What happens with Marquise Goodwin?

[3rdand12]

Crossman was the one under fire last year. Everybody was calling for his head at that point. Hackett wasn't beloved but he wasn't crucified either. MANY (including people here) were very surprised and disappointed that Crossman was retained.

 

I don't remember Goodwin being a healthy scratch (maybe he was). He's always hurt so I don't know when he isn't playing if he is healthy or hurt. The point being, if healthy, I'd rather he be active than Dean. He is more likely to impact the outcome of a game.

 

Ultimately at the bottom of your roster that is what you want. Guys like Thigpen do the same. I don't need to dress Chris's Gragg or Dorin Dickerson or Tashard Choice or Donald Jones or any of the other end of the depth chart skill guys that are (or were) limited physically. While they more be more consistent than Goodwin it won't matter because of pushed into a larger role you are in trouble (See Donald Jones as an every down receiver).

I see your point of course> The ST were a focus after such a dismal year previous. They turned that around 180 deg.

fantastic right !?

But i would like to suggest that the receivers have been poorly used for two years.

Goodwin et al need another shot under a new coordinator.

And Bills did not use the WR core as a strength, maybe due to QB ing? I dont know that.

But i agree that Goodwin when healthy is a sincere threat and will be respected by defenses.

coaching need to take care of him with routes and how is used of course.

i am stiil of the mind last two years offense was just weird>

almost as weird as Wannstadts defense was. alot of wtf are you guys calling and what point are you trying to prove.

i have taken a tangent but whatevs

ST Player they signed during the season. Backup LB.

signed him later on didnt they?

[JohnC]

 

 

 

Crossman was the one under fire last year. Everybody was calling for his head at that point. Hackett wasn't beloved but he wasn't crucified either. MANY (including people here) were very surprised and disappointed that Crossman was retained.

 

You don't think there is a correleation to better STs play and having more players on the roster who were good on special teams?

 

 

Whether Goodwin was healthy or not (very often not) he was not an effective player. Wouldn't it be smarter to add a quality receiver, although not as fast, who is better at getting open on a wider variety of routes? Because of his lack of durability Goodwin had a very limited range of routes that he was called on to run..

 

 

 

Ultimately at the bottom of your roster that is what you want. Guys like Thigpen do the same. I don't need to dress Chris's Gragg or Dorin Dickerson or Tashard Choice or Donald Jones or any of the other end of the depth chart skill guys that are (or were) limited physically. While they more be more consistent than Goodwin it won't matter because of pushed into a larger role you are in trouble (See Donald Jones as an every down receiver).

 

No matter how you apportion the spaces on your roster if the player you want to utilize more is not healthy enough to play then what is the point? Watkins played hurt because he was physically able to do so, even if the injury limited him. On the other hand Goodwin is built in such a fine-tuned way that if he had a nagging injury it more than curtailed his ability to perform, it shut him down.

 

The reality is that a player with less tools such as Hogan demonstrably outperformed the olympicly talented Goodwin because he was more durable. When all is said and done it is about what you actually do and not what you are capable of doing. Another way to look at this is that staying healthy enough to be on the field is a critical talent in itself. That is a talent that Goodwin doesn't have.

Edited February 21, 2015 by JohnC

[jumbalaya]

Goodwin is going to team with Roscoe and TJ on reality TV on how to bust in the NFL.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

Crossman was the one under fire last year. Everybody was calling for his head at that point. Hackett wasn't beloved but he wasn't crucified either. MANY (including people here) were very surprised and disappointed that Crossman was retained.

 

You don't think there is a correleation to better STs play and having more players on the roster who were good on special teams?

 

 

Whether Goodwin was healthy or not (very often not) he was not an effective player. Wouldn't it be smarter to add a quality receiver, although not as fast, who is better at getting open on a wider variety of routes? Because of his lack of durability Goodwin had a very limited range of routes that he was called on to run..

 

 

 

Ultimately at the bottom of your roster that is what you want. Guys like Thigpen do the same. I don't need to dress Chris's Gragg or Dorin Dickerson or Tashard Choice or Donald Jones or any of the other end of the depth chart skill guys that are (or were) limited physically. While they more be more consistent than Goodwin it won't matter because of pushed into a larger role you are in trouble (See Donald Jones as an every down receiver).

 

No matter how you apportion the spaces on your roster if the player you want to utilize more is not healthy enough to play then what is the point? Watkins played hurt because he was physically able to do so, even if the injury limited him. On the other hand Goodwin is built in such a fine-tuned way that if he had a nagging injury it more than curtailed his ability to perform, it shut him down.

 

The reality is that a player with less tools such as Hogan demonstrably outperformed the olympicly talented Goodwin because he was more durable. When all is said and done it is about what you actually do and not what you are capable of doing. Another way to look at this is that staying healthy enough to be on the field is a critical talent in itself. That is a talent that Goodwin doesn't have.

 

 

 

 

Obviously if you add ST talent your ST will improve. I am simply arguing that adding a healthy Easley, Gay, Schmidt, Graham, Dixon and Thigpen was enough. You didn't need to add Dean too.

 

The Bills don't need more well rounded receivers IMO. Those guys serve no role unless someone gets hurt (maybe 1 more). They need a guy that can make big plays and a guy that can win jump balls in the red zone. They have 3 guys now to play all of the snaps and run the whole route tree. I'd rather have a guy that does everything exceptionally (Watkins), a guy that does everything well (Woods), 2 guys that do everything okay (Hogan & ?), a guy to win in the red zone (?) and a guy to make big plays (Goodwin). I dot need those last 2 spots to be 2 guys that will just wait for 1 of the top 4 guys to get hurt to become a 4th option. You can always grab a Namman Roosevelt to fill that role.

 

Goodwin may never be healthy and I am not advocating just for him. I am advocating for someone like him. A game changing burner that can make 10 big plays a year. To me that is much more valuable than a 5th guy that is below average at everything.

 

To my initial question who do you think is more likely to impact a game Larry Dean or Goodwin? That is my whole point. If you have an option better than both -cool. Right now that is the type of gameday decision that needs to be made. A big play threat is more important than your 5th best ST cover guy (Dixon, Graham, Easley, Hogan).

Edited February 21, 2015 by Kirby Jackson

[dezertbill]

With Ryan coming in all players are starting with a clean slate. Goodwin has shown some flashes, but his brittleness has become almost laughable. The minute he gets hit it seems to be a 50/50 shot that he'll get up.

 

I still believe he can be the player the Bills drafted him to be. He'll get that chance in 2015 to prove he can. If he goes another year without the ability to stay healthy I see the Bills parting ways with him.

 

Thigpen came on and showed some of what they expected from Goodwin. I think those two will battle it out for the speedy small receiver/return role. It may come down to who can stay healthy

[Tampa Bob]

Its a little hyperbole with the word "solely." The point stands that the Bills poured WAY more resources in to ST than other teams. 7 guys active to do nothing but ST and then they signed to ST studs (Dixon and Graham as well). The ST would have been very good without Dean and maybe even Gay (even though I was okay with the KO specialist).

I can only make the case built on the Bills roster. If they get a better player to play the position by all means play him. That is where your point loses me. That guy isn't here to decide if he should be playing or Goodwin.

 

Who do you think makes a bigger impact on the team Larry Dean or Marquise Goodwin? That is the question and to me it is a no brainer.

Is Larry dean a wide receiver? If not, who cares? We keep x amount of wrs. He is wasting one of those spots. We can absolutely get a wide receiver better than Goodwin pretty easily.

[Kirby Jackson]

Is Larry dean a wide receiver? If not, who cares? We keep x amount of wrs. He is wasting one of those spots. We can absolutely get a wide receiver better than Goodwin pretty easily.

They kept them both so that is irrelevant. Who do you dress is the question? I would imagine that it came down to a WR (Mike Williams or Goodwin) and Dean a lot. What would you do in that scenario? Edited February 21, 2015 by Kirby Jackson

[Tampa Bob]

They kept them both so that is irrelevant. Who do you dress is the question? I would imagine that it came down to a WR (Mike Williams or Goodwin) and Dean a lot. What would you do in that scenario?

I would dress the guy who is going to make the biggest impact. I would never dress a special teamer and leave someone like Mike Williams on the bench. That is retarded, but I guess I am not Doug Marrone. Maybe Larry dean offered more than a 900-1000 yard/ 10td receiver with great red zone skills when we sucked in the red zone.

And in general, I would keep very few special teamers. I hate coaches that over emphasize the importance of special teams. It's not all that important in reality unless you suck in every other phase.

[Kirby Jackson]

I would dress the guy who is going to make the biggest impact. I would never dress a special teamer and leave someone like Mike Williams on the bench. That is retarded, but I guess I am not Doug Marrone. Maybe Larry dean offered more than a 900-1000 yard/ 10td receiver with great red zone skills when we sucked in the red zone.

And in general, I would keep very few special teamers. I hate coaches that over emphasize the importance of special teams. It's not all that important in reality unless you suck in every other phase.

Agree 1,000% and that's kind of the point that I have been trying to make. Same case could be made for Bryce Brown too.

 

ST are important and I'm glad that they emphasized them. They didn't need 7 guys each week dressed to do nothing but ST. 5-6 (Thigpen, Sanborn, Schmidt, Carpenter and Easley) and they still would have had a really good ST unit.

[JohnC]

To my initial question who do you think is more likely to impact a game Larry Dean or Goodwin? That is my whole point. If you have an option better than both -cool. Right now that is the type of gameday decision that needs to be made. A big play threat is more important than your 5th best ST cover guy (Dixon, Graham, Easley, Hogan).

Let me attack this issue from a broader perspective discounting the position. If an Olineman or Dlineman or LBer or CB was as brittle as Goodwin would you have him on your roster as a niche player? Of course not. We are not being theoretical in our discussion. The issue is who is ready to play and contribute, even as a specialty player.

 

Goodwin has never been used as a full time player. He is more of a situational receiver used to go on long patterns. Yet even with his limited role and playing time he can't be counted on to stay healthy enough to contribute much.

 

Instead of arguing back and forth over whether it is more important to have him over a ST player there is another aspect to that issue. The issue is whether another receiver can be more productive than the minimally productive receiver who can't stay healthy. My position is that I would prefer a medium range receiver who can make catches over the speed demon who can't get on the field. I believe that another productive player will make Watkins and Woods even more effective.

 

There are players who are injury prone. And there are players who can work through their injuries and stay on the field. I'm not criticizing Goodwin's effort so much as acknowledging his lack of durability. Watkins, Woods, Hogan and Chandler do get knocked around a lot in this very vicious crash sport. Goodwin can't come close to tolerating the hits that they absorb. It's not his fault that he lacks durability. He's a fine tuned athlete who can't sustained the punishment that is inherent in his profession. What's telling is that compared to the other receivers he sustains fewer hits, yet he is still can't be depended on to get much playing time.

 

Staying healthy enough to play is in some respect an inherent talent. He simply doesn't have it.

[Kirby Jackson]

Let me attack this issue from a broader perspective discounting the position. If an Olineman or Dlineman or LBer or CB was as brittle as Goodwin would you have him on your roster as a niche player? Of course not. We are not being theoretical in our discussion. The issue is who is ready to play and contribute, even as a specialty player.

 

Goodwin has never been used as a full time player. He is more of a situational receiver used to go on long patterns. Yet even with his limited role and playing time he can't be counted on to stay healthy enough to contribute much.

 

Instead of arguing back and forth over whether it is more important to have him over a ST player there is another aspect to that issue. The issue is whether another receiver can be more productive than the minimally productive receiver who can't stay healthy. My position is that I would prefer a medium range receiver who can make catches over the speed demon who can't get on the field. I believe that another productive player will make Watkins and Woods even more effective.

 

There are players who are injury prone. And there are players who can work through their injuries and stay on the field. I'm not criticizing Goodwin's effort so much as acknowledging his lack of durability. Watkins, Woods, Hogan and Chandler do get knocked around a lot in this very vicious crash sport. Goodwin can't come close to tolerating the hits that they absorb. It's not his fault that he lacks durability. He's a fine tuned athlete who can't sustained the punishment that is inherent in his profession. What's telling is that compared to the other receivers he sustains fewer hits, yet he is still can't be depended on to get much playing time.

 

Staying healthy enough to play is in some respect an inherent talent. He simply doesn't have it.

It's a different point. Can an injury prone lineman turn the fortunes of a game on 1 play? If he could than I would be all for it. That's the same argument with the extra ST player. Their maximum impact on a game is so much less than that of Goodwin that he gets the extra leash. Obviously he is injury prone but when healthy can impact a game in 1 or 2 plays.

[enlightener]

it would be nice if we could ever use a speed guy the way a speed guy is meant to be used.

 

His first play of 2013 was a 5 yarder across the middle=broken bone+fumble.

in 2014 he caught his first pass, a deep ball= TD.

soon after hes thrown a 5 yarder across the middle where he gets injured again

in 2013 i believe he had 4-5 deep tds and other long catches = superb hands...so 1 deep ball thrown in 2014?, genius.

we used 3 draft picks to get goodwin- bear with me, and now we might cut him???

 

in 2011 we drop our only true speed guy, Evans(a perfect #2) after being mis-used as a # 1 for most of his career= 6-10 record

in 2012 Bills realized they actually did need speed and draft graham w a 3rd over Wilson= 6-10 record

in 2013 new regime realizes they still need speed and since graham sucks (as a #2 cuz hes a #3 type speed guy!) they draft woods and goodwin (and ej since no wilson in 2012)

in 2014 graham is cut Bills say F-it and draft a speed at #1 w 3 picks! when they finally realize a slow-as-sh%# WR cant be a #1 (SJ)

 

So there you have it, dumping evans causes need for graham, which costs us wilson and has now cost us 6 picks- a 3rd, a 3rd, a 4rth, a 2nd , a 1st and a 1st, (oh and wilson)

had we drafted wilson not graham, we would not have drafted ej and could have drafted woods, goodwin and either hopkins or patterson with our 16th pick, kept SJ and been set at WR, w out overpaying for watkins. think of it, wilson and exactly 3 picks total for 3 quality receivers, what a concept!

 

so now people want goodwin gone because hes small? we already knew this, we didnt know if was any good and he is, he is great. we dont need every WR to be a go to #1. We need a few deep threats to hit for a td 1 or 2 times a game and score 30+ per game not 14.

 

drafting graham has set this franchise back so much farther than Whitner, Williams, Maybin, JP, EJ or any other bust ever has. this is worse than how we drafted 3 first rounders to replace Travis Henry

Edited February 23, 2015 by enlightener

[Formerly Allan in MD]

I like him to but hes like 5'9" 165 lbs. doesn't seem built for the NFL.

True, but he can fly past defenders. So the height factor is less a problem than the weight one, which can be "crushing."

[enlightener]

didnt realize w eused a 3rd for both graham and goodwin, jesus its worse than i though. re my post above.

[boyst]

What you just described is how TJ Graham was used. Not only did Graham possess high end speed but he was much more durable than Goodwin.

 

Goodwin was an intriguing prospect because of his impressive speed. Not only was he a speedster but he was a world class athlete (difference from speed). All his exceptional physical talents are undercut by the negative factor that he is very fragile in a crash sport.

 

When Goodwin is on the field the defense knows what routes he can run and what he can't. He's not going to run routes over the middle because he is going to get pummeled and predictably hurt. So the one route he is usually going to run (even with his great speed) is going to be accounted for by the defensive backfield.

 

The long routes that Goodwin regularly runs has lacked much utility because our OL couldn't pass block adequately enough and because our qb play has been so dreadful.

 

As it stands this was another Buddy Nix squandered high pick. You can add this cute pick to the wasteful Buddy picks that include Torrel Troup etc.

 

As it stands Goodwin is a niche player when this team is lacking enough quality useful football players. Hogan doesn't have the impressive physical attributes that Goodwin possesses but he is a more productive football player. Very often when you try to outsmart others you outsmart yourself. That's the Tom Donahoe syndrome. Goodwin is the type of prospect who excells in the combine setting. But when you put him on the field with real game time action he doesn't give you much production because he is more often than not on the sidelines being attended to by the trainers.

The absolute worst thing about Marquise Goodwin is that he can only run 2 or 3 routes on the tree. A post, a flare and maybe a hook route. The post has to be downfield and a 12 yard break and the hook has to be 20 yards down field.

 

Goodwin has value to this team but it is not as much as someone like Hogan, Graham, David Nelson, Easley, or a bunch of others have because they can actually play football.

[Kemp]

He's light years better than Graham.

 

That leaves him a few rungs away from being worth keeping.

 

And as much as you don't want to hear it, he gets injured.

 

You would think that after Parrish and Graham you would have figured out that speed alone is worthless in the NFL.

[Overseas Bills Fan]

Let's just get the smart-ass response of "he gets injured" out of the way first.

 

Disclaimer: I'm a sucker for the blazing fast guys. I held out hope for Roscoe Parrish and TJ Graham longer than most so take this all with a grain of salt.

 

Having said that. I love watching this guy play and I think he needs to be used more. The separation he gets is not something I've ever seen from a Bills player. Yes he gets hurt a lot, but he's not a wimpy player. The guy goes into the middle and will take a hit to make a catch.

 

For those who have seen their share of Niners games, what role do you see him playing in Roman's offense? I can't recall if they had a guy like him before. Brandon Lloyd is fast, but not really the same kind of player. From everything Rex and Roman have said, it seems like they prefer size and power over the small, fast guys.

 

Watkins and Goodwin on the ends with Woods in the slot would scare defenses (if we had a QB, that is).

Roscoe Parrish Version 2.0

[Solomon Grundy]

I like him to but hes like 5'9" 165 lbs. Dosent seem built for the NFL.

He's about the same size as John Brown of the Arizona Cardinals. What a weapon he is.

[GunnerBill]

He is my outisde candidate for shock cut. Whaley did an interview a few weeks ago where he was talking about our young receiving talent and said "we have Sammy and Robert Woods and Chris Hogan who has come on really well but we maybe need one more guy there." I thought the lack of a mention for Goodwin was interesting. If he has any kind of injury niggle during camp and can't establish himself on the team as the premier return guy then I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that he isn't back.

[Solomon Grundy]

I think he was referring to a tall, physical WR. A "throw it up to" guy. I believe the Bills will target that kind of guy in the draft, early. Possibly Jaelen Strong or DGB. Don't sleep Austin Hill from Arizona. May slip in draft because of ACL tear.