PDA

View Full Version : If your a FA, do you really want to go to a team with no qb and a rookie HC?


Tatonka
03-14-2013, 04:20 PM
just wondering what your thoughts are..

my thought is that if that FA has any other option or is not significantly overpaid, id look elsewhere. sucks but realistically, i see it being very tough to compete with what any other team can offer.
BADTHINGSMAN
03-14-2013, 04:21 PM
If I have other options then no. If it is my only option then yes of course.
YardRat
03-14-2013, 04:28 PM
Depends on how much of a role I'm going to be expected to play. I'd rather start for a new team trying to build a winner, than sit on the bench for somebody that is already there.

But that's just me...the initial premise certainly is valid.
HAMMER
03-14-2013, 04:29 PM
Buffalo, Jax, and Cleveland would be the last options for me.
SpikedLemonade
03-14-2013, 05:02 PM
If I have other options then no. If it is my only option then yes of course.

AND if you are a player with no other options, how good can you be?
jamze132
03-14-2013, 05:07 PM
I think players that know they are better than the rest, they'll want to play for a winner unless they're offered enough money to say otherwise. Younger guys who are trying to make a name for theirselves will play for a team where they have an opportunity to start in a system to maximize their skill set.

The problem for unsuccessful teams like our beloved Bills is that we have to overpay even a mediocre player to come in. We basically have to strike lightening in a bottle with free agents to be successful and draft extrememely we'll to turn it around so future free agents worth a damn to come here.
Albany,n.y.
03-14-2013, 05:10 PM
If I'm a free agent on my last legs, I wouldn't go to the team with no QB, rookie coach's 1st year status is totally irrelevant if I come away with a strong impression of the guy. On the other hand, if the head coach was a buffoon, even if he was a veteran coach, I'd want nothing to do with the team. If I was a young free agent, I wouldn't care about either. I would only care if I though the team had no chance to win a Super Bowl throughout the length of my contract.
Why would any player with more than a year left in his career care if he was signing on with a team with a rookie head coach? To me there's a much stronger possibility of stability than with a guy on shaky grounds. Where would you, if you were a player, want to be-a team with a rookie head coach, or a team with a guy who is rated in the top 5 coaches on the hot seat, like the Jets? As a free agent, a guy who fits the system of the rookie head coach has a lot more job security than with anyone but the most entrenched of NFL coaches.
BADTHINGSMAN
03-14-2013, 05:15 PM
AND if you are a player with no other options, how good can you be?

Which is why you take the only option.
Mr. Pink
03-15-2013, 10:01 AM
Buffalo, Jax, and Cleveland would be the last options for me.

Yet Cleveland still landed players in FA.

Money talks.
OpIv37
03-15-2013, 10:04 AM
I said this in another thread:

I have no idea why any WR or TE would even consider Buffalo while we have no QB. If there are any other options available, they are not coming here. Right now, we have seriously the worst QB situation in the NFL, with the possible exception of Arizona if they cut Kolb. It's a death sentence for a WR or TE.
soapman
03-15-2013, 10:52 AM
I said this in another thread:

I have no idea why any WR or TE would even consider Buffalo while we have no QB. If there are any other options available, they are not coming here. Right now, we have seriously the worst QB situation in the NFL, with the possible exception of Arizona if they cut Kolb. It's a death sentence for a WR or TE.

Exactly my point

- - - Updated - - -


Yet Cleveland still landed players in FA.

Money talks.

Did Cleveland sign someone worthwhile and I missed it?