:04 PM
This is a direct quote from Allen Wilson of the Buffalo News. Perhaps the Rhodes cut was financially motivated afterall.
"But money, not performance, may have been the biggest factor in Rhodes' release. The move saves the Bills more than $2 million. He was due to make base salaries of $750,000 this year and $1.25 million in 2010 as part of a two-year contract, which included a $200,000 signing bonus. The Bills also avoid paying Rhodes a $150,000 roster bonus, which he would have gotten had he made the team."
more cowbell
09-05-2009, 05:18 PM
In his defense, its the PRESEASON.. He is a vet and a proven winner, and knows how to prepare himself for the regular season. Kawika Mitchell wasnt impressive in the preseason either, but he's going nowhere.
Like I said earlier, Rhodes was cut large in part because he didnt want to accept a 3rd RB role on a team like this. He figured he'd be able to at least unseat Jackson as Lynch's backup, and it didnt happen. He was starting to become a discontent in the locker room, from what I've learned.
once again just proving that our coach and front office has no balls. he CHOSE to sign here and was under contract. You tell him to shut up and accept his role on the team...instead of giving him what he wants. What a bunch of pushovers this entire team is...no spine what so ever. Rhodes will more than likely end up on the pats
Night Train
09-05-2009, 05:33 PM
To me, he was Anthony Thomas version 2.0.
I don't think he's a big loss at all.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 05:56 PM
Overall I agree but he made countless mistakes, especially when blocking and catching punts... That's not something a proven veteran should be doing, even during preseason IMO, against backups!
Last year....152 carries for 538 yards and 6 TDs. 45 receptions for 302 yards and 3 TDs. He has been playing for a WINNER.
...And you're going to judge him on preseason games that had, admittedly, NO game plans?
evol4276
09-05-2009, 05:57 PM
i dont know, i have no problem with this. the only offense he seemed to shine with was Indy. I like him but apparently Omon has the "upside" which i'm sure is the reason why he was cut. according to the bulletin he lost the #3 spot anyways, so it isn't too big of a deal. i would have rather denny be cut and kept rhodes due to the being short on rb's for the first few games.. but oh well
Mr. Pink
09-05-2009, 05:58 PM
I don't even know why we signed the guy to begin with.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 06:02 PM
I don't even know why we signed the guy to begin with.
Why should you sign someone with NFL experience on a winner over a proven superstar like Corey McIntyre?
Look at our RB depth chart right now. It is pathetic, especially considering that Omon is dinged.
Night Train
09-05-2009, 06:04 PM
He may have asked for his release, knowing once Lynch returned he wouldn't see any carries as a #3.
Omon is far quicker and younger.
Mr. Pink
09-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Why should you sign someone with NFL experience on a winner over a proven superstar like Corey McIntyre?
Look at our RB depth chart right now. It is pathetic, especially considering that Omon is dinged.
We have two backs Jackson and Lynch.
Jackson has proven he can take the majority of the carries in a game when Lynch was hurt in week 17 last year.
After 3 weeks, Lynch is back and where does Rhodes fit in anyways?
Besides, we may actually use a FB in some short yardage situations...we may not either though.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 06:18 PM
What has McIntyre shown (other than the obvious genital reference)?
hammerbillsfan
09-05-2009, 06:42 PM
What has McIntyre shown (other than the obvious genital reference)?
He pulled his Shiancoe in front of Dick.
Mr. Pink
09-05-2009, 06:49 PM
What has McIntyre shown (other than the obvious genital reference)?
The ability to play the position of FB if we ever go into a 2 back set.
TigerJ
09-05-2009, 07:01 PM
I was a bit surprised, but I noticed a number of times in the preseason that Rhodes wiffed on his blitz pickup. His running was decidedly average, on a par with Omon and others. He does have the advantage of experience, but in terms of on field performance, he was nothing special.
Mad Bomber
09-05-2009, 07:04 PM
The ability to play the position of FB if we ever go into a 2 back set.
IF
Hemlepp53
09-05-2009, 07:54 PM
The guy hasn't been performing. All you know is his name is more recognizable than the other guy. It's not a popularity contest.
**** his name.... He is proven to show up when he is needed. Our coaching staff wouldnt be able to get positive run with the Kelly and Company.... Dick would **** the bed with the Pats Roster. Rhodes can play ball.... He has proven it and it is always done right about the time he is needed the most. We run a half ass orginization on and off the field. We have talent and we cant win.. **** aint right. BUT don;t give me YOU KNOW HIS NAME crap.... Thats BS... I speak what i beleive and i beleive Rhodes would be a benifit to the Bills compared to several off the roster. He is a solid back and hasnt been beaten on for the past 7 years of his career. he had nice numbers last year with the Colts... and he played his position well when needed....
Last year....152 carries for 538 yards and 6 TDs. 45 receptions for 302 yards and 3 TDs. He has been playing for a WINNER.
...And you're going to judge him on preseason games that had, admittedly, NO game plans?
Yeah. That was last year and means absolutely NOTHING for the 2009 season. Mostly because it was on a much better team. And as mentioned before, if he was beginning to turn sour in the locker room because he got beat out by 3 other RB's, I'm glad he's gone. I did like the fact that he had veteran experience, but he was expendable and is gone now. Nothing we can do but complain about it I suppose. ;)
I was a bit surprised, but I noticed a number of times in the preseason that Rhodes wiffed on his blitz pickup. His running was decidedly average, on a par with Omon and others. He does have the advantage of experience, but in terms of on field performance, he was nothing special.
And all of that against BACKUPS, 2nd and 3rd stringers. Dude was getting lit up. Regardless of gameplanning or not, a "proven veteran" should do better than that even if it WAS preseason. He was not impressive at ALL.
That makes the most sense to me as that was the first thought that popped in my mind after I heard he was cut. Locker room BS.
IF that is true, then this is something I finally agree with coaching staff on... for the second time in the past month or so. The fact that he wasn't impressing and was drifting his way through preseason was an added incentive I guess.
chernobylwraiths
09-05-2009, 09:31 PM
The only reason to keep him is to look to trade him. He will do virtually nothing to help this team win now. AND, if he was becoming a locker room cancer, then he definitely needed to go.
THATHURMANATOR
09-06-2009, 01:56 AM
Rhodes looked like crap. No loss, to call an organization inept for cutting him is REDICULOUS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.