Just how bad are Buffalo's Receivers?

by Brian Galliford on Apr 8, 2008 7:39 AM EDT in Buffalo Bills Opinion

Reed (right), fellow wideouts as bad as advertised? (BuffaloBills.com)

Led by a rookie quarterback in Trent Edwards and missing a veteran starter at wide receiver (Peerless Price), the passing attack of the Buffalo Bills is coming off of one of the franchise's worst season-long performances in team history. We've heard all of the paltry stats - an NFL rank of 30 in team receptions (263), 31 in receiving yards (2,842) and tied for second worst in receiving touchdowns (12). How much of this (lack of) production, however, can be attributed to the team's wide receivers?

In order to get a more accurate view of the ineptitude of Buffalo's receiving corps (or lack thereof... bear with me), we're going to take a look at some different stats: yards after catch (YAC), yards per catch, drops, big catches (25+ yard gains), and first down percentage. These numbers may, in fact, shed a different light on the situation.

Crunching the Bonus Numbers
Here are the rankings, very briefly, I'll use in building my case that Buffalo's receivers - though woefully thin and need of an injection of talent - were actually better than they're given credit for last year:

- YAC Ranking: #19 in NFL, 91.6 yards per game (1,466 yards after catch)
- Big Catch (25+) Ranking: #30 in NFL, 15 big catches
- Drops Ranking: #4 in NFL with just 17 drops
- Yards per Catch Rank: #22 in NFL, 10.8 YPC
- 100-Yard Games Rank: T-10 in NFL, 2 100-yard games
- First Down % Rank: #21 in NFL, 53.6% of all receptions were first downs
- First Downs Rank: #29 in NFL, 141 receiving first downs

These were, at least in my view, some surprising statistics. Let me reiterate: this is not an exoneration of Buffalo's receiving corps. Clearly, the unit is flawed, and I fully expect the position to be heavily addressed in the draft. But these stats tell us that there was much more to the passing game struggles than the receivers themselves.

It All Goes Back to Play-Calling, Disposition
We're all aware of how putrid Buffalo's play-calling was last season. But taking a look at some of the rankings above, you begin to see how that play-calling was hampering even our mediocre receiving corps. We had a middle-of-the-road ranking in YAC - something I've knocked our receivers for all off-season - and the 1,466 YAC yards is shocking. That's more than half of the team's receiving output on the season. Let's take it a step further: the Bills averaged almost 11 yards per catch (again, a middle ranking); figure in that half of that catch was YAC, and you realize that the Bills' receivers were catching the football 5-6 yards past the line of scrimmage. Conservative? I think yes.

That conservatism is bolstered by the team's poor ranking in the Big Catch department. We have one of the best deep threats in the league in Lee Evans,, and yet we're bottom-feeders in terms of making plays on the long ball. 100-Yard Games also speaks to the brutal conservatism of the play-calling, as two 100-yard receiving games in an entire 16-game season is downright pitiful.

The drops tell the real story, though - 17 drops in a season is a ridiculously low number. And that's with our starting quarterback completing only 56% of his passes. One drop per game is not close to being the cause of the passing game problems; it even shows reliability on the part of the receivers. They even had a respectable percentage of their receptions go for first downs (and again, they did more than half of that work on their own); the fact that the team ranked so low in actual number of receiving first downs once again speaks to coaching decisions.

The Thought Process Needs to Change
Again, none of these rankings - even the respectable ones that landed the Bills' receivers in the middle of the pack - are close to enough to completely remove all blame from this unit. Clearly, their collective lack of size needs to be addressed, and depth is a serious concern as well. But even if we drafted the next Jerry Rice, adding one player can no longer be considered a fix to Buffalo's receiving problems.

It starts with the bigger guns. There is a lot of pressure on new offensive coordinator Turk Schonert this year, because even with his current wideouts, he has a group that can make plays. It's on Schonert to let Trent Edwards... you know... throw the football. Because a simple addition at wideout isn't going to solve the passing game problem. I'd even posit that it will make Schonert's job harder. No, this fix is on Schonert and Dick Jauron. It's time to lose at least part of the conservative offensive attitude, fellas. Let your kid quarterback toss the rock.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

interesting numbers

I was most shocked at the 17 drops, they must have all occurred during the games that I watched. I would have thought that number to be much higher.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Apr 8, 2008 9:05 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah

the stats aren't as terrible as some would predict, but another factor that stats can't quantify is how infrequent these guys got open. Evans couldn't get open other than the occasional fly pattern. Parrish and Reed had some success here and there over the middle, but were more often able to be covered by LB's or Safeties. We need guys who can get open and be a target for Trent. Some of that may be playcalling, but some is the WR's just not getting the job done. We need a big improvement here.

by Kurupt on Apr 8, 2008 9:34 AM EDT reply actions

These #'s stink

I see "bottom third" of the league, not middle of the pack. There needs to be multiple additions to the TE and receiving corp, as well as growing "a pair" in the passing game. We definitely need to attack the defense 15,25,40 yards downfield more. I know our offense won't suddenly "open up", but we do need to be more agressive with our playcalls, crisp with our route running, and improve our QB effectiveness down field.

Trent needs to improve his reads downfield, too. There were a few times I can think of last year when he didn't see receivers open downfield, and seemed content to "settle" for the checkdown. QB's like Manning and Brady don't miss guys when they're open. I'll chalk that up to "rookieness", but only for so long. It's like J.P. I was thinking he might learn to not lock onto one receiver, but that hasn't seem to come, yet.

All in all, I wouldn't blame the receivers as the sole source of passing woes. There needs to be mark improvement across the board with all parts of our aerial offense. Except for the offensive line, which we always blamed for our passing woes. Ironically, after solidifying the line, we still haven't gotten our passing game to be consistently productive. Let's hope we get on the right track this year.

by jj24 on Apr 8, 2008 10:07 AM EDT reply actions

Stinks might be harsh. I'll go with poor.

I don't want to be overly pessimistic. Those #'s don't really inspire optimism, however.

by jj24 on Apr 8, 2008 11:01 AM EDT reply actions

numbers

Numbers don't mean much to me, because the eye does not lie. It was not all the WR's fault, it was a combination, and improvement needs to happen in all aspects...play calling, o-line, QB, WR's getting open, blitz pick ups. But mainly it all falls on Edwards and Turk communicating things to Edwards and running the ship.

Injection of talent is a good word. That is what needs to happen but the system has to get better. I mean look at what Derek Anderson did for talents like Braylon Edwards/Kellen Winslow. A significant improvement in the play calling and Edwards executing, will help, but I think a pass catching TE helps out these WR's more than another rookie WR that will produce sparingly if the history of WR's is prudent as Peter King pointed out in his MMQB.

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Apr 8, 2008 12:27 PM EDT reply actions

Numbers reinforce that receivers stink

Those numbers were not impressive at all. The only impressive number, being ranked #4 in drop, also means squat. You said yourself:

"you realize that the Bills' receivers were catching the football 5-6 yards past the line of scrimmage"

Well, that explains the lack of drops. They had better not be dropping 5 yard dumps or they shouldn't even be on the bench of an NFL team. Also #29 in receiving 1st downs? Thats terrible, the times you really need 1st downs you're usually going to have to throw. Our receivers stink.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 8, 2008 12:35 PM EDT reply actions

The need for WR at #11

is more overblown than Pamela Anderson's chest!!! WE can add a WR in round 4 and get much more value. Give me a TE in round 2 and a center in round 3 and watch this offense rise from the ashes of Fairchild's play calling.

by Joe P. on Apr 8, 2008 12:36 PM EDT reply actions

Play-Calling

The play-calling last season was not good. However, I think that a lot of it had to do with the inconsistency and inexperience at quarterback. In addition, just because plays were not executed does not mean that plays were not called. For instance, in the Dallas game the Bills' defense forced 4 turnovers that were not returned for touchdowns. When the Bills got possession, I am positive at least 1 deep ball was called (confirmed after the game). For whatever reason, it was never executed. I think Trent Edwards just failed to pull the trigger.

I think that Brian is correct about the coaches needing to let Edwards loose. Let Edwards throw the football. The other side of it is Edwards needs to perform on the field. Let's find out if Edwards has the ability to consistently throw the ball down the field and outside of his 5-6 yard checkdown comfort zone. If not, the receivers will continue to be relied on to make the plays.

Because the offense was so inept and couldn't get first downs, they gave themselves fewer opportunities and therefore fewer passing attemtps than many other teams. When you don't have many passing attempts, you aren't going to have many dropped passes. That being said, aside from a rare dropped pass, I still think that Lee Evans has outstanding hands.

Yes, it is more than just about the receivers. It always starts at quarterback.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Apr 8, 2008 1:44 PM EDT reply actions

I want to emphasize

I really want to emphasize why I'm all for taking a receiver with the first pick. Here is an article from Rotoworld which they do every year that examines the needs of all NFL teams headed for the draft. Look below at what they said about the Bills:

"WR: This position made our list the last two years, but the Bills accepted another year of mediocrity out of Peerless Price, Josh Reed, and Roscoe Parrish. Price is gone, but Buffalo still is missing starting caliber talent to play opposite Lee Evans."

I agree with them completely, we have accepted mediocrity for two years at WR and its time to show Evans that he should want to resign with us because we will give him help...finally. We need to take our pick from the best receivers available because our WR corp is so BAD. Harvey can really really wait. This can not.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Apr 8, 2008 3:46 PM EDT reply actions