Thailog80 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I was under the impression it was to help the passing game...huh? I was a little disappointed at the non existance of the deep ball. Correct me if Im wrong but isn't that how we hammered Jacksonville last year? I didn't think Jacksonville's coverage was that good....but that's just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIZ Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 To recover fumbles. I too, was disappointed that they didn't even take 1 shot downfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I was under the impression it was to help the passing game...huh? I was a little disappointed at the non existance of the deep ball. Correct me if Im wrong but isn't that how we hammered Jacksonville last year? I didn't think Jacksonville's coverage was that good....but that's just my .02 28685[/snapback] You're right. But, to be fair, we never needed to force anything deep yesterday. Our offense was controlling the clock, and had the lead all the way till the end. The offense's main job yesterday (right or wrong) was to keep the turnovers down and put the defense in the best position to win the game...and they did that. If TC had it to do over again, I think he would have mixed in a couple deep balls, but for 59 minutes yesterday, the gameplan was working fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I am hoping that they are keeping him under wraps for future division opponents... It may also be that the O-line isn't yet capable of holding their blocks for that long. A confident QB is better than a creamed QB. I just don't think TC, SW, and JMac set Drew up to get pummelled like that this early in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Deep routes result in sacks more than anything else. And with an inexperienced line and a rookie WR it ain't going to happen. You should know better than that. We are playing ball control O. Get use to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 Deep routes result in sacks more than anything else. And with an inexperienced line and a rookie WR it ain't going to happen. You should know better than that. We are playing ball control O. Get use to it. 28736[/snapback] I do know better but sometimes they (Deep balls) can greatly change the outcome of a game........ahem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 He's not a pass catcher he's a fumble-recoverer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 He's not a pass catcher he's a fumble-recoverer. 28758[/snapback] Hey I guess that sub 4.40 speed does pay dividends doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 ROOKIE RECIEVERS RARELY MAKE AN IMPACT THERE FIRST YEAR. Bolden was a rare thing. i look for evans to get more receptions in the second half of the year, and NEXT year, get the #2 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxboro Mike Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 ROOKIE RECIEVERS RARELY MAKE AN IMPACT THERE FIRST YEAR. Bolden was a rare thing. i look for evans to get more receptions in the second half of the year, and NEXT year, get the #2 spot. 28770[/snapback] Great post - rookie WRs who rip it up are few and far in between... especially with a QB iwho is afraid to pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I was under the impression it was to help the passing game...huh? I was a little disappointed at the non existance of the deep ball. Correct me if Im wrong but isn't that how we hammered Jacksonville last year? I didn't think Jacksonville's coverage was that good....but that's just my .02 28685[/snapback] Funny you should mention that...I posted a similar comment after the Game and was met with usual, Rookie impact, hindsight arguements, etc... First off, it was the Bills Brass who said Lee Evans would impact the Offense with his deep speed, not the Fans. And I don't think anyone expects him to go for 1200 yds. and 10 TD's. But I sure as heck expected the Bills to try, just try, to get him the Ball deep at least one time.... Secondly I believe the Draft Pick speaks volumes to the "Offensive Philosopy" issue. Yes we all know the Bills needed to get Moulds help at WR. But if in fact the Bills were bound and determined to pound it out on the Ground and only throw shorter to medium range Passes, than I question the Pick. What I mean is, are we looking at another round peg for a square holed Offense? The Bills snagged Evans at #13 Overall, and 3 picks later the Eagle got OG Shawn Andrews who by all early accounts is a Bulldozer. Now granted I wanted Andrews on Draft day, but again my thought was the Bills planned Offensive philosophy dictated the Need, along with the fact we really did not have a LG at the time. Nothing against Lawrence Smith who obviously did a decent job on Sunday, but I'm sure any NFL GM will tell us there is a MAJOR difference between Smith and Andrews...Plus, it's obvious to me that McNally has helped already with the O-Line, but how much better would it be with a Player of Andrew's calibre at LG? Look I know it's all hindsight and such, but damn if I don't worry that this Bills Administration keeps making moves that make you scratch your head. I mean I love Lee Evans, he's one of ours and I hope He's the next great NFL Deep threat. But if your going to Run a Ball Control, pound it out, 3 yards and a cloud of dust Offense, and OG is a Need, do you take the 5-11 speedburner or the 6-4-360 mauler? I think it's a fair question... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Are you stupid or what. He is a ROOKIE. Very very few rookie WR's make an impact their first year let along their first game. Think before you type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 2 reasons I can think of, they felt they could beat Jax by controlling the clock and wanted to get the OLines confidence up before resorting to the deep ball. Although, one or two would have been nice just to keep them thinking. I bet we go deep a few times next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Are you stupid or what. He is a ROOKIE. Very very few rookie WR's make an impact their first year let along their first game. Think before you type. 28890[/snapback] Woh, take it easy on my man T-80....read his post again: I was a little disappointed at the non existance of the deep ball. Correct me if Im wrong but isn't that how we hammered Jacksonville last year? I didn't think Jacksonville's coverage was that good....but that's just my .02 In this post there is zero reference to the entire year, that part I agree with, its hard to expect a major contribution in Year 1. But I agree with T-80 about yesterdays game, I think its more of a disappointment that we didnt see them try to go deep maybe once or twice more in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I don't know if you want to call it "impact" (since he didn't touch the ball on those plays), but Moulds seemed open/single-covered a lot more than he was last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted September 13, 2004 Author Share Posted September 13, 2004 Are you stupid or what. He is a ROOKIE. Very very few rookie WR's make an impact their first year let along their first game. Think before you type. 28890[/snapback] Okay....So wtf is he on the field for if Rookies make so little impact? Fumble recoveries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I was under the impression it was to help the passing game...huh? I was a little disappointed at the non existance of the deep ball. Correct me if Im wrong but isn't that how we hammered Jacksonville last year? I didn't think Jacksonville's coverage was that good....but that's just my .02 28685[/snapback] You're correct. I think it all comes down to the fact that the coaches have no confidence in the line's ability to protect the QB. The offense needs to really sell the fake handoffs and send the ball downfield at least three times a game. I would like 5 times myself, but after the clammering for "running the ball on every play" from the Bills media and fan outlets, I'm not surprised about Malarkey's ultraconservative approach. If the line can't protect Drew, the point is moot anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 alright i mised the game yesterday. so what was the longest pass all day? and tell me it was over 30 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Okay....So wtf is he on the field for if Rookies make so little impact? Fumble recoveries? 28985[/snapback] Well lets see, Maybe he is a little better than Shaw and around the same as Reed but not as good as Moulds but a hell of alot better than the rest of the wr's we have. So that could be the reason he is on the field, but i guess you want one of the other rookies out there too. Hey the hell with Losmans leg. Put him in we aren't paying him to sit around. THINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Well lets see, Maybe he is a little better than Shaw and around the same as Reed but not as good as Moulds but a hell of alot better than the rest of the wr's we have. So that could be the reason he is on the field, but i guess you want one of the other rookies out there too. Hey the hell with Losmans leg. Put him in we aren't paying him to sit around.THINK 29070[/snapback] Sorry I forgot to log back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts