FrankReichComeback Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I listened to an interview Buddy did with Mike Florio he said "We have 9 WR's on this team, so we are probably not in the WR business." OUCH that's not a good sign. I agree that all of the WR"s on our team are not capable #2 guys and Fitz is not good enough to make our average WR's stars. I have a lot of concern here and I'm hoping we do something different here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hopefully Gailey gets it through his thick skull that when you have 2 very good rb's and a load of crap at WR, ya gotta run the ball!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I listened to an interview Buddy did with Mike Florio he said "We have 9 WR's on this team, so we are probably not in the WR business." OUCH that's not a good sign. I agree that all of the WR"s on our team are not capable #2 guys and Fitz is not good enough to make our average WR's stars. I have a lot of concern here and I'm hoping we do something different here If you listened to that interview you should know that Buddy was talking about going after another WR in Free Agency. It's not even logical that they went strong after Meachem in literally the first minute of FA and then when they didnt sign him be out of the WR business. There weren't any big fast medium priced FA WR left is what he was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaenon Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Clowny has big shoes to fill. LOL @ clown shoes pun Edited March 19, 2012 by Kaenon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sllib olaffub Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 At what point are fans going to finally understand that the use of #1 and #2 to categorize receivers is outdated. We run a spread offense and the guy drawing single coverage is typically the first look in the progression. The fact that no one can even agree in a modern context on what a #1 or #2 actually signifies is evidence of not understanding what is really going on when the ball is snapped. Since coaches don't even use that nomenclature anymore based on the modern schemes why do fans still fuss over it. If we go 5 wide a few of these guys are singled up and one has to beat his man. That is what they have to be good enough to do. It might be a great debate to have when you are cheating your boss on productivity but come on all ready. I respect your post - and I understand your thinking. However, there's no denying Detroit's number one reciever is Calvin Johnson. Buffalo's number one reciever last year was Stevie Johnson. The number one reciever will get the ball thrown to him more often - at times even if he is covered more than other options. And, it is often the case that a team has a second wideout who is considered better than all the others - either faster, or has the ability to get open and catch the ball. I agree that to number them doesn't really mean what it used to, but there are still TYPES of wideouts that a team looks for. You want to have, in my opinion, ideally, four wideouts, or five even, who are all fast as can be, tall, and tough, with great hands. New Orleans is unique, in my opinion, over the last few years, in that their recievers are so good and similar that no one or the other was really a number one or two. In that offense your post holds true. But, in Buffalo's, Stevie is the number one. Fitz will look to throw to him more than any other reciever - even if he is covered more (and, that is one of the problems with Buffalo's offense, IMO - they're too predictable at times, with where they're going with the ball). I think Nix is trying to gather as many of the tall, fast, sure handed receivers as possible to have that type of offense, but as it stands now, if a rookie, or if Easley comes out and tears it up this year, showing tremendous skills, I would be we'll still see Stevie as the go-to guy more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harveyj001 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Trent Edwards looked good in preseason too. He cut a couple games later. This list should prove beyond doubt that this is a big need. true but Freddie Jackson looked good in preseason and it took him a couple of seasons to get his shot and look where it went. No arguing with your post but they need a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 What does Bruce Smuth have to do with this? OH! Brad Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 At what point are fans going to finally understand that the use of #1 and #2 to categorize receivers is outdated. We run a spread offense and the guy drawing single coverage is typically the first look in the progression. The fact that no one can even agree in a modern context on what a #1 or #2 actually signifies is evidence of not understanding what is really going on when the ball is snapped. Since coaches don't even use that nomenclature anymore based on the modern schemes why do fans still fuss over it. If we go 5 wide a few of these guys are singled up and one has to beat his man. That is what they have to be good enough to do. It might be a great debate to have when you are cheating your boss on productivity but come on all ready. Well put. When T.O. was in Cincy with OchoStinko, who was the #1? Neither. They were both #3s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think this *only* means that the Bills don't think that any remaining free agent WRs are much better than what they already have, particularly given what they might have to pay for the remaining WR FAs. I don't think it means that the Bills are satisfied with their weak collection of WRs. Stevie Johnson is a borderline good/very good NFL WR. David Nelson is an OK 2/3 WR. NOBODY else on the roster has proven anything, nor do they have the "great" potential some here want to ascribe to them. I am not a believer in Donald Jones or Marcus Easley. That does not mean that I don't think that one or both might develop into an NFL WR, but I do think that the odds are against the Bills in both cases. Naaman Roosevelt is a nice story, but probably isn't anything more than a marginal guy. Derek Hagan and the rest of last year's stop-gaps are just that. I don't blame the Bills for not going hard after the FA WRs as not many will be very good (IMHO). I think that we'll see a WR taken in the first 3 rounds of the draft, but I would not necessarily bet on it. I think that there might be some decent talent available in round 2 at WR (I wouldn't be too surprised if Baylor's Kendall Wright is available at the top of round 2, unless he runs MUCH faster than he did at the combine. I'd consider Ryan Broyles in round 2 or 3, but you have to accept that he might not contribute much this year coming off a knee injury. I am OK with that, but some here think draft picks have to contribute a lot in year one or they are busts. FWIW, maybe the best receivers available in round 2 might be TEs. I'd strongly consider Coby Fleener at the Bills' 2nd pick over most of the WRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Actually....Hagan has some potential as a number 2. Fast Size Physical He showed some ability when we brought him in last year. I might be mistaking him for someone else I thought he also showed hands of clay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKidd Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Good one! The entire Buffalo roster is made up of Clowney. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmur66 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I don't get why everyone is down on Easley saying how injury prone he is. Yes, he missed his rookie season due to injury Last year he was looking very good in preseason and I thought he was primed and ready to take the big step as a starter. Then he was diagnosed with a heart problem put him out for the season. It was not an injury. Apparently he had the problem fixed and is good to go. Here's hoping he can take advantage of this opporotunity. Edited March 20, 2012 by bmur66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I can live with our WRs as they have produced. I cannot live with that DEFENSE they've ran out on the field the last 5 years. Mario Williams is a start and I expect the Bills to mimic the Steelers and Giants and draft pass rushers. And then more pass rushers. Don't sign one and hope. Draft 2 more and LOCK IT DOWN. Edited March 20, 2012 by JPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billshank Redemption Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I still see us drafting a w.r either the first or trading up early second round. The F.O knows at this moment we don't have a number 2 on the roster and they are going to address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 At what point are fans going to finally understand that the use of #1 and #2 to categorize receivers is outdated. We run a spread offense and the guy drawing single coverage is typically the first look in the progression. The fact that no one can even agree in a modern context on what a #1 or #2 actually signifies is evidence of not understanding what is really going on when the ball is snapped. Since coaches don't even use that nomenclature anymore based on the modern schemes why do fans still fuss over it. If we go 5 wide a few of these guys are singled up and one has to beat his man. That is what they have to be good enough to do. It might be a great debate to have when you are cheating your boss on productivity but come on all ready. Thank you for saving me from having to explain that to people. It's maddening. Some guy on the Buffalo News comments section was just droning on and on how Stevie is not a true number one (the guy who had back to back 1000 yard seasons and schooled Revis last year) They're worse than the "franchise qb" people. I actually wonder if the bills might be excited in the guys the bills brought in late in Hagan and Clowney...... The bills really are about evaluating and keeping their own players.....except for that once in a while mega million splash for a key free agent Hagan has perfect size and looked great against NE last year. I think he makes the top 4 WR's and starts in the spread formation. Nelson Stevie Hagan and Jones. All those guys can get open and are strong athletic good sized Wr's that can block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I like Kamar Aiken actually, I think he has great hands and is a physical presence. We do need a vertical threat however, teams know that we run primarily short slant routes so to have someone who could draw the safeties back would be great. At the same time, Fitz needs to be more accurate with his 30+ yard passes. Otherwise it doesn't matter who plays the Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts