clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Walker, Edwards Moves Questioned

New, comments

I've got a couple more articles and an announcement to get out of the way before our "Positional Previews" series continues with an analysis of our tight ends later on this morning.

According to an AP report, contract negotiations between the Bills and Darwin Walker are at an impasse:

Talks broke down after (agent Albert) Irby said he rejected the Bills' latest offer of a one-year, $1.3 million deal. That's what Walker was scheduled to be paid this season under his current contract, which was to also pay him $1.4 million in 2008.

Irby said he's open to a one-year deal, but not for that kind of money.

"It doesn't make any sense," he said. "At $1.3 million, Darwin would be the lowest-paid five-year starter in the league."

That's too bad, Al, because Buffalo makes the second team that wouldn't give your client the $1.3 million he, in honesty, deserves to make. Philadelphia traded Walker rather than pay him, and if he goes back to the Eagles they'll likely shun him again by releasing him. It's time for Walker and Irby to face facts - Darwin's not going to get the money he wants from a team looking to become a contender. Any team that pays him what he wants will be acting in desperation.

Was Trent Edwards a bad pick despite his obviously high third-round value?

The Bills claim that they had Edwards rated too highly to pass up in the third, but what use is a relatively valuable steal if the chosen player's best hope for the next few seasons is to overtake Craig Nall? That's not the sort of accomplishment that should be the only realistic goal of a third-rounder.

While I still support the drafting of Edwards, this point (made by Anthony Bialy) is a great one. For a team as young as the Bills, getting more immediate value out of our third-round pick may have been more prudent. It can be argued that it's best to draft that way, and it can be argued that it's best to draft for the long-term talent of the team, which is obviously what the Edwards pick was all about. I tend to think that taking the best values is the optimal way to draft; anyone agree with Bialy on this one?

This is probably a bit premature, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways - 24 of SB Nation's best bloggers will be forming 2 fantasy football leagues; yours truly will be in the AFC League, known as the "SBN American Conference". There is also an NFC league called the "SBN National Conference"; if everything gets set up as we want it, we may have the winners of the two leagues meet up in a SBN "Super Bowl" to claim ultimate bragging rights. Both league winners will likely receive some sort of prize, whether it be cash, a gift certificate or a spiffy championship logo for our blogs.

Why does this matter to you? Well, Buffalo Rumblings is a community-driven site, so I would like to make my fantasy team a community-driven franchise. In the vein of Dick Jauron/Marv Levy/Ralph Wilson/Jim Overdorf/assistant coaches and their belief in consesus-building, I would like to enlist the services of a few of my readers to "co-manage" the team with me. I'd like assistance putting together a draft board, setting weekly lineups and making trades, and I think a team effort with my fantasy franchise would make this ridiculously fun for the site as whole, rather than just for me.

If anyone is interested in co-managing, drop me a line in the comments. I'd like to have 4 or 5 readers at a max, but I'll take as many as I feel comfortable with. Looking forward to hearing from some of you!