What could Buffalo expect from a rookie WR?

by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 1:57 PM EST

Moulds took time to develop (FOX Sports)

[editor's note, by Brian Galliford] Author sireric takes a look at some recent Pro Bowl wideouts to try to figure out if the Buffalo Bills can reliably count on a rookie receiver this season. His argument is convincing, and one I couldn't have made more convincing myself. End Note

Can you expect a wide receiver to give solid production in his rookie year? And what would you consider solid production for that matter? For the sake of argument I will say that a solid season (statistically) for a wide receiver will be: 50+ catches, 750+ yards, and 3 or more touchdowns. Those aren't superstar type numbers, but they do represent a solid season, particularly for a rookie.

It has been my argument that taking a receiver in the draft, anywhere, not just the first round, and expecting that player to give you a solid season, similar to the one I described above, is foolish. While some agree with me, others argue that given time, a receiver can develop into a great play-maker, and the Bills should be happy to wait and let said player develop. While that may be true I firmly believe that the Bills need production from the receiver position now, in order to contend and make the playoffs.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

WR Plaxico Burress (#8 overall, 2000)
Year	G	Rec	Yds	TD
YR 1	12	22	273	0
YR 2	16	66	1008	6
YR 3	16	78	1325	7

WR Eric Moulds (#24 overall, 1996)
Year	G	Rec	Yds	TD
YR 1	16	20	279	2
YR 2	16	29	294	0
YR 3	16	67	1368	9

WR Terrell Owens (#89 overall, 1996)
Year	G	Rec	Yds	TD
YR 1	16	35	520	4
YR 2	16	60	936	8
YR 3	16	67	1097	14

All three of these guys have made the pro-bowl in their careers, and all of them had sub-par rookie years. It took at least 1 year for these guys to finally turn themselves into a great receiver. Of course you can throw arguments like Anquan Boldin, he of the 101 catches and 1377 yards in his rookie year, or even Marques Colston, he of the 70 for 1038. But all that proves is don't take a receiver unless he has a "Q" in is first name. Seriously there are exceptions to the rule, but I simply can't justify the Bills taking a receiver and expecting him to produce quality numbers in his first year, it is just too rare of an occurrence.

The best way for the Bills to proceed in my opinion, is to sign a veteran, whether that's Bryant Johnson, Ernest Wilford, D.J. Hackett, or Justin Gage, then draft a receiver and allow him to develop, in much the same way that the three guys above did. This draft is loaded with talented receivers, many of whom could be had later than the 1st or 2nd round, such as Earl Bennett from Vanderbilt, Adarius Bowman from OSU, Lavelle Hawkins from Cal, or Donnie Avery from Houston. Furthermore acquiring a tall, pass-catching tight-end, along with a tall veteran receiver, will enable the Bills go get their hands on the best receiver available, not just the best tall receiver. Which is a variation of the drafting the best player available vs. drafting by need argument.

Make no mistake about it, the Bills need to add receivers, they just can't afford to hand the #2 spot over to a rookie hoping he will produce.

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great post

sireric, I completely agree with your points. If we want immediate dividends paid then drafting a WR to start right away is not the best way to go. Like you I am all for signing a veteran like Johnson,Wilford,Hackett, or even Booker, and drafting someone in the middle rounds to groom. I would prefer to draft a WR with one of our thirds, and a couple kids I love who should be around then is Jordy Nelson from KSU, and Paul Hubbard form Wisconsin.

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP @ Buffalo Rumblings on Feb 20, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions

Thanks

I knew you would agree. This draft is so deep with receiver talent that I think the Bills will grab one at some point, I just don't see them doing it early, or with the thought of them being a starter.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

Would you copy and paste your diary,

And then send it to every mock draft site that has the Bills taking a WR in the first round?

You make great points with this argument. The Bills are in a position where they have to get immediate contributors with their higher picks. They don't have the luxury of spending a day one pickon a guy hoping that he might be an effective starter in three years.

by krytime on Feb 20, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Immediate contributions...

...It's kind of like taking a DE in the 1st round when he'd obviously begin behind Schobel/Kelsay/Denney, isn't it? I wouldn't pigeon hole the 1st pick to any specific positions one way or the other (other than not taking a RB). However, one thing I do know is that if Buffalo signed nobody but say, Ernest Wilford before the draft, wide receiver and defensive tackle would be Buffalo's most glaring holes heading into draft day. How could you complain about taking a wide receiver given the team's current roster? No rookies at any position will be handed starting jobs before training camp, so a Malcolm Kelly-type would only start if he was better than the veterans we have. Given the sorry state of Josh Reed and potential free agent candidates like Ernest Wilford (dumb)/Marty Booker(dumber)/Drew Carter (kill me), etc., the top wideout in the draft looks very appealing to me unless something changes in the way of a trade between now and then.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 20, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

Quite often...

it is not necessary for me to comment on many topics because Nick does it for me!

Get 'em, Nick!

by Fort Worth on Feb 20, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

DE

Why would he obviously begin behind the trio you listed? If we bring in a true pass rush threat, that guy is going to see plenty of action right away, though mainly in passing situations. Just because he wouldn't start doesn't mean he wouldn't be a bigtime contributor right away.

by Kurupt on Feb 20, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions

Right on

A solid pass rusher would give the Bills more production than a rookie WR would, (unless he can return kickoffs.)

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

I don't want a DE either this year.

I think we're stable enough there for now. Back to the WR topic...

Bringing in a 2nd tier vet gives the Bills a much better chance at getting more contribution from the spot opposite Evans than drafting one does for this year. And that's what we need for this year - immediate contribution from someone with whom you know what you're going to get. 1st round WRs flame out more than any other position. And considering how deep this draft is this year in WRs, it just makes sense to draft one in a lower risk spot, and have him develop over the next year or two.

Reed and Parrish are ideal for the 3rd and 4th spots. The 5th WR is really a special teams spot. Parrish just got extended, so he's not going anywhere. Reed resigned last year, so he's here for awhile too.

by krytime on Feb 20, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

WR flameouts

I probably agree with you that it makes some sense to wait until after the 1st round for a wide receiver only because the draft is considered to be deep with them. I'm just saying that if there's one that Buffalo deems a future star in this league, given the current roster, a wide receiver makes perfect sense. I don't believe in canned formulas and generalizations about positions and the draft. I honestly believe that each draft and team's situation is unique. As far as Josh Reed goes, he's one of the biggest holes on this team and you could name him the 15th receiver and he'd be a waste of space. Buffalo needs to acquire a veteran and depending on how good the veteran is, the need to draft another escalates. If Buffalo were to sign Ernest Wilford, I don't think they could justify leaving the 2nd round without another one because wilford's ceiling is so low. Something like: 1) Evans 2) Wilford 3) 1st or 2nd round pick 4) Parrish 5) Jenkins is not ideal for 2008, but at least it's an ATTEMPT to improve.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 20, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions

Why do you hate Reed so much?

I actually like him, and I think he'll be a better player this year in his usual spot - the slot.

Granted, it wouldn't be a huge cap hit if they let him go. But anytime you take a cap hit, it's like going in reverse, and the Bills won't lose money like that.

Still, I can't see why you think he shouldn't even be on the team. I don't know for sure, but I bet he's got to be amongst the current top 100 WRs in the league career wise, and he's still relatively young.

And to me, even though he was out of position at times, it seemed he developed somewhat of a chemistry with Edwards, something Lee Evans was unwilling to even try...

by krytime on Feb 20, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, what is up with your disdain towards Reed??

Do you expect him to be putting up huge numbers? Do you think he doesn't do a good job in slot? Are you basing your opinion on the fact that he's not an outside receiver and hasn't produced when he was forced to play out of position there?

He's a solid slot WR, someone who does get open over the middle and a guy who picks up a ton of first downs for us in that role.

by Kurupt on Feb 20, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions

Reed

I hate Reed because outside or slot, starter or 3rd wideout, he's been a part of the rotation for 6 seasons now and he hasn't produced whatsoever. It's ridiculous to say that when he's back in the slot he'll produce because we've seen him there for most of his career and he's never produced. Our offense has sucked this entire time he's been in the rotation and yet we keep trotting him out there for some reason. 8 touchdowns in 6 seasons and it's not like he's been riding the bench; he probably played between 60%-75% of all offensive plays throughout his career. If he were a QB, he'd have been replaced 4 years ago, but Buffalo just keeps putting him out there to grab two passes for 25 yards a game. I think it's time we give someone else a chance. Marv used to say that if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. If we're not going to change the QB, O-line, or RB and we're talking about scrubs like Ernest Wilford as the solution on the outside, we need to go in a different direction for the slot if this offense is going to have any chance of attaining respectability.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 7:49 AM EST up reply actions

I'm not sure...

... how you can call Ernest Wilford a "scrub". Did you read our interview with Chris from Big Cat Country, who said he'd hate to see Wilford leave? Does that have any impact on your thinking?

I don't think many will take your side on Reed, Nick. I'll maintain that he's been "unproductive", as you say (though I don't call 51 receptions close to being unproductive), because of the talent around him. Reed will never answer your questions if you've got them at wideout. But if you have two starters - two bona fide starters that defenses actually have to think about - defenses can forget about Reed inside.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Feb 21, 2008 7:57 AM EST up reply actions

Wilford

It sounds like Big Cat Country's author likes Ernest Wilford for the same reason that many Bills fans like Josh Reed; he gives the flimsy appearance of trying hard and exceeding his talent. I remain unimpressed by the numbers produced for the amount of playing time he's received and Jacksonville seems to agree considering the number of 1st round picks and free agent signings they've spent on WRs with Wilford on their roster. As for Reed, 6 years is enough of a volume of work to disspell all flakey excuses regarding circumstances. He doesn't produce in any environment (and 51 catches and 0 TD's as a starter last season is a disgrace; blame it on playing the outside, but what's your excuse for 2004-2006?). We need to go in a different direction and if we're going to take the cheap/easy way out on the outside with a 2nd tier signing, we need to come up with a better option in the slot or Edwards will have nothing more to work with than he did last year when he set offensive football back 50 years.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 8:26 AM EST up reply actions

two bona fide starters...

that defenses actually have to think about.

Exactly.

With Ernest Wilford in the starting lineup, defenses will not have to worry about him. Lee Evans would remain the only legitimate threat that defenses actually have to think about. Same problem as 2007. Okay, maybe marginally better.

by Fort Worth on Feb 21, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

It's easy to say

It's easy to say that the Bills offense needs to get better. It's tough to come up with a realistic plan to improve it more than marginally.

Josh Reed's 51 catches was the 45th most in the league. He was right behind Greg Jennings and Antwaan Randle El. Reed had a couple more catches than Arnaz Battle, Deion Branch and Patrick Crayton. We all realize Josh Reed is a mediocre reciever, but you are being pretty extreme. It's easy to fudge the numbers to make your argument look better too. Next time acutally check before throwing them out there, it only takes a second. Josh Reed averaged 3 catches and 38.5 yards per game this past season. I would say thats pretty productive for a slot reciever.

by kaisertown on Feb 21, 2008 8:18 AM EST up reply actions

Grrrr

He started 75% of last season and came up with 51 catches and 0 TDs. First people make excuses for him by saying he played out of position last season, then you applaud him for 38 yards a game as starter (and 0 TDs). What type of season from Reed would ever warrent a change or do you just like him because he has the size and speed of a regular person and his being on the field inspires you or something flakey like that? 8 TDs in 6 seasons isn't fudging the numbers, it's on film for all to see.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 8:31 AM EST up reply actions

EGGGSELENT....

Good job Eric

The more I think about it the more it solidifies my feeling that we should sign one of the possession type receivers in FA....a Hackett, Wilford or even Johnson. Your post really should help solidify the need for a FA WR.

The draft pick to go with that signing should NOT be a similar player, IMO. We don't need to bring in a James Hardy or Adarius Bowman or Doucet or Bennett or Hawkins, etc., possession guys with little playmaking abilities. What we'd need to do is bring in a player who has BIG PLAY written all over them. We don't need the possession guy as we'd have that in our FA, we need guys who can go make plays with the ball in their hands. Guys I'm talking about are Kelly, Manningham, Sweed and Devin Thomas to name a few. Don't know if it'll possible to bring in a WR that high though. I do like Jordy Nelson though, he seems to make a bunch of big plays even though he projects as more of a possession guy.

by Kurupt on Feb 20, 2008 2:57 PM EST reply actions

very true

I alluded to that in the last few sentences, with the "best receiver available as opposed to the best tall receiver available" comment. I think you are right, Nelson, Hawkins, Donnie Avery, and even Eddie Royal could all be candidates, if the Bills sign a big vet.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

I don't really understand...

...your argument. Are you saying that the Bills should not take a receiver in the 1st round expecting him to start? I tend to agree with that... but I would not be opposed to them drafting a receiver in the 1st and signing a free agent. Just because a guy is drafted in the 1st does not mean he HAS to start. If the they took Malcolm Kelly with our number 1 pick and developed him, I wouldn't care.

All of that being said, I also agree that there are good receivers to be had in the later rounds, particularly guys like Early Doucet, DJ Hall, and Andre Caldwell.

"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."

by ForeignArrow on Feb 20, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions

You make a good point...

... but I think that the Bills are still at a stage in their building process where, at least from the first round, they need a starter. If they sign a wideout, I don't think they can draft a wideout first, no matter how tantalizingly deep a WR corps of (for example) Evans/Wilford/Kelly/Reed/Parrish is. There would be bigger holes to fill (that's what she said).

(I feel weird typing "Kelly" and "Reed" in the same sentence and not referring to Jimbo and Andre.)

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Feb 20, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions

yeeaahh .... but....

There are really only 2 (3 tops) starting spots on the field this season for rookies to grab: WLB, WR, and possibly CB. So that limits your 1st round drafting potential to 3 positions. That's silly, because the Bills also need help at DE, DT, TE, and FS. If the Bills took a DE or DT in the 1st, there's no way he's going to start for us (because of Jauron's respect for veterans and the talent we have). The same can be said for a WR and TE.

I mean, what if Kenny Phillips is on the board (in all likelihood he will be) when we pick? Would everybody here be upset if the Bills took him, I wouldn't. Imagine him and Donte roaming the secondary together. You could bet we wouldn't be giving up anymore 75 yard TD runs.

General question for this post:

If Sedrick Ellis, Derrick Harvey, Keith Rivers, Kenny Phillips, and Malcolm Kelly are all there when we pick... who do we take?

We NEED every player at their respective positions. If I had to grade each player's value based on potential x immediate contribution I'd say it would go something like this:

Phillips A
Rivers A-
Harvey B
Ellis B+
Kelly B-

Rivers gets the minus because there are LB's available in the 2nd round that can (arguably, of course) perform as well he can. Phillips, however, is in a league of his own in this year's safety class.

I give Phillips the nod because he would instantly make our defense better, A LOT better. If we don't take Rivers, guys like Ali Highsmith or Philip Wheeler would be a nightmare on the weak side in a Cover 2.

"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."

by ForeignArrow on Feb 20, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

In your scenario...

... I'd go with Ellis, hands down. He is, in my mind, the one player in this draft who most perfectly fits the schemes of the Bills. He would be a dominant force for this team.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Feb 20, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

not even close

Sedrick Ellis is, in my opinion, the best player in the whole draft. McFadden's lack of lower body strength and Dorsey's injury history concern me. Matt Ryan was very inconsistent this year. Jake Long could challenge him for the top spot, but i'm nowhere near expert enough to try and analyze offensive line prospects.

Kenny Phillips really underacheived this season. He has all the physical tools, but I would be surprised if he goes in the top 15 picks. I don't really understand why Philip Wheeler gets so much love on this board. He doesn't have the coverage skills to make an instant contribution. Highsmith is OK, but doesn't have the strength to make an immediate impact either. I like Xavier Abidi more than both of them.

by kaisertown on Feb 20, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Ellis Ellis Eillis Ellis

It'd be a no brainer.

by krytime on Feb 20, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

Rivers???

Let's be serious for a moment. In all likelihood, Ellis is not falling to us. I think Ko has potential and therefore we need not pick up a safety when we have more pressing needs. I think the pick is clearly Rivers, who for over a year now has been the consensus #1 linebacker and he would fall right to us at #11. Linebacker, as Poz proved, is the position where a rookie can make the most immediate and dominating impact the easiest, especially one so talented. A DE or WR can't contribute right away and as said Ellis won't fall to us and there are no other DT worth taking so high. Why not use the draft to fill what can't be filled in FA because Briggs is expensive and Dansby and Suggs were just franchised. We can still get a pass rush and WR in FA or later in the draft. Crowell, Poz, Rivers. Wow. That is a young and dominant linebacker corp that would be together for a DECADE.

CB, DLine in FA WR, WLB in Draft

by poz on Feb 20, 2008 4:27 PM EST reply actions

poz?

Poz got hurt in the third game. In the first two games he racked up tackles, but got blown off the line a lot and looked below average in coverage. Hopefully he will improve and stay healthy in '08, but he didn't prove anything about being an impact linebacker last year.

With that said, I like the idea of Ellis, but would prefer to move down in the first if possible. I've seen Ellis as low as the 31st pick in mocks (which don't matter at this point), but even if he wasn't there later, we could take a different LB or fill another couple positions.

by jmorris0823 on Feb 20, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions

ellis=rivers

My bad, confusing the names on my Southern Cal defenders apparently. Replace Ellis with Rivers wherever you see it.

by jmorris0823 on Feb 20, 2008 10:38 PM EST up reply actions

Compelling arguement Sireric, but

I would be very interested to see similar comparison to the stats of mid ranged FA WRs making an impact on their respective new teams in year one. Based on those stats, I think I could decide on which path we could take.

The problem with going both ways is that we may not be able to truly find out if either would be the impact we need.

by Kumario! on Feb 21, 2008 4:43 PM EST reply actions