DMBills36 said:
Donahoe and many of us in Buffalo don't exactly see Shelton as being equivalent to Henry, for a few of the following reasons:
1. Both lost their starting job, but Shelton more due to poor performance and not getting along with the coaching staff (this is a red flag to people like Donahoe)
2. Henry is a pro-bowler, Shelton is not
3. Henry is cheaper, Shelton is moderately priced
4. Henry has a 1 yr deal, Shelton has 3 or 4 more
5. There is a moderate age difference
6. Henry is a warrior who can play injured, Shelton is not known as a warrior.
1 is inaccurate. shelton was injured and reported to camp out of shape as a result. whereas henry DID lose his job due to performance, both his own and mcgahee's. the bills decided to go w/ mcgahee b/c the team wasn't getting it done w/ henry behind bledsoe. i must say, i'm a henry fan, but that causes me consternation. and not getting along with the staff? you're kidding, right? it was henry, not shelton who came out in the media to say he wouldn't play for his team again.
2 is also a bad ploy. neither were pro bowlers last year. just b/c someone made a pro bowl sometime doesn't mean they are still that caliber. we have to wait and see if henry still has that in him. heck, troy aikman made a lot of pro bowls but that don't mean he's got more value than shelton.
3 is comparing apples and oranges. shelton is cheap for a LT. see your boy jennings who left y'all high and dry. henry's deal is only for one year, he ain't gonna be "cheap" for much longer.
4 is actually in shelton's favor. you have a LT locked up for years whereas the cards would have to negotiate a new deal with a rb who thinks pretty highly of himself.
5 is negligible. i mean, LTs play a lot longer in this league effectively than do rbs. this is either a wash or plays in shelton's favor.
6 is rather meaningless in determining trade value.
both sides are being homers here. it should be straight up and both teams are better. simply put.