Ok I concede!

[soapman]

Fred Jackson IS the better back.

[Pinkerton Security]

quite possible, and I am also a big lynch supporter. Still, lets not get carried away and start thinking we dont need both...

[Mr. Pink]

We don't need Lynch. Period.

Trade him for the best value we can get to fill a hole elsewhere.

[soapman]

No I agree we need both but Jackson clearly neds to be the full time starter.

[kernowboy]

or trade value with someone like Seattle, allowing us to strengthen elsewhere and also draft James Starks

[Buddo]

Jackson is pure quality, but Lynch is still valuable. We don't have another starting quality RB on the roster.
Lynch needs to step his game up to be sure.

[Prov401]

The NFL is a two back leauge now. It's better to keep both. I also am a big Lynch guy, however Jackson is showing to be the beast we were looking for in Lynch this year.

[HHURRICANE]

I believe it was last year that I got trashed for suggesting that Jackson was the #1 RB.

What a difference a year....and some pot and guns make.

Actually I like both RBs.

[Mad Bomber]

I believe it was last year that I got trashed for suggesting that Jackson was the #1 RB.

What a difference a year....and some pot and guns make.

Actually I like both RBs.
:rofl:

[Mr. Pink]

The NFL is two back league?

Someone should tell Minnesota or Chicago that too!

Both teams in the superbowl last year were one back teams.

One of those teams didn't even have one good running back.

[YardRat]

I'm OK with pitching Lynch and going with Jackson, Omon, and a new guy next season.

[Beastie Bills]

Jackson has looked great today. He's a great back, and I'm really not sure who is the better back. It's close.

They each have different styles, and Fred's style is more suited to our team this year. He is more elusive than Lynch, which is better right now because our OLine is absolutely terrible. If our line ever opens up some holes, that is where Lynch will shine. If he can get to the line untouched, he will burn LB's and punish CB's with his bruising style.

I really hope we address the Oline next year, so both backs can shine.

[Bravo82]

I think Freddy is the better back too. But we need to keep both. We probably wouldn't get more than a 3rd for Marshawn anyway, and unless he becomes a cancer in the locker room, I would rather hang onto him.

[Novacane]

I think FJ is the better back but am not sure he could hold up to 25 carries every week.

[G Wolly]

I'm OK with pitching Lynch and going with Jackson, Omon, and a new guy next season.

Omon went to Seattle.

Beast Mode is over. Deal with it and support ground delivery by Fred-Ex.

[TacklingDummy]

Fred Jackson IS the better back.
I've been saying that for 2 years.

Lynch is a dime a dozen back. He's nothing special and injury prone.

[chernobylwraiths]

Freddy will be 29 next year and Lynch will be 24, that's a huge difference. I like Fred, but how good will he be in 2 to 3 years? Lynch is still good, you can't just dump him and hope Fred can stay healthy. You need two decent backs.

[TacklingDummy]

Freddy will be 29 next year and Lynch will be 24, that's a huge difference. I like Fred, but how good will he be in 2 to 3 years? Lynch is still good, you can't just dump him and hope Fred can stay healthy. You need two decent backs.
If anyone has shown they can't stay healthy it's Lynch.

How good will Lynch be in 2-3 years in another teams uniform?

Don't be surprised if the Bills pick a RB in round 2 or 3.

[Historian]

I've been saying that for 2 years.

Lynch is a dime a dozen back. He's nothing special and injury prone.

...and felony prone!

Jackson has the heart of a lion.

[jonah7777]

Lynch can be the Backup once a New coach and staff is in place they can give Lynch the Perform or hit the road speech lol

[Philagape]

Lynch is very talented, but he's done nothing to earn playing time because he's constantly stalling in the backfield. He gets the ball, and then just stops. He's as tentative as Trentative. All the talent in the world does no good for a back like that.
I want to keep him, but only if he starts running with authority.

[mybills]

keep both.

[G Wolly]

Will the Vikings be interested to trade Lynch for AP?

No?

I can dream...

[topher180]

Props to soapman for turning the corner and having the sack to admit it.

I mean, are we still debating this? Really? Fred Jackson = better player, better person. Double win, bye Lynch. I know you will have 5 TDs and 800 yds for like Seattle or someone next year, but frankly I'm over you.

[ddaryl]

I never understood why they gave Lynch the starting position back when he returned....

I like having Lynch and Jackson on the team togehter, but Jackson did nothing to lose the starting position and Lynch did nothing to earn it back. There was plenty of opportunity for both backs, but Jackson should of maintained more touches until Lynch proved otherwise...

It was another case of Jauron not knowing how to make a decision IMO...

Now would Perry have started Lynch if he wasn't banged up???

[BertSquirtgum]

where is the beast mode i used to know? he is not good anymore

[kernowboy]

Personally I'd trade Lynch.

I don't think its too remote to think we could get a 2nd for him.

James Starks will fall in the draft because of his shoulder but I know the Bills have been looking at him and Modrak is on record as stating the Bills thoughts on him haven't changed despite his injury.

What we need is a tank to smash it up the middle on occasion so a trade with the Bengals for Brian Leonard might give us a multi-skilled troika

[justasportsfan]

We don't need Lynch. Period.

Trade him for the best value we can get to fill a hole elsewhere.
should Jackson go down to injury , then what?

[madness]

Trading Lynch would be like the Dolphins trading Ricky away when Brown was healthy. Yesterday was the ideal scenario with Jackson getting the bulk and Lynch spelling him. While Jackson was getting a breather it was Lynch who got us into FG range on 3rd and long.

[Mr. Pink]

should Jackson go down to injury , then what?


We pick up a different average, run of the mill, ordinary running back in FA to take Lynch's place.

What ever will the Vikings do if their superstar back goes down?

Oh, they'll give it over to their average, ordinary, run of the mill Chester Taylor.

Who coincidentally enough is a FA after this year and likely won't be retained.

The league is full of average ordinary guys.

Not hard to replace a guy who should be a backup on this team.

[justasportsfan]

We pick up a different average, run of the mill, ordinary running back in FA to take Lynch's place.

What ever will the Vikings do if their superstar back goes down?

Oh, they'll give it over to their average, ordinary, run of the mill Chester Taylor.

Who coincidentally enough is a FA after this year and likely won't be retained.

The league is full of average ordinary guys.

Not hard to replace a guy who should be a backup on this team.


people have implied we don't know how to assess talenmt and them now you're saying we should get another player to replace Lynch?


The Vikings have a qb, we don't.

Why is it people love to take a good situation and love tearing it apart?

NO. Leave Lynch alone. Keep him til' his contract runs out. If you haven't noticed, players on this team a dropping like flies.

[Mr. Pink]

people have implied we don't know how to assess talenmt and them now you're saying we should get another player to replace Lynch?

Why is it people love to take a good situation and tear it apart?

NO. Leave Lynch alone. Keep him til' his contract runs out. If you haven't noticed, players on this team a dropping like flies.


It's not a good situation.

Lynch is ineffective when he doesn't get the majority of the carries...that should be obvious right now. So you get a guy who can carry the ball 5-7 times a game while Fred Jackson gets 20-25 carries a game.

Fred Jackson is clearly the better running back. Clearly the better receiver out of the backfield. Clearly the better blocker. There's no reason for Lynch, or whoever we'd replace him with, to see the field more than 10 offensive snaps a game.

So in the offseason, you trade Lynch, be it for picks or players so you can shore up another weakness on the team. You pick up a RB in FA or draft a mid round guy to take a few carries a game. In turn you strengthen the team on the whole.

At least, you do in theory. Whether or not the right guys are picked is another story entirely.

Chester Taylor, Willie Parker, Adrian Peterson Chicago and Mike Bell are all FAs this offseason.

What's the difference between any of those and Lynch? Negligible.

[justasportsfan]

It's not a good situation.

Lynch is ineffective when he doesn't get the majority of the carries...that should be obvious right now. So you get a guy who can carry the ball 5-7 times a game while Fred Jackson gets 20-25 carries a game.

Fred Jackson is clearly the better running back. Clearly the better receiver out of the backfield. Clearly the better blocker. There's no reason for Lynch, or whoever we'd replace him with, to see the field more than 10 offensive snaps a game.

So in the offseason, you trade Lynch, be it for picks or players so you can shore up another weakness on the team. You pick up a RB in FA or draft a mid round guy to take a few carries a game. In turn you strengthen the team on the whole.

At least, you do in theory. Whether or not the right guys are picked is another story entirely.

Chester Taylor, Willie Parker, Adrian Peterson Chicago and Mike Bell are all FAs this offseason.

What's the difference between any of those and Lynch? Negligible.If they are available then who's going to want to trade for Lynch?

[Mr. Pink]

If they are available then who's going to want to trade for Lynch?


Someone will trade for him. He's young.

The only advantage he has over anyone I listed is age.

But what does age matter when you're looking at a backup?

What are we gonna do have him for another decade as a backup?

[justasportsfan]

hate to break it to you guys. Lynch isn't going anywhere unless the next HC says so.

[soapman]

hate to break it to you guys. Lynch isn't going anywhere unless the next HC says so.
Thank you captain obvious....:sarcasm2:

[BertSquirtgum]

i see for reason to trade him. why not just keep him as the back up?

[DynaPaul]

Jackson is better but I think we still need Lynch for the pound-it-out yards. You definitely need 2 backs in todays game but I'd split those carries 80/20 favoring Jackson.

[kernowboy]

It's not a good situation.

Lynch is ineffective when he doesn't get the majority of the carries...that should be obvious right now. So you get a guy who can carry the ball 5-7 times a game while Fred Jackson gets 20-25 carries a game.

Fred Jackson is clearly the better running back. Clearly the better receiver out of the backfield. Clearly the better blocker. There's no reason for Lynch, or whoever we'd replace him with, to see the field more than 10 offensive snaps a game.

So in the offseason, you trade Lynch, be it for picks or players so you can shore up another weakness on the team. You pick up a RB in FA or draft a mid round guy to take a few carries a game. In turn you strengthen the team on the whole.

At least, you do in theory. Whether or not the right guys are picked is another story entirely.

Chester Taylor, Willie Parker, Adrian Peterson Chicago and Mike Bell are all FAs this offseason.

What's the difference between any of those and Lynch? Negligible.

Get a 2nd or high 3rd to use on a DT or LB

Draft James Starks with the 5th or 6th round.

Look to pick up Brian Leonard from the Bengals who can be on the field as FB but can also carry the ball