Bigger Need in Buffalo: WR or TE?

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:02 PM EST in Buffalo Bills Opinion

Wilford a free agent option for Buffalo (Rotoworld)

Part of the reason that we're creating a community needs list for the Buffalo Bills is to bring up questions like this. As an off-shoot of the current skill position discussion we've been having, a question has popped up that Bills fans (not necessarily this community) are split on: is finding a big-time wide receiver or a big-time tight end more important to the future viability of Buffalo's offense?

My opinion changes on this every day - I can't convince myself either way. So this is what I'm going to do - I'm going to provide (hopefully) convincing arguments for why each position is more important to Buffalo's offense, and then y'all can let me know which argument was more persuasive to you. Additional comments/thoughts are, of course, welcome. Please note that this is a purely theoretical article; none of these arguments are being made based on available rookies and/or free agents this off-season.

Why Wideout is More Important
The one element to any explosive offense that the Buffalo Bills have been without since the days of Eric Moulds is yards after the catch (YAC). The Bills do not have a player at any offensive skill position (outside of their top two running backs, Marshawn Lynch and Fred Jackson) that can consistently create yardage in the open field. When I think of great YAC receivers, the first name that comes to mind is Cowboys WR Terrell Owens.

In whatever offense Owens has been in - a West Coast system (SF, Philadelphia to an extent) or a down-field system (Dallas) - Owens' after the catch ability brings a nearly unparalleled explosiveness to the system. Owens is an elite deep threat, but it's what he does underneath that makes the Cowboys' offense so dangerous - he is routinely motioned into the slot, allowing him to catch the ball in space over the middle against players (nickel backs, safeties, linebackers) who just aren't athletic enough to bring him down consistently. His size makes him tough to bring down, and his speed is good enough that he can take any throw the distance. This is an element that is vital to an offense (Detroit's Roy Williams, Arizona's Anquan Boldin, Carolina's Steve Smith and Houston's Andre Johnson are other off-the-top-of-my-head examples of great YAC receivers), and it's something that the Bills don't have.

Finding a big, athletic YAC receiver to create mismatches both outside and in the slot is a must-have.

Why Tight End is More Important
Then again, what would Dallas' offense be without the ultra-important contributions of TE Jason Witten? The former Tennessee star isn't close to being an elite athletic talent, but he just knows how to play football. Whether he's catching the ball in the flat, exploiting a seam or sitting down perfectly against a zone, Witten's sure hands and solid YAC ability (though not elite) is, in reality, the heartbeat of Dallas' passing attack.

The Bills have not had a Witten-like presence at tight end since the days of Pete Metzelaars (unless you want to count the short Bills career of Jay Riemersma). They do not have the type of player at this position that creates mismatches for his teammates, as Witten does for the likes of Owens and Patrick Crayton in Dallas. Owens and Witten are, in my opinion, the elite WR-TE combination in the league - and both players make the other better. Witten is more important to the overall makeup of the offense, however, because he's a constant presence in the middle of the field that can both make plays on his own and open up the field for the rest of the Cowboys' home-run hitters.

Finding a smart, football-savvy pass-catching tight end is a must-have, whether or not elite athleticism is part of the package. This is especially true because of young QB Trent Edwards' preference to throw to his tight ends in his controlled, conservative game.

Decision Time
Let's hear it, folks. You know what Edwards is capable of, and you know that offensive coordinator Turk Schonert will play to his strengths. We have a rough idea of what the offensive system is going to look like. So which is more important for the offense, and by extension the development of Edwards: a YAC receiver that can attack all parts of the field, or a pass-catching TE that moves the chains, creates mismatches and opens up the field for the rest of his teammates?

Debate away.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

TE or WR?

Originally I said it didn't matter, after reading your post, I would say TE. Here's why: I basing this solely on what I've seen from Edwards so far, He likes to use his Tight End. If Trent has a dynamic pass catching TE, who draws the attention of the opponents safeties that will open up some one-on-one matches to the outside, that guys like Evans, and Parrish can exploit with their great speed.

My vote TE.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 1:14 PM EST reply actions

That's the argument

that I've leaned toward most often. But as Fort Worth pointed out a couple of times, a wideout can provide similar attention-drawing production, which could very well open up the one-on-one matchups you refer to. If said wide receiver is also a home run threat, doesn't that added value make finding a WR like that a better idea?

(As you can tell, I'm on the WR bandwagon today. And as you might also be able to tell, Ernest Wilford is my favorite option there - but yes, I want to leave potentials out of this discussion. I'll be back on the TE bandwagon with you tomorrow. :) )

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions

Scenario for you

The Bills draft your beloved Martin Rucker.

Week 5 Bills Vs Pats. After establishing a connection with Rucker through the first 4 games Trent Edwards knows that "king cheap shot" Rodney Harrison is keeping a close eye on Rucker. The Bills have Evans and Parrish on the outside, both go long Harrison hesitates so he can keep an eye on Rucker, leaving both Evans and Parrish going deep, giving Edwards TWO options in single coverage.

If said WR who gets brought in goes deep with Evans and Rucker isn't in the picture, Harrison covers one or the other leaving Edwards with ONE option going deep. Get what I'm trying to say, or did I screw that up?

I guess the point is that having a TE who requires double coverage leaves more WRs in single coverage giving Trent more options.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions

wishful thinking?

Change "your beloved Martin Rucker" to "newly signed Teyo Johnson" in above scenario.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

Ew.

No thanks on Johnson. Nice add at this point in the off-season, but if he's getting playing time 8 months from now, I'll throw up.

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

I gotcha

But my point was that the WR we bring in is, like Owens, motioned into the slot and used underneath. What's the difference between a TE being double covered and a big, physical underneath WR being double-covered? I think it creates the same amount of awesome for your outside guys; add more of a home run dimension to said double-covered player, and it's win-win.

Or, it's win-win today, at least.

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

heres the difference

"What's the difference between a TE being double covered and a big, physical underneath WR being double-covered?"

The difference is; unless you are in a three receiver set you still only have one option deep. If your outside guy goes underneath and gets doubled it's only the other outside guy going long. in my scenario you have two options because it's the TE drawing the double, not your other WR. But like I said if you're in a three receiver set, my point is moot.

All I got left, if you come up with a good argument to this, you better make room on the bandwagon, cause I'm on empty.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions

All I can do is try

There's the double-edged sword: if the TE is drawing traffic, the YAC receiver is left untouched; if the YAC receiver is drawing traffic, the TE is left untouched. Here comes the "they're equally important" argument again.

In the end, we can pine for an explosive offense all we want, but we need to be consistent on that unit first and foremost. That means getting Edwards a tight end to improve his consistency, diversify the offense, and improve the core talent of the team. You can always add a wide receiver once that's done. Congrats, sireric - you made me change my bleeding mind again. :)

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

Victory is mine

I know enough to know I don't know much. And to know that if the Bills add either one it will improve their offense.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions

TE or WR Bandwagon

Brian,

If you find a TE like Kellen Winslow, then, in one bandwagon, you can enjoy all the features of both the TE and WR bandwagons without switching back and forth :)

I know, good luck with that. We all should know how difficult it is to find players like Winslow. That is why he is a truly special player.

At the same time, when it comes to Buffalo Bills football, I do not like comprimising.

by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

Yes...

... but given the choice between Winslow and Owens/Witten, you take the split package. I would rather have a tight end with Witten's abilities, coupled with a YAC receiver (young or old), then try to solve two problems with one player. (Not that you were implying doing that.)

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

Batter Up!

I've been waiting for this one. For those of you who did not have the chance to read my previous comments, here's my take:

After redefining offensive futility in 2007, how can the Bills possibly not need a 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, even when considering what the Bills already have on their roster; it just needs to be a great player.

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.

If I must decide between the two positions, I will say tight end over wide receiver. Unfortunately, in terms of player acquisitions, there is not always a sufficient supply at a position to meet the high demand for that position.

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.

I didn't receive many replies last time. Again, does anyone agree/disagree with ANY of my comments above? Thanks.

by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 1:21 PM EST reply actions

I'll comment!

Your lengthy, well-thought-out responses are always appreciated, Fort Worth. My thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts:

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, even when considering what the Bills already have on their roster; it just needs to be a great player.

This is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. Clearly, the Bills need an infusion of great talent on offense. My question is if you had the choice, which is better for Edwards and the offense? (I know you picked TE later on in the comment.)

I also disagree that neither is a priority need over the other - I get the feeling that you're thinking of similar builds of athletes at these positions, i.e. adding a big, athletic receiver or a big, athletic tight end with similar skills is a wash. I used the Owens/Witten examples purposely to illustrate this point: those types of players are very, very different in terms of what they bring to the table. Basically, the question boils down to "Witten or Owens?"

When you make the change from Losman/Vertical to Edwards/West Coast, YAC becomes a necessity instead of a convenience.

This is an important point. I don't believe that the Bills will run exclusively a West Coast offense - at this point, I don't think they can. I fully expect the passing game to have a West Coast flavor, but the offense will remain predominantly a power running offense. Lee Evans is a down-the-field receiver. I don't expect the scheme to change much; just the aggressiveness. But if more West Coast is introduced into the passing attack, then absolutely, a YAC player is a must-have.

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

I Hope I Am Wrong

Brian,

Thanks for the comments. Very, very much appreciated. You are outstanding.

I think we may just be starting to see how Edwards' shortcomings may be limiting the offense and the entire team. The YAC requirement may just be the tip of the iceberg. I think everyone here knows how strongly I feel about Losman vs. Edwards. For the Bills' sake, I hope I am wrong.

It pains me that we are looking up to and using the Dallas Cowboys players as the standard. Because they legitimately and arrogantly defeated the Bills in two Super Bowls, I dislike the Cowboys more than any other team, including the Patriots.

by Fort Worth on Jan 29, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

Edwards/YAC

With Edwards being the more accurate QB, I noticed last year he seemed to put the ball in a place were a receiver could run after the catch. His throws didn't bounce ten feet before the target, or they weren't over the wrong shoulder.

One thing we all agree on is that play calling was atrocious last year; no one could have QB'd this team successfully. Not to mention that two slot guys were constantly playing out of position.

With a year under his belt, and an offense hopefully designed to his strengths, I think offensive stats will increase all around, including YAC. And this will happen no matter who they add through FA and/or the draft.

by krytime on Jan 29, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

Irony strikes

Just as we get this conversation going full-throttle, the Bills announce that they've signed TE Teyo Johnson. He's kicked around a few teams in the league, but is a big, fluid athlete that can create mismatches. No way this guy is the answer to the team's problems at TE, but it's an indication that the Bills are going to look long and hard at adding a great deal of athleticism to the tight end position.

(As an aside, this may end up being the first step toward the end of Michael Gaines' Bills career.)

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 1:32 PM EST reply actions

I agree

Michael Gaines - we hardly knew ya...

Where does that Schoumann kid fit in all of this? Even though he was a low pick, I thought they were kind of high on him. Does he have any chances?

by krytime on Jan 29, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions

He's in

as of right now anyway, he's one of three TEs under contract. If he can block he has a shot.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schouman

Kid was drafted to play out of the backfield - and I don't know how much our tight ends, other than maybe Royal on occasion, are going to be doing that anymore. Schouman's undersized for a tight end; he had some playmaking ability in college, but if the Bills are serious about upgrading this position (more than just bringing in Teyo Johnson), Schouman is the odd man out.

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

Im saying TE for Trent

is more important at this point. We need both but trent is going to need someone he can rely on.

Id love a wide reciever to compliment Evans. But at what cost? A first or second rounder? A big money contract for somone that isnt a true number 1 reciever? I dunno about that.

Do you BILLieve?

by NYTXFAN on Jan 29, 2008 3:54 PM EST reply actions

Its not either/or

Since the Bills already have a decent nuclues at both positions, I think the key is to draft both a WR and a TE no later than the third round. I still believe that there will be quality left. Both positions are somewhat deep. However, a big WR in free agency (like Roy Williams and isn't Detroit in need of a QB - could smell trade for JP) is also critical to open up the WR's (Evans, Reed, and Parrish). This would also eliminate the necessity of an over the middle TE as all can run slots and over the middle as well as Royal and Gaines. Draft one of each and aquire a very good big WR in free agency.

by btk0930 on Jan 29, 2008 6:52 PM EST reply actions

The plan...

... is to get one or more of both positions. The point, however, is to figure out which is more important to a successful offense, and thus will receive higher priority on our community needs list. Right now, tight end is winning, based on these discussions; I take it, due to the fact that you'd like to see two wideouts added, that you believe wide receiver should get preference?

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not sure the Lions do need a QB

They drafted Drew Stanton in the second round last year, and John Kitna is still alive despite Mike Matrz's best efforts. I would love to see Roy Williams as a Bill, but if that is going to happen the Bills are going to have to give up draft picks.

Who would have thought I'd miss Pete Metzelaars?

by sireric on Jan 29, 2008 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

Yes,

... sorry for not being more clear. I think that between the two at this point in time WR is more important. It will open up all the receivers more plus, both RB's can catch and block out of the backfield. I think a WR will really open up the offense and I agree with Fort Worth that this is looking like a West Coast offense where limited TE rolls are likely and RB's and WR's do the brunt of the work.

by btk0930 on Jan 29, 2008 7:06 PM EST reply actions

Very good point

about the running backs. Schonert has already said that he'd like to use Lynch more as a receiver, and Jackson was used in that role often at the end of the season. You may be right that the backs will take some pressure off the tight end position; admittedly, that is a point I had not considered. I still think a top-flight tight end would really, really go a long way toward developing Edwards this year, but I can see how its importance may be dulled a bit by the presence of those two backs.

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

by Brian Galliford on Jan 29, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions

Teyo Johnson

Just a word to the wise. I had Teyo Johnson in Madden his rookie year in a franchise where I played consecutive seasons. He ended up being UNBELIEVABLE. Although in the game, he played 4 seasons and made pro bowls. In real life he went to NFL EUROPA. But, why the Bills sign these guys is beyond me. Lets just say I will be severely disappointed if the Bills don't add a TE in rounds 1 or 2 of the draft.

Edwards loves the TE! I mean, he got Gaines and Royal 25 catches a piece, although JP had something to do with that. It just seems that if there is a man to roam the middle and be a safety valve this team is way better off. I think its a no brainer. Jim Kelly has said time and again that the first thing a young QB looks for is his TE because he is right in front of him and a big target.

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Jan 29, 2008 7:43 PM EST reply actions

Just too keep the indecision going

I never said not to go after a top flight TE in the draft. I still like Rucker a lot and he should be able to be aquired. It would add a lot to the offense if a FA WR (like Roy Williams) was aquired and a WR draft. I know that might seem too idealic.

by btk0930 on Jan 29, 2008 7:54 PM EST reply actions

if

the bills trade for roy williams and lock him up i would no longer consider receiver a need. i prefer this method over drafting a wr, which is almost always a crapshoot. the bills would have:

williams
evans

3/4. parrish/reed

when healthy roy is an elite receiver, detroit just doesnt want to pay him when they are already paying CJ. mix in a good TE with those receivers, our backs and oline, and edwards would have all the external tools necessary to succeed.

if that happened i would hope the bills would fill TE/LB/CB/DT/DE before addressing receiver.

by jmorris0823 on Jan 29, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions

WR.

This is why we need to prioritize a big possession threat at WR over a receiving TE.

Simply put, adding that YAC threat at WR will make Roscoe Parrish and Josh Reed SIGNIFICANTLY more effective and dangerous as #3 and #4 threats. Each of those two players have found a niche in this offense. But after Price went down, they were forced to leave their roles and play a much expanded game, one that they were often ineffective at, even facing single coverage.
Does anyone remember Josh Reed's rookie year?
Then does anyone remember Josh Reed's 2nd year after Price left the first time? This guy was born to play outside of the spotlight.

And over this last year, I think it's clear that Parrish is not an effective every-down WR and is much better as a situational weapon, a extremely dangerous one at that.

I honestly believe that Reed and Parrish would be the among the top #3 and #4 WRs in the league, if there is such a thing, if we got a Roy Williams/Owens/Houshmenszadeh TYPE of WR to start alongside Evans.

Because getting a bonafide FA or high draft pick at WR would not only address a monstrous area of need, but also make our support weapons considerably better, I think it takes priority over a receiving threat at TE. And since a big WR is generally an effective run blocker as well, he'd make just as much as an impact in the ground game as a receiving TE with marginally developed inline blocking ability.

Take your pick:

Evans-Reed-Rucker-Parrish/Teyo
Evans-Williams/Sweed/Wilford-Reed-Parrish/Royal/Teyo

I think the choice is clear. Comments would be appreciated.

by Kumario! on Jan 30, 2008 1:54 AM EST reply actions

Can I Change My Mind?

Kumario,

If Lee Evans, Roy Williams, Limas Sweed, Ernest Wilford, Josh Reed, Roscoe Parrish, and Robert Royal are all included in #2, then #2 is clearly the better choice than #1.

I believe you are the first person in this thread to mention blocking ability. Although blocking is not what the Bills really need, it remains an underrated, if not important, aspect of the game nonetheless.

Thank you Kumario for helping me to possibly change my mind about the TE vs WR priority. I may have ignorantly and incorrectly cast my vote for TE.

Here is my arguement for WR over TE: for what the Bills really need (red zone impact, YAC, not blocking ability), in most cases a great WR can do everything that a great TE can do, with the added bonus of being a legitimate deep threat.

Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

by Fort Worth on Jan 30, 2008 3:28 AM EST up reply actions

You surely can.

Thanks for the props Fort Worth, glad I could help you form your viewpoint.

What I meant with option #2 is that we would have either Williams or Sweed or Wilford or someone comparable, and depending on the set, Parrish or Royal or Teyo as an extra receiving option.

We know TE has a knack for using his TE's effectively already. Lets see what he can do with a dynamic YAC WR similar to what Brett Farve did with Greg Jennings this last year.

Simply put, we need a #1.5 WR. Bad.

by Kumario! on Jan 30, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions