Would it have been smarter to sign McGahee later?

[G. Host]

Since he is not playing game 1, the Bills could have held out signing him allowing them to bring him back earlier if they desired like in week 6 if the buffalo patties his agent was spewing.

Of course that mean Rosenhauses and Toms would have to trust each other!

[HenryRules]

I don't think you can bring a rookie in midway through the season and have him play with only a week or so of practice, so I don't think they should have signed him later.

Veterans that have been around the league, maybe you can trust signing them off the street and putting them in as backups, but a rookie needs to learn what pro-style offenses are look and to get used to what the opposing players speed/strength is like instead of being thrust right into the heat of it.

[Jan Reimers]

I agree, HR. If he's going to make any contribution, he needs to be with the team in camp and in season. And the fact that he is going to take up a roster spot (at least that's what I've heard) indicates that the Bills have hopes for him this year.

[WG]

Yeah, I don't think the timing of this has anything to do w/ anything.

I will highly challenge and question Henry's agent in signing a 1-yr. extension however. I don't think they did themselves any favors and allowed for this type of contract. Had Henry held off on that, then the Bills may have been faced more w/ the gravity of the entire situation.

So I suppose you can say that TD won out. I only say "suppose" b/c for any good negotiation, both sides need to be happy about the result ideally. Doesn't sound like Henry's too happy. Also makes for an awkward situation next year. Judging by the contract #s, Henry won't be the primary ball carrier next year if McGahee can run. That doesn't seem to be ideal and I don't know how TD/GW are gonna justify that if Henry has another huge year, and even a bigger year perhaps. Especially if McGahee struggles when he first plays while the team is strong enough to otherwise make another run for a SB win.