Toshiero Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Look, Our WR Corp sucks. Out side of homeristic Bills fans screaming the opposite everyone else knows it. We have Stevie a Really good starter then we have a couple #3/#4's on other teams and a bunch of Arena talent. Until this is addressed we will have issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Look, Our WR Corp sucks. Out side of homeristic Bills fans screaming the opposite everyone else knows it. We have Stevie a Really good starter then we have a couple #3/#4's on other teams and a bunch of Arena talent. Until this is addressed we will have issues. While I wouldn't put it in quite the same way, this is largely accurate in that there is no proven talent at WR outside of Stevie and Nelson (who is extremely talented in the slot). I think it is unknown whether or not the WR corps "sucks." Clearly they do not currently strike fear into the hearts of opposing coaches. Edit: however, it should also not be discounted that the Bills have two RBs who DO demand respect, and a TE in Chandler who appears to be ready to break out in a big way. This lessens the impact of a less than stellar WR corps. Edited August 9, 2012 by eball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Look, Our WR Corp sucks. Out side of homeristic Bills fans screaming the opposite everyone else knows it. We have Stevie a Really good starter then we have a couple #3/#4's on other teams and a bunch of Arena talent. Until this is addressed we will have issues. While I wouldn't put it in quite the same way, this is largely accurate in that there is no proven talent at WR outside of Stevie and Nelson (who is extremely talented in the slot). I think it is unknown whether or not the WR corps "sucks." Clearly they do not currently strike fear into the hearts of opposing coaches. Edit: however, it should also not be discounted that the Bills have two RBs who DO demand respect, and a TE in Chandler who appears to be ready to break out in a big way. This lessens the impact of a less than stellar WR corps. So, I can't help but respond to your posts together. Besides our #1 reciever, starting slot reciever and solid RBs and TE, all we have are #3 and #4 level recievers to catch the ball? That does suck! I guess many teams have a more proven second outside WR than we do, though some don't. This sounds bad! Okay, so of course I'm being sarcastic, though I recognize the truth in what you say: we need production from other reciever/s this year, and that's a concern. I suspect we keep 6 WRs and see significant contributions from the committee, especially Jones, Graham and Hagan. But, the sky is not falling. Every team has areas of concern where they need someone to step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Let's keep politics out of this. With all due respect, you're the one who brought up politics. I gave my opinion on the newspaper as a whole. I never stated my reasons (nor am I obliged to). Had I chosen to get political, I would know exactly in which forum this comment belongs. Your comment is nothing more than an assumption. BA Edited August 9, 2012 by Bud Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Look, Our WR Corp sucks. Out side of homeristic Bills fans screaming the opposite everyone else knows it. We have Stevie a Really good starter then we have a couple #3/#4's on other teams and a bunch of Arena talent. Until this is addressed we will have issues. Right now, our WR corps are improved from last year if for no reason that everyone is healthy. That glaring weakness was not an impediment to moving the ball in the first 8 games. I was as big of a critic of cutting Evans as anyone, but Gailey proved that he could design an offense to move the ball without a clear deep threat. And I can argue that Donald Jones was a negative deep threat last year, and the offense still functioned despite him. If the key guys - Freddie, Stevie, Chandler & Nelson stay healthy, the offense should be more than fine. The other guys' contribution will only be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 I wouldn't say our WR corps "sucks." I tend to agree with eball. We're still looking for a starter to play opposite Stevie. Nelson is fine as the slot guy. I'm really hoping TJ or Jones or Easley step up this year. But one thing I do feel good about is that we have a lot of depth. Our starters may or may not be in the top half of the NFL, but we have a lot of solid second-teamers. When injuries happen or when you're trying to run 4 receiver sets, that's not worthless. When and if we find a good #2, I'll be pretty happy with our receiving corps overall. This isn't a top to down mess. We're just missing one puzzle piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 It seems to me that if any of the #2s or any combination of the #2s are a threat and once in a while make a play, even if they are the #5 option on the team, we will have a very potent offense (providing the line holds up). Having ANY decent #2 allows Nelson and Chandler to be the de facto #2 and #3 WR on this team and causes enormous matchup problems for the defense. The #2 does not have to put up significant numbers for us to be very efficient and quite good like we were at the beginnning of last year when most everyone was healthy. The thing is, if there is a serious threat and legitimate playmaker on the #2 (which is why they went so strong after Meachem), the offense could be dynamic. That is what Gailey and Nix want. Nelson and Chandler as the #2 and #3 WR are defensible and marginally good. Nelson and Chandler as the #3 and #4 guys because the defense has to pay attention to the outside or get burned, are VERY good and very hard to defend. We get that with adequate play from the #2. If we get very good play from the #2, Nelson and Chandler will be open all day long, and FredEx and CJ will have all kinds of room to run out of the spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 It seems to me that if any of the #2s or any combination of the #2s are a threat and once in a while make a play, even if they are the #5 option on the team, we will have a very potent offense (providing the line holds up). Having ANY decent #2 allows Nelson and Chandler to be the de facto #2 and #3 WR on this team and causes enormous matchup problems for the defense. The #2 does not have to put up significant numbers for us to be very efficient and quite good like we were at the beginnning of last year when most everyone was healthy. The thing is, if there is a serious threat and legitimate playmaker on the #2 (which is why they went so strong after Meachem), the offense could be dynamic. That is what Gailey and Nix want. Nelson and Chandler as the #2 and #3 WR are defensible and marginally good. Nelson and Chandler as the #3 and #4 guys because the defense has to pay attention to the outside or get burned, are VERY good and very hard to defend. We get that with adequate play from the #2. If we get very good play from the #2, Nelson and Chandler will be open all day long, and FredEx and CJ will have all kinds of room to run out of the spread. Yeah, Kelly, I agree. Our offense was high-powered for the first 7 games last year without having a proven #2 WR. Lots of WRs chipped in as did Freddie and Chandler. Fitz had several legitimite targets. Part of our success has to do with the nature of the offense. We had multiple guys running short routes. Our WRs didn't need to be speed demons and they didn't necessarily need to beat tough coverage. They just needed to know what Chan expected of them and then hang on to the ball. Our best plays usually produced an open receiver just because Chan's play-design and play-calling created a mismatch or defensive-breakdown somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts