Free Agency '06 (Moulds isn't coming. 17.8 million in cap space.)

[JTrotter Fan]

The KKK deceased members are turning in their graves after those posts.

[The BIGSTUD]

I can't honestly believe we will go into the season with our top 3 receivers as Brown, Pinkston, and Gaffney.

It's impossible. They can't do that to the fans. They just can't.

They will say we tried to get Moulds and Walker, but couldn't. NO WAY IN HELL they get Walker in here, This is the WR's we will have for the season.

If we don't get Walker, then we take a receiver in round 1 or 2.

[SunMo]

your denial is laughable.  this WR corp is already better than the one from 2001-2003, and they had no problem playing a season with those bums.

[BigEd76]

It won't be round 1.  They don't like Jackson or Holmes....

[The BIGSTUD]

So because we played with bums in 2001-2003, we should accept having average receivers in 2006?

We also played with a weak, small MLB in 2003 as well. How about trading away Trotter and starting Simoneau again. Because, hey, we made it far in 2003, so Simoneau must be fine.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

If we don't get Walker, then we take a receiver in round 1 or 2.

Already going back on your "definitely getting Moulds or Walker" stance, I see.

[phillymic2000]

I can't honestly believe we will go into the season with our top 3 receivers as Brown, Pinkston, and Gaffney.

It's impossible. They can't do that to the fans. They just can't.

There were some other suitors for Moulds, who last week was granted permission by the Bills to seek out trade possibilities, but none were as aggressive as the Texans. And many of the franchises cited as having interest in Moulds, notably the Philadelphia Eagles, never got involved in substantive discussions. Talks with the Eagles were initiated by Moulds' agent, and were relatively one-sided.

I am shocked, just shocked

this is what we get, one of the most pass happy teams in the league and no studs at WR to throw to Hooray for us!

[phillymic2000]

We also played with a weak, small MLB in 2003 as well. How about trading away Trotter and starting Simoneau again. Because, hey, we made it far in 2003, so Simoneau must be fine.

Is that you coach Reid?

[The BIGSTUD]

If we don't get Walker, then we take a receiver in round 1 or 2.

Already going back on your "definitely getting Moulds or Walker" stance, I see.

I'm holding out any hope that I can find, because I can't see us winning a Superbowl with the current WRs. If this receiving corps stands exactly as it is come september, then I will shred this team.

[SunMo]

So because we played with bums in 2001-2003, we should accept having average receivers in 2006?

We also played with a weak, small MLB in 2003 as well. How about trading away Trotter and starting Simoneau again. Because, hey, we made it far in 2003, so Simoneau must be fine.

no, ass.  you keep saying that you "can't believe" that they would come into this season with these receivers.  well, they've come into a season with worse, so why the farg would it be so unbelieveable that they would start the season with these recievers.

and stop saying "we", you're not on the team.

[Geowhizzer]

Better get ready, Shredder.

[The BIGSTUD]

So because we played with bums in 2001-2003, we should accept having average receivers in 2006?

We also played with a weak, small MLB in 2003 as well. How about trading away Trotter and starting Simoneau again. Because, hey, we made it far in 2003, so Simoneau must be fine.

no, ass.  you keep saying that you "can't believe" that they would come into this season with these receivers.  well, they've come into a season with worse, so why the farg would it be so unbelieveable that they would start the season with these recievers.

and stop saying "we", you're not on the team.

Ok, I get your point now, and it's a valid point. However, I think that idea went out the window after the Carolina game, where our receivers flat out lost this team a chance to go to the Superbowl.

I don't think they will make the same mistake twice. These receivers are better than what we had then, but the fact is it's still not good enough IMO.

Plus, after coming off a 6-10 season, their goal should be to heavily upgrade every position as much as they can. Should it not be?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

What their goal should be and what it actually is could be very different things, and probably are...

because this FO is cheap and sucks and I want to kill them all!!!!!!!1111111

[ice grillin you]

this WR corp is already better than the one from 2001-2003

you sure about that

[reese125]

So because we played with bums in 2001-2003, we should accept having average receivers in 2006?

We also played with a weak, small MLB in 2003 as well. How about trading away Trotter and starting Simoneau again. Because, hey, we made it far in 2003, so Simoneau must be fine.

no, ass.  you keep saying that you "can't believe" that they would come into this season with these receivers.  well, they've come into a season with worse, so why the farg would it be so unbelieveable that they would start the season with these recievers.

and stop saying "we", you're not on the team.

Ok, I get your point now, and it's a valid point. However, I think that idea went out the window after the Carolina game, where our receivers flat out lost this team a chance to go to the Superbowl.

I don't think they will make the same mistake twice. These receivers are better than what we had then, but the fact is it's still not good enough IMO.

Plus, after coming off a 6-10 season, their goal should be to heavily upgrade every position as much as they can. Should it not be?

blame it on a slew of injuries with the QB injured ....and locker room turmoil. Not every position, DT and WR and were good