What could Buffalo expect from a rookie WR?
![]() |
| 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.
0 recs |
29 comments
Comments
Great post
by SP on Feb 20, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you copy and paste your diary,
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 0 recs
Immediate contributions...
by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 20, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Quite often...
Get 'em, Nick!
by Fort Worth on Feb 20, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DE
by Kurupt on Feb 20, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want a DE either this year.
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 0 recs
WR flameouts
by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 20, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you hate Reed so much?
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 0 recs
Yeah, what is up with your disdain towards Reed??
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 0 recs
Reed
by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 7:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure...
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.
by Brian Galliford on Feb 21, 2008 7:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wilford
by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 8:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
two bona fide starters...
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 0 recs
It's easy to say
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 0 recs
Grrrr
by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 21, 2008 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EGGGSELENT....
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 0 recs
very true
by sireric on Feb 20, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really understand...
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.
by ForeignArrow on Feb 20, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You make a good point...
(I feel weird typing "Kelly" and "Reed" in the same sentence and not referring to Jimbo and Andre.)
by Brian Galliford on Feb 20, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeeaahh .... but....
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.
by ForeignArrow on Feb 20, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In your scenario...
by Brian Galliford on Feb 20, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not even close
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 0 recs
Ellis Ellis Eillis Ellis
by krytime on Feb 20, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rivers???
by poz on Feb 20, 2008 4:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
poz?
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 0 recs
ellis=rivers
by jmorris0823 on Feb 20, 2008 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Compelling arguement Sireric, but
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 0 recs

by 






















