tennesseeboy Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 BranPosition: WR Number: 06 School: Central Florida Height: 6'5 Status: Senior Weight: 210 This is a player at the wide receiver position that has all the physical attributes you want This is a former defensive back that shows the physical toughness needed from his former position and he uses on the field these days He has the size, speed, burst and nice pass catching skills you would hope for, I also like his aggressiveness and lack of hesitation to get upfield after the catch, but I would like to see more (YAC) yards after contact and make things happen with more creativity A few things that may hold this players development back, the instability at the quarterback position where there will be a player with few snaps under center, and the offense does not emphasize throwing to the receivers, he needs more touches to to display his array of skills don Marshall 3rd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I have no idea what Bruce would ask for, but I don't think he would be too cheap. Do you have any idea what his asking price would be? 620807[/snapback] No, but I have a very firm idea as to how much the Bills should be willing to spend on that position--$3 - $4 million per year at most. If Bruce won't sign for that money, find someone else. If Givens won't sign for that, find someone else. If nobody in that category will sign for that money, then go into the season with Sam Aiken as your #2, and use the full $7 million a year from Moulds on the lines. Granted if you did things this way you'd have to draft a WR relatively soon. But this team's going to have holes come opening day of 2006 no matter what Levy does. Better they be at WR than on the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 "X, Y, Z Receivers The x receiver, or the split end, aligns on the weak side of the formation. The z receiver, or the flanker, aligns on the strong side of the formation, maybe a couple of steps off the line of scrimmage in the slot. The tight end functions as the y receiver, but often on passing plays functions as another wide receiver." This is the main definition of a WR. But my explanation is that the #1 WR is the player, who is the best WR from a group of wide recievers on a team, either because of his leadership hands, speed, or route running. It's confusing, but it makes sense. 620941[/snapback] Fair enough, but I disagree. Well, I agree that in some rare cases a team does have what could be described as a "#1 WR" - if you have a Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, or Steve Smith, and you are thinking about getting the ball to that player on most every play. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that every team, or that even most teams have a "#1 WR" position. In fact, I would say that most teams do not design their gameplan around having a #1 WR. Rather, the typical NFL team lines up on most plays with two or three WR's who are the starting WR's. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Fair enough, but I disagree. Well, I agree that in some rare cases a team does have what could be described as a "#1 WR" - if you have a Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, or Steve Smith, and you are thinking about getting the ball to that player on most every play. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that every team, or that even most teams have a "#1 WR" position. In fact, I would say that most teams do not design their gameplan around having a #1 WR. Rather, the typical NFL team lines up on most plays with two or three WR's who are the starting WR's. JDG 621060[/snapback] And I disagree. Almost every team has a WR who gets 70 or more receptions. And probably 90% of those are WR's. Yeah you have the Lamont Jordon and Gonzolez's, but to assume a rookie can do that is absurd. 1 Larry Fitzgerald ARI 103 1409 13.7 10 47 2 Steve Smith CAR 103 1563 15.2 12 80 3 Anquan Boldin ARI 102 1402 13.7 7 54 4 Torry Holt STL 102 1331 13.0 9 44 5 Chad Johnson CIN 97 1432 14.8 9 70 6 Antonio Gates SD 89 1101 12.4 10 38 7 Derrick Mason BAL 86 1073 12.5 3 39 8 Donald Driver GB 86 1221 14.2 5 59 9 Rod Smith DEN 85 1105 13.0 6 72 10 Santana Moss WAS 84 1483 17.7 9 78 11 Reggie Wayne IND 83 1055 12.7 5 66 12 Joey Galloway TB 83 1287 15.5 10 80 13 Marvin Harrison IND 82 1146 14.0 12 80 14 Chris Chambers MIA 82 1118 13.6 11 77 15 Eric Moulds BUF 81 816 10.1 4 55 16 Deion Branch NE 78 998 12.8 5 51 17 T.J. Houshmandzadeh CIN 78 956 12.3 7 43 18 Tony Gonzalez KC 78 905 11.6 2 39 19 Jerry Porter OAK 76 942 12.4 5 49 20 Plaxico Burress NYG 76 1214 16.0 7 78 21 Todd Heap BAL 75 855 11.4 7 48 22 Laveranues Coles NYJ 73 845 11.6 5 43 23 Keyshawn Johnson DAL 71 839 11.8 6 34 24 Chris Cooley WAS 71 774 10.9 7 32 25 Jimmy Smith JAC 70 1023 14.6 6 45 26 LaMont Jordan OAK 70 563 8.0 2 28 27 Keenan McCardell SD 70 917 13.1 9 54 28 Donte' Stallworth NO 70 945 13.5 7 43 29 Antonio Bryant CLE 69 1009 14.6 4 54 30 Hines Ward PIT 69 975 14.1 11 85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 And I disagree. Almost every team has a WR who gets 70 or more receptions. And probably 90% of those are WR's. Yeah you have the Lamont Jordon and Gonzolez's, but to assume a rookie can do that is absurd. 1 Larry Fitzgerald ARI 103 1409 13.7 10 47 2 Steve Smith CAR 103 1563 15.2 12 80 3 Anquan Boldin ARI 102 1402 13.7 7 54 4 Torry Holt STL 102 1331 13.0 9 44 5 Chad Johnson CIN 97 1432 14.8 9 70 6 Antonio Gates SD 89 1101 12.4 10 38 7 Derrick Mason BAL 86 1073 12.5 3 39 8 Donald Driver GB 86 1221 14.2 5 59 9 Rod Smith DEN 85 1105 13.0 6 72 10 Santana Moss WAS 84 1483 17.7 9 78 11 Reggie Wayne IND 83 1055 12.7 5 66 12 Joey Galloway TB 83 1287 15.5 10 80 13 Marvin Harrison IND 82 1146 14.0 12 80 14 Chris Chambers MIA 82 1118 13.6 11 77 15 Eric Moulds BUF 81 816 10.1 4 55 16 Deion Branch NE 78 998 12.8 5 51 17 T.J. Houshmandzadeh CIN 78 956 12.3 7 43 18 Tony Gonzalez KC 78 905 11.6 2 39 19 Jerry Porter OAK 76 942 12.4 5 49 20 Plaxico Burress NYG 76 1214 16.0 7 78 21 Todd Heap BAL 75 855 11.4 7 48 22 Laveranues Coles NYJ 73 845 11.6 5 43 23 Keyshawn Johnson DAL 71 839 11.8 6 34 24 Chris Cooley WAS 71 774 10.9 7 32 25 Jimmy Smith JAC 70 1023 14.6 6 45 26 LaMont Jordan OAK 70 563 8.0 2 28 27 Keenan McCardell SD 70 917 13.1 9 54 28 Donte' Stallworth NO 70 945 13.5 7 43 29 Antonio Bryant CLE 69 1009 14.6 4 54 30 Hines Ward PIT 69 975 14.1 11 85 621081[/snapback] I think you just made my point for me. Who is Arizona's "#1 WR"? Who is Baltimore's? Who is San Diego's? Heck, you could even argue about who is Indianapolis' or Cincinnati's? And moreover, do some teams have one WR who is better than their other WR's? Sure. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they use that WR differently. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think you just made my point for me. Who is Arizona's "#1 WR"? Who is Baltimore's? Who is San Diego's? Heck, you could even argue about who is Indianapolis' or Cincinnati's? And moreover, do some teams have one WR who is better than their other WR's? Sure. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they use that WR differently. JDG 621118[/snapback] Mason is Baltimores by far. heap is a nice #2, but he is was not nearly as effective until Mason showed up. Go look at the stats. Arizona has two #1 receivers that's why they are real dangerous. If they ever get a QB, and a line they would be pretty damn good. Again, SD is in the KC mode of having a TE be the #1 with Gates. I said there were a few exceptions. But 90% of teams have a #1 or a 1 and 1a. We have a #1 in Moulds and a true #2 in Evans. Evans just isn't a good enough redzone player to ever be a true #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Or with a good OL and whatever NFL QB we find to replace JP.... ;-) 620861[/snapback] Well, not really. If we get a Holcomb type, i don't think that plays to Lee's strengths. He'sll still be good...but not the break-out star he could be with a QB with an arm like JP. And, I think it's clear JP and Evans already have already demonstrated chemistry. So, if you want to ammend my statement and your statement to read something like: ..."with a good OL and JP or another QB who can throw the deep pass and can develop chemistry with Evans."...then I'll agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think you just made my point for me. Who is Arizona's "#1 WR"? Who is Baltimore's? Who is San Diego's? Heck, you could even argue about who is Indianapolis' or Cincinnati's? And moreover, do some teams have one WR who is better than their other WR's? Sure. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they use that WR differently. JDG 621118[/snapback] I tend to agree that #1WR is often overused and misused. With that said, anyone arguing that Marvin Harrison and Chad Johnson aren't the #1 WRs on their team really should have their head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Mason is Baltimores by far. heap is a nice #2, but he is was not nearly as effective until Mason showed up. Go look at the stats. 621127[/snapback] Okay.... Todd Heap's stats W/out Mason: 2001 16 catches 206 yards 12.9 avg 24 long 1 TD 2002 68 catches 836 yards 12.3 avg 43 long 6 TD 2003 57 catches 693 yards 12.2 avg 33 long 3 TD 2004 27 catches 303 yards 11.2 avg 37 long 3 TD [INJ-missed 10 gms] W/ Mason: 2005 75 catches 855 yards 11.4 avg 48 long 7 TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Okay.... Todd Heap's stats W/out Mason: 2001 16 catches 206 yards 12.9 avg 24 long 1 TD 2002 68 catches 836 yards 12.3 avg 43 long 6 TD 2003 57 catches 693 yards 12.2 avg 33 long 3 TD 2004 27 catches 303 yards 11.2 avg 37 long 3 TD [INJ-missed 10 gms] W/ Mason: 2005 75 catches 855 yards 11.4 avg 48 long 7 TD 621247[/snapback] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Exactly. 621254[/snapback] Exactly? He had... +7 over his career best for receptions +19 over his career best for yardage -1.5 under his career best for average +5 over his career best for longest reception +1 over his career best for TDs That's an exponential leap in effectiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Exactly? He had... +7 over his career best for receptions +19 over his career best for yardage -1.5 under his career best for average +5 over his career best for longest reception +1 over his career best for TDs That's an exponential leap in effectiveness? 621256[/snapback] Like I said a #2 threat primarily. You don't want him as your "#1", but he did have better then average stat, in all but one cetegaory once they got a #1 WR threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Like I said a #2 threat primarily. You don't want him as your "#1", but he did have better then average stat, in all but one cetegaory once they got a #1 WR threat. 621257[/snapback] He was good, but I'd expect it of Heap knowing what he can do. To me, his '05 season wasn't anything remarkable. He's still a go-to guy in their offense, so I expect him to do about what he did if he's healthy. Mason's arrival didn't radically improve Heap's numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 He was good, but I'd expect it of Heap knowing what he can do. To me, his '05 season wasn't anything remarkable. He's still a go-to guy in their offense, so I expect him to do about what he did if he's healthy. Mason's arrival didn't radically improve Heap's numbers. 621261[/snapback] Okay, let me try again. Heap is good, just as Evans is. However, neither should be the primary threat on their teams and are better suited to have someone else be the main goto guy. While Heap didn't improve dramatically in 05, he did post better numbers overall and benefitted by having Mason there. Now if they had a Qb. Same goes with Evans, he is a good #2, but I don't see him being a 90 catch 12 TD guy, especially if he is the main or only threat on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Okay, let me try again. Heap is good, just as Evans is. However, neither should be the primary threat on their teams and are better suited to have someone else be the main goto guy. While Heap didn't improve dramatically in 05, he did post better numbers overall and benefitted by having Mason there. Now if they had a Qb. Aha, now you are demonstrating the whole fishiness of the whole "#1 WR" concept. I'll concede that teams often have one WR who is more talented than the other. That doesn't mean that this WR has a unique position in the offense, ala Terrell Owens. You talk about being a "go to guy", well actually Todd Heap *is* the "go to guy" Baltimore. Yes, Derrick Mason is a very good player, and hence he has some pretty good numbers, but the Ravens often run their offense to get the ball to Todd Heap - not to Derrick Mason. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I tend to agree that #1WR is often overused and misused. With that said, anyone arguing that Marvin Harrison and Chad Johnson aren't the #1 WRs on their team really should have their head examined. 621206[/snapback] Wrong, Dean - my point being that Indianapolis is the perfect case of a team that does *not* have a so-called "#1 WR." Of course, Marvin Harrison is a better WR than Reggie Wayne - no question. But its not like Marvin Harrison plays some mystical position called "#1 WR." The Colts get the ball to whomever is open, period. And that means lining up two WR's on almost every play, Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, an all-time great and a very-good WR. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Mason is Baltimores by far. heap is a nice #2, but he is was not nearly as effective until Mason showed up. Go look at the stats. I think that others have effectively put paid to this notion. Arizona has two #1 receivers that's why they are real dangerous. If they ever get a QB, and a line they would be pretty damn good. You are again confusing talent with position. If this mystical position of "#1 WR" exists, as you suggest, shouldn't that mean that you can only have one of them? What Arizona has are two very-good WR's. Just like almost every other team in the NFL, they start two WR's - theirs just happen to be more-talented than most. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Evans just isn't a good enough redzone player to ever be a true #1. 621127[/snapback] Actually, I think that Lee Evans is a very good redzone WR - and if you look at the length of many of his TD catches over two season, I think that the stats will bear me out on that. Yes, Evans is a fast guy, but he is also very good at making difficult catches in traffic, which is at the heart of being a red-zone WR target. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 And I disagree. Almost every team has a WR who gets 70 or more receptions. And probably 90% of those are WR's. Yeah you have the Lamont Jordon and Gonzolez's, but to assume a rookie can do that is absurd. 1 Larry Fitzgerald ARI 103 1409 13.7 10 47 2 Steve Smith CAR 103 1563 15.2 12 80 3 Anquan Boldin ARI 102 1402 13.7 7 54 4 Torry Holt STL 102 1331 13.0 9 44 5 Chad Johnson CIN 97 1432 14.8 9 70 6 Antonio Gates SD 89 1101 12.4 10 38 7 Derrick Mason BAL 86 1073 12.5 3 39 8 Donald Driver GB 86 1221 14.2 5 59 9 Rod Smith DEN 85 1105 13.0 6 72 10 Santana Moss WAS 84 1483 17.7 9 78 11 Reggie Wayne IND 83 1055 12.7 5 66 12 Joey Galloway TB 83 1287 15.5 10 80 13 Marvin Harrison IND 82 1146 14.0 12 80 14 Chris Chambers MIA 82 1118 13.6 11 77 15 Eric Moulds BUF 81 816 10.1 4 55 16 Deion Branch NE 78 998 12.8 5 51 17 T.J. Houshmandzadeh CIN 78 956 12.3 7 43 18 Tony Gonzalez KC 78 905 11.6 2 39 19 Jerry Porter OAK 76 942 12.4 5 49 20 Plaxico Burress NYG 76 1214 16.0 7 78 21 Todd Heap BAL 75 855 11.4 7 48 22 Laveranues Coles NYJ 73 845 11.6 5 43 23 Keyshawn Johnson DAL 71 839 11.8 6 34 24 Chris Cooley WAS 71 774 10.9 7 32 25 Jimmy Smith JAC 70 1023 14.6 6 45 26 LaMont Jordan OAK 70 563 8.0 2 28 27 Keenan McCardell SD 70 917 13.1 9 54 28 Donte' Stallworth NO 70 945 13.5 7 43 29 Antonio Bryant CLE 69 1009 14.6 4 54 30 Hines Ward PIT 69 975 14.1 11 85 621081[/snapback] Agreed, a rookie wouldn't even come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 No, but I have a very firm idea as to how much the Bills should be willing to spend on that position--$3 - $4 million per year at most. If Bruce won't sign for that money, find someone else. If Givens won't sign for that, find someone else. If nobody in that category will sign for that money, then go into the season with Sam Aiken as your #2, and use the full $7 million a year from Moulds on the lines. Granted if you did things this way you'd have to draft a WR relatively soon. But this team's going to have holes come opening day of 2006 no matter what Levy does. Better they be at WR than on the lines. 621057[/snapback] $3-4 million! I doubt that. With the new deal they gain an extra $10 million to spend in signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts