Bills Needs List, Part I: Offensive Skill Positions
![]() |
|
|
In 2007, the Buffalo Bills struggled through what would ultimately become on of the franchise's worst offensive performances in team history. After offensive deficiencies were at the crux of the majority of the team's 9 losses, most experts believe that the Bills will focus a great deal of their offensive attention at improving offensive point production. That improvement, if it happens, will undoubtedly come at the team's skill positions.
In our recent breakdowns of the current roster, we had several discussions about possible additions and subtractions at the skill positions this off-season. Let's take a quick look at what those were:
Possible Additions
QB: cheap, veteran backup
RB: none
WR: big, physical veteran; big, physical rookie; tall deep threat
TE/FB: rookie pass-catching threat; veteran receiving threat with semi-developed blocking skill
Possible Subtractions
QB: J.P. Losman
RB: Anthony Thomas, Shaud Williams
WR: Peerless Price, Sam Aiken
TE/FB: Ryan Neufeld, Matt Murphy, Tim Massaquoi, Jonathan Evans
Prioritizing the Needs
This is, obviously, the first installment of our community needs list. The names listed above, as well as what we'll talk about below, are open to debate - and each segment will be for 12-24 hours (at least, that's how I hope it will work well). We'll take a look at the names we mentioned in the roster breakdowns, liquidize it into needs, and then prioritize those needs. Simple, right? Only in theory; I've a feeling that the debates are going to be (respectfully) heated. Let the games begin!
Liquidizing from the above possible additions/subtractions, here is - in essence - what we've identified as needs (and again, this is open to discussion in the comments, so feel free to whole-heartedly disagree with me):
- Veteran backup quarterback*
- Big, physical wide receiver
- Pass-catching tight end
- Blocking fullback**
* - only if J.P. Losman is traded/released; ** - added after T. Schonert made the switch back to a two-back system
Now it's time to prioritize - and that's all you, folks. Your options are three-fold: add to the skill positions needs list; debate the number of each need that we need; and, most importantly, prioritize the needs from biggest need to least important need. I'll partake in the discussions, but let's make this clear: this is our list, not my list. Let's prioritize!
0 recs |
33 comments
Comments
priorities
- TE: WR is huge too, but good TEs open up offenses for everybody. The Bills still need a big receiver, but we have (semi) competent receivers. We have no presence at TE. Royal is a really good blocker, but is basically an afterthought in the passing game (for us and the defense). Gaines isn't special, gets open more than Royal, but dropped some key passes. Almost every good offense has a really good TE: NE, Indy, Dal, SD, GB, Pitt.
- WR: Really need a good receiver. Almost a 1A, but I'm a big proponent of an active TE. SD has built a perennial contender with almost no WR play. This year with Chambers and Jackson the WR play got better, but LT and Gates are still the focal points of that explosive offense.
- Fullback: Would love a solid blocker with some ball skills.
- QB: Veteran backup. Really will just be a pick out of some average/below average qbs. Hopefully Trent will actually perform and this will remain a backup need. I would like to see a late round QB pick if value is there. Would like to see three qbs next year: Edwards, Veteran, Rookie. Still would like to see JP stick around, but keeping him doesn't seem to be much of an option now.
by jmorris0823 on Jan 28, 2008 7:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
- TE (who is primarily a pass-catcher. blocking is important, but that's what robert royal is on the roster for).
- WR (kindof goes hand-in-hand with a pass-cathcing TE)
- FB
- QB
Aside from the starting 5 (who will remain the starting 5 next season IMO), there is little depth behind them.
Here are back-ups on the Bills roster:
Kirk Chambers
Duke Preston
Christian Gaddis
Patrick Estes
Aaron Merz
doesn't really give me much confidence if one or two starters go down in '08. I would love to see at least two linemen drafted in the draft: A Center in the 3rd or 4th round to eventaully take over, and a guard or tackle in the later rounds.
by jri111 on Jan 28, 2008 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Patience, John...
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ahhh my bad!!
by jri111 on Jan 28, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It happens :)
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 7:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: QB
What is the advantage of drafting a late-round QB? I'm fine with Gibran Hamdan as our #3. He's a former late-round pick himself, is familiar with Buffalo's scheme, and has professional experience. Why does a developmental rookie - who theoretically would never see the field, considering the team has invested its interests in Edwards - have any more value to this team than Hamdan? I'm not convinced that a rookie will be added unless Losman leaves and they can't find a veteran backup younger than 42.
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've got no problem with Gibran Hamdan
by sireric on Jan 28, 2008 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I did see that
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Late round QB
I think that expecting all 10 to make the roster might be wishful thinking, I'd love to see it, but but like I said, I'm not sure it happens.
by sireric on Jan 28, 2008 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 7:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My theory
by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 7:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
by jmorris0823 on Jan 28, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep Losman
by labill on Jan 28, 2008 7:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wide reciever threat is needed
by Buffalosportsdude on Jan 28, 2008 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to the site!
I agree with your sentiment that the receiving corps needs upgrading, but would you place it ahead of, say, tight end on our needs list? I'm implying that just by what you wrote, but I'd like to make certain.
Also, I agree that Price may be on his way out, but there's no way Reed leaves this roster - he's proven that he's an excellent possession type out of the slot. Certainly he's not a #2, but the combination of Reed and Parrish in the slot is a formidable one if the Bills can find a big target outside to keep Reed/Parrish from assuming that role. Reed's contact isn't huge, either, and he's got 2 years left on his deal. He's a Bill at least through the final two years of his deal.
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
priorities
- TE
- WR If a big receiver like Wilford is signed, the need for size is eliminated. This then opens the draft up for ANY WR, not just the tall ones. If Wilford is signed, I wouldn't want to draft DeSean Jackson, but he would make more sense then if Wilford isn't there. (hope that makes sense)
4:QB don't laugh when I mention Todd Collins, looking at the list of free agent QBs, he's probably the only one I like even a little. I would love to see another QB drafted in the later rounds, somebody to give Hamdan some competition.
by sireric on Jan 28, 2008 7:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Fullback
Surprised how many people are putting TE ahead of WR... I completely agree with it, but I thought we'd be hearing more support for wideout atop this list.
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Schmitt
by sireric on Jan 28, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Top 32
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
needs
- WR
- TE
- Backup QB if JP is traded
- FB
We need someone who can help stretch the field, which will open up the middle for TE's/RB's. A bigtime WR opposite Evans would give Lee more single coverage and more chances for big plays. I think that's more important than a TE, though both are huge needs...
by Kurupt on Jan 28, 2008 8:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
There's the WR argument
I agree, clearly, that WR is needed. But a "big-time" wideout? Not necessarily. We just need a threat on the outside. Personally, I look at the play of Edwards as the deciding factor on the WR/TE debate (which I may just write a separate post about tomorrow) - Edwards is a check-it-down, spread the ball around type of guy. If you give him an athletic mismatch, game-breaking YAC tight end in that area of the field, I believe it would go further toward diversifying this offense.
Of course, my opinion on the WR/TE debate changes every day. You can just say "get one game-breaker at either position", but that's the easy way out, I think. We have to differentiate - and right now, I'd lean more towards tight end. Feel free to set me straight. :)
by Brian Galliford on Jan 28, 2008 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Big-Time Wideout
For better or worse, the Bills have completely hitched their wagon to Trent Edwards and promoted Turk Schonert to be their offensive coordinator. I expect Schonert to incorporate his background in designing the offense, while maximizing Edwards' strengths and minimizing his weaknesses. This means West Coast offense.
Trent Edwards' game is methodical, rhythm, timing, short, quick, accurate, low-risk, and over-the-middle passing. Edwards does not have the arm strength to consistently throw outside the numbers or to the sidelines. Also, Schonert was coached by Bill Walsh. To me, the Edwards-Schonert marriage sounds like an ideal West Coast offense combination. Yes, every team does run some West Coast plays and concepts. However, I believe the Bills will be taking it a step further this season and in the future. Watch for the deep outs and comebacks to be replaced by quick slants and crossing routes. Again, maximizing Edwards' strengths and minimizing his weaknesses. Typical West Coast wideouts are big and can run after the catch. They catch a lot of passes over the middle, which is where Edwards thrives. To the Bills, that elevates the importance of wide receivers. Conversely, if Edwards was forced into a vertical passing scheme where the wideouts typically work outside, I think the tight end would be a higher priority than wide receiver.
Additionally, featured receiving tight ends are not required components of successful offenses (see early 1990's Bills teams and recent Bengals teams). Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, tight ends are not the only position which can threaten the middle of the field or stretch the seam. For instance, aligning a wideout in the slot could accomplish the same thing.
While I may not like the direction of the Bills' offense, my point of this post is: due to the quarterback and the scheme, the value of tight ends and wide receivers is the same. Neither position is a priority need over the other; it just needs to be a great player.
by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Fort Worth
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 7:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE:
Thanks for the reply. Brian, this is truly a unique, great website for intense Bills fans like all of us here. I love it. Thank you Brian and all Buffalo Rumblings fans for making this site what it is! As Brian said, an online sports bar!
Now for my reply.
As I initially mentioned, due to the quarterback (Edwards) and the scheme (West Coast offense), the value of tight ends and wide receivers is the same. Neither position is a priority over the other, even when considering what the Bills already have on their roster.
You get my point; it really doesn't matter to me. If I must decide between the two positions, I will say tight end over wide receiver.
I would also like to add that what makes offensive playmakers like Antonio Gates and Kellen Winslow so special is that you essentially get the talent and skill of both a TE and WR in one player. You get the best of both worlds.
Does anyone agree/disagree with ANY of my comments under "Big-Time Wideout"? Thanks.
by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's buying the Beer?
I disagree (somewhat) with the West coast thing. I'm not sure Turk is going that way. I get the impression that Turk want to open things up, and throw the ball down field more, just my own hunch.
by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like beer
I told you my opinion changes on this topic on a daily basis - and with that sway in opinion, I'm going to disagree with that statement. I'm in the process of writing a post about just this topic, which will go live, hopefully, right after lunch (east coast time).
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Glad you approve
As I mentioned in an above comment to sireric, I have a big article planned on "Big-Time Wideout" for early this afternoon. I'll let that article answer your question. :)
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Any thoughts...
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 7:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
2 wideouts
by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
number of additions
1 FB
1 maybe 2 QB (if Losman goes, I could see 2. 1 vet to replace Losman, and 1 rookie to push Hamdan (either late round draft pick or Undrafted FA) if the rookie beats out Hamdan that would be 2 additions)
1 TE
by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TWO!!!
by Nick BensalemPA on Jan 29, 2008 9:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: YAC
I know you will have much more on this topic later. I can't wait.
YAC is a great thing in any offense. However, I strongly believe this:
Due to the neccessity to generate big, explosive plays (gains of 20+ yards) in the passing game, YAC is more important in an Edwards/West Coast offense than a Losman/Vertical offense.
No question about it.
When you make the change from Losman/Vertical to Edwards/West Coast, YAC becomes a necessity instead of a convenience.
by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















