How Buffalo's Receiving Corps Measures Up

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 9:11 AM EDT in Opinion Comment 43 comments

Parrish part of weak receiving corps (BuffaloBills.com)

As the NFL off-season chugs along toward the NFL Draft, it is becoming abundantly clear that as far as the Buffalo Bills go, wide receiver is the team's biggest need. The team is coming off of one of its worst passing offense performances in team history, it cut incumbent starter Peerless Price, and missed out on signing free agent (and current 49er) Bryant Johnson to be a starter. The result of this off-season to date? A position that was poor to begin with has actually gotten worse.

Just how bad was Buffalo's receiving corps last season? Clearly, the fact that Buffalo only scored 20 offensive touchdowns - and 8 of them directly involved Marshawn Lynch - is a leading indicator of just how poorly this unit performed last season. But, as always, statistical comparisons show the real horror.

Bottom Five Comparison
In terms of receiving numbers, Buffalo's unit ranked #31 in the NFL last season, "outdone" only by the San Francisco 49ers. Here are the top four receivers from each of the bottom five receiving units in the NFL (in order from worst to fifth-worst):

San Francisco: RB Frank Gore (53-436-1); TE Vernon Davis (52-509-4); WR Arnaz Battle (50-600-5); WR Darrell Jackson (46-497-3).
Buffalo: WR Lee Evans (59-849-5); WR Josh Reed (51-578-0); WR Roscoe Parrish (35-352-1); TE Robert Royal (25-248-3).
Oakland: WR Ronald Curry (55-717-4); WR Jerry Porter (44-705-6); TE Zach Miller (44-444-3); RB LaMont Jordan (28-247-0).
Minnesota: WR Bobby Wade (54-647-3); WR Robert Ferguson (32-391-1); WR Sidney Rice (31-396-4); RB Chester Taylor (29-281-0).
Carolina: WR Steve Smith (87-1002-7); TE Jeff King (46-406-2); WR Drew Carter (38-517-4); WR Keary Colbert (32-332-0).

All four teams found a way to one-up Buffalo as well. Carolina, despite having no threat opposite Steve Smith, was still able to get Smith 87 catches (something the Bills could not do with Evans). Even Minnesota (who by far had the worst numbers), Oakland and especially San Francisco found ways to get their running backs involved in the passing game - something the Bills neglected to do with Lynch, easily their best offensive weapon. In addition, the Bills finished 29th in receiving touchdowns (12), 26th in plays over 20 yards (33), 29th in first downs (141) and 30th in total receptions (263).

How Far is the Climb?
Clearly, the Bills have a lot of work to do in their receiving department. Two of the major issues - getting Evans and Lynch more touches in the passing game - can be resolved with better play-calling. That responsibility will fall on the shoulders of new offensive coordinator Turk Schonert (or "Sherner-it", if you're Marshall Faulk). But once (if?) that happens, how far do the Bills still need to go to become even an average passing offense?

We won't even discuss the elite passing offenses, because those offenses feature either elite receivers, elite quarterbacks, or both (I dislike the Patriots). If the Bills want to field a playoff-caliber offense in 2008, they merely need to become a middle-of-the-pack passing offense next season. Those teams last year, ranking 15 through 19, were Washington, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, St. Louis and Kansas City.

Let me repeat that. Washington, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, St. Louis and Kansas City. Elite receiving corps those were not, folks. Sure, the last three teams there tried to pass their way back into games often throughout their season, likely padding their stats - but did the Bills not have to try that same tactic? At least the Falcons, Rams and Chiefs did it well. Tampa Bay and Washington both made the playoffs. There are some solid receivers in this group (Joey Galloway, Santana Moss, Torry Holt, Dwayne Bowe, heck, even Roddy White), but there aren't any receivers perhaps outside of Holt that can take over a game.

It Really Depends on Play-Calling
Unlike many Bills fans, I've been semi-confident in the receivers we currently have. I believe that Josh Reed and Roscoe Parrish could, ultimately, form an elite slot-receiving duo, and I believe that Lee Evans, with better play-calling and a little help on the outside, can return to his near-Pro Bowl form of 2006. In no way am I advocating that we're fine leaving this position alone, because we're clearly not - I'm just saying that if we add players and improve play-calling, it won't take a lot for us to reach the middle of the pack.

And that's all we really need to do, folks. If we can reach the passing numbers of the Kansas City Chiefs - not an overly difficult task to place upon the shoulders of our favorite team - and add a nice play-making rookie to the arsenal, this offense will be light years better than it was in 2007. Not elite, mind you - that's a generous expectation, considering we'd have second-year players at quarterback and running back as well as a rookie starting at wideout. But the team merely needs to get to the middle of the pack to make things much easier for its nice one-two running punch of Lynch and Fred Jackson. Doing that would give the team enough offense to conceivably make a serious push for a playoff spot.

There is hope, Bills fans. Turning a mediocre offense into an average one, coupled with the defensive improvements made in early March, will allow this team to compete with the NFL's best. Better play-calling and one more significant player at wide receiver could make those hopes reality this coming fall.

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Surprise

It is a surprise we were not worse record wise, and in fact, could have been better. Those teams in the middle of the pack are not even tat good, and in fact I'd like to believe the Bills are better all around.
Mediocre overall, but efficient and productive at the right times and we will be good; good enough to add at least two wins.
Another thing to add is tight end of course, and if we can get some more help there it would be great.
However, it does come down to playcalling where SF-M would simply have no answers on 3rd down, and unfortunately many games the offense just could not stay on the field. What a TE will do is help drastically on 3rd down, something I see alot of in the more successful teams.

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Mar 29, 2008 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Last I checked, the Chiefs were picking 5th. They did have two excellent receiving options in Tony Gonzalez (99 receptions) and Bowe (70 receptions); outside of that, nobody had more than 30. If Buffalo can find that second option, they could easily be as productive as the Chiefs were last season in the passing department. Add in Lynch, an improving defense and a seemingly weak schedule, and at least 9 wins seems highly achievable.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can only hope

If we can find someone who produces even close to what Bowe gave the Chiefs, I'd be thrilled. Of course Bowe and Gonzo are solid possession receivers, which we don't have. I would love it if we could find a surprise rookie like Bowe, but I'd also take a WR and TE who are ready to contribute immediately, even if they don't put up huge stats, which I'm guessing they wouldn't.

I still can't believe SF-M didn't utilize Marshawn more out of the backfield. Whenever he got the ball in space (very, very rarely), he made guys missed and picked up big chunks of yards. There's no reason for him not to catch 40+ balls this year....

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least 9 wins

always seems highly achievable at this time at year.

by Kumario! on Mar 30, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WR

Right now, the playcalling is our biggest unknown. If Schonert is anything like Fairchild, it won't matter who we bring in at WR.

I'd really like to see Roscoe step it up this year. He's been pretty much a non-factor for us. If he can get open for Edwards and make the catches this year, unlike in year's past, I think we could have 2 very good slot options. Elite? Not even close though.

I really think we need to add TWO WR's this draft. One earlier on, and the other around the 5th-6th round to develop. If our early round rookie goes down, we're right back with Reed starting. I'd rather have another option, one with size, at the very least even if he's not going to contribute a whole lot.

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree about Parrish

If he's not suspended, I think he's a guy Schonert needs to get a few more touches as well. There's no way a guy with his open-field prowess should be averaging less per reception than Josh Reed.

And for the record, I wasn't calling either Reed or Parrish elite unto themselves - I think as a duo, however, they can be hard to game plan for from the same position.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reed/Parrish

I understand your elite comment wasn't directed at either individually, but as a duo out of the slot(s). I can agree to an extent, but both have to step it up a little more this year and find there way into the endzone, or at least provide more big plays. If they had been able to draw more attention over the middle last year, I think Evans could have been more productive.

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"If Schonert is anything like Fairchild,

it won't matter who we bring in at WR."

While I do not hate Fairchild as much as many members of this Community, let me just say this: the game is more about the players than it is about the plays.

In this case, what the Bills offense can do depends more on the players than the play-calling. More often than not, it's the players that make the difference.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree and disagree

Obviously, better players will dramatically improve the O (see Tom Brady this past year), but being handcuffed by the OC was a major, major issue last year. We need better players at WR and TE, I can't disagree there, but an improvement in playcalling would also have a significant effect.

OK, I'm done with the topic. No mas!

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

End of discussion?

What is the fun of Buffalo Rumblings without intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful discussion?

Obviously, every team could use better players and better play-calling. However, in comparing the two, players are much more important than plays. It's not even close. Great players make great plays; great plays do not make great players.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well it's been discussed plenty of times

We don't need to go down that road again, do we? We can generate less played out topics, can't we? HAHA

For improvement we need better players AND play-calling. I'm not sure we'll have much more success without improvements in both areas. I think we can all agree on that. Whether it's the plays or players having a more significant, we probably won't ever be able to say for certain, but regardless, we need to improve both and that's all I'm concerned with right now....

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's easy to point the finger at BOTH

because there is nothing else to point the finger AT. In my opinion, the game is mostly about the players. The reason that I emphasize/discuss it so often is because I think it answers many specific football questions. The fundamental concept applies to many football topics/discussions.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With better players

the offense is almost guaranteed to improve on 2007, regardless of who the offensive coordinator is.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't disagree more

You've been promoting this ideal for over a week now, and in this case, I don't agree with it. Fairchild was awful, and you can't deny that he left some of the talents of our current players unused. That played a huge part in our offense's awful play last season.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

There is no question that Fairchild did not utilize all of the talent at his disposal last season. I'm not disputing that.

What I am saying is that with better players (including improvement from players already on the roster), the offense is almost guaranteed to improve on 2007, even if Fairchild was retained. After ranking 30th in offense, there is basically nowhere to go but up. Improving on 30th in offense is not too much to ask.

While Fairchild was awful last season, look at what he had to work with. I think the inconsistency and inexperience and Edwards at quarterback had a lot to do with the results. As I mentioned above, it is easy to point the finger at the play-calling and the players because there is nothing else to point the finger at. All I'm saying is that the game is more about the players than it is about the plays.

I've been promoting this idea since I first began discussions in this Community: Great players make great plays; great plays do not make great players.

The reason that I discuss it so often is because it is a fundamental concept that is applicable to so many football topics.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

But the opposite is true in this case as well - better play-calling will make this offense better as well, no matter who is added. You said so yourself. We'll need both to happen if we're going to improve enough offensively to get into the playoffs.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

Both players and play-calling contribute to success. That's a fact. I'm not arguing against that.

My argument is that success depends MORE on the players than the play-calling.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

play calling

It all pretty much boils down to getting the ball into Marshawn's hands on screen plays and short passes to the TE's early on. Opposing LB's will be playing up to cover which will leave WR's one-on-one and with their speed, should produce more big plays. When the LB's drop back again to cover, then the short passes and running game comes back into play. The whole key to this working is reading the defense and checking down when needed. The offense does have the potential to be good if utilized correctly. Last year, it seemed that SFM called a play and had no flexibilty from that. If it worked, great (and most times it did not). If Trent is given the opportunity to change it up like Peyton Manning does every play, and the way Jim Kelly used to do sucessfully, then it will be a much improved offense and the way to keep the defense off the field more. Although as much as the defense has improved on paper this offseason, it'll be fun to watch them do their thing to opposing offenses. If Trent is the smart poised QB they are touting him to be, then this will only enhance his chances for succeeding.

by JTM1023 on Mar 29, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point

You have to make defenses very scared of something. If you can do that then they're off balance. The key is to be able to hurt them in many different ways. That means you need to have the personnel to do that. Right now our receivers, except for Evans, can't make the oppostion pay for overplaying the short game. Trent needs to be able to make this happen with his head and his arm, too.

by jj24 on Mar 29, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

Yes, players make the plays. But who teaches them how to make the plays? Who puts them into a position to make plays?

If you are talking about hockey or basketball, I might concede some. But football is too complicated a game to underestimate coaching.

by krytime on Mar 29, 2008 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

Both players and play-calling contribute to success. That's a fact. I'm not arguing against that.

My argument is that success depends MORE on the players than the play-calling. You can only call plays that your players have the ability to execute. So it starts with the players.

For example, do you honestly believe that Josh McDaniels and Tom Moore deserve most of the credit for their teams' offensive success? It's clearly more about the players, particularly Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. If they called the exact same plays with Matt Cassel and Jim Sorgi under center, respectively, certainly there would be a dropoff in production. More often than not, the players, not the play-callers, are the real difference-makers. In this case, McDaniels and Moore are easier to replace than Brady and Manning.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 30, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WR

Relevant article, Brian. It's better to present numbers to Bills' fans to demostrate just how abysmal the passing game was last season than it is to argue over personnel they've become attached to over the years. In "Moneyball", Billy Beane and the author discussed the problem with basing player personnel on memory when compared to statistics. Josh Reed's catch against the Redskins or his touchdowns in his 2nd and 3rd games as a pro stand out when thinking about him, shaping our flawed opinion of his play and thus, probably clouding the judgement of OBD in evaluating what he's capable of doing. But when you put into context the fact that he's scored 8 TDs in 6 seasons and that he may have the lowest TD per play percentage of any WR in the NFL (he's been on the field a ton over his 6 year career- he's not exactly Sam Aiken when it comes to opportunity), just how bad he is shines through. The same goes for Roscoe Parrish to a lesser degree. Parrish has been unable to contribute substantially on offense for three seasons now, albeit, with far less playing time to judge him than Josh Reed's long career in Buffalo. Is Reed blocking Parrish from making a stronger impact? It's very possible. At this point however, it's not same to assume that Parrish is anything more than an elite punt returner/4th receiver in the NFL (think Az-Zahir Hakim in his prime). The fact is though, Brian's assertion that Reed and Parrish could ever be an "elite slot-receiving duo" isn't based on anything tangible, whatsoever. Frankly, it's the stuff of an attached fan, who's desperate to validate an organization and head coach who don't seem to understand offense in the 21st century. Josh Reed played substantially in the slot in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the beginning of 2007. When was he ever effective, let a lone elite? Look at Wes Welker, Kevin Curtis, Bobby Engram, Mike Furrey, Antwan Randle El, and Brandon Stokely over the last few years if you want to see what a true asset in the slot is capable of giving an offense. Six years is enough time to prove yourself in the NFL, and Reed has proven he's not up to the task of contributing for a a decent NFL offense. Could Parrish do what the above players have done if Reed was out of the way? Well, last year suggests he can't, but his pool of reference is much smaller than Reed's so you can argue that he still has potential...Another part of the article and rhetoric from OBD this week that scares me is this cure-all that Edwards is going to get the RBs the ball more often next season. That's fine on 1st down, but dumping the ball off on 3rd down wasn't Edwards' problem last season. In fact, he seemed more than comfortable completing 6 yard passes on 3rd and 9 in very a Holcomb-esque fashion. Hopefully, it's all rhetoric, but as it stands now with the personnel, Edwards' and Schonert's comments, and the general tone from slimey Bills PR man, Chris Brown at OBD, offense in Buffalo is going to be alot more of the same in 2008. Run, Incomplete, dump, punt. "Great job, Trent, no sacks," beams Dick Jauron. Welcome to year 9 of our rebuilding project, Bills fans.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 29, 2008 10:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My, you're gloomy :)

The fact is though, Brian's assertion that Reed and Parrish could ever be an "elite slot-receiving duo" isn't based on anything tangible, whatsoever. Frankly, it's the stuff of an attached fan, who's desperate to validate an organization and head coach who don't seem to understand offense in the 21st century.

How is it not based on anything tangible? They did combine for 86 catches last year, after all. I have no attachment to Reed, Nick - his career has certainly been up-and-down - but I'm also aware that he's not even close to being the problem for this offense. That's been the quarterback play. You saw what Reed did in two seasons with Drew Bledsoe, a competent NFL quarterback with a little longevity, at the helm. He can still do that - and your incessant rantings about his play isn't going to change many minds. I agree to an extent about his blocking Parrish's access to the field, however - that's a very valid point.

Look at Wes Welker, Kevin Curtis, Bobby Engram, Mike Furrey, Antwan Randle El, and Brandon Stokely over the last few years if you want to see what a true asset in the slot is capable of giving an offense.

Wes Welker - averaged 70 receptions and 3 TD per season over the last "few" (3) years. Numbers greatly skewed by New England's historic offense.

Kevin Curtis - averaged 59 receptions and 5 TD per season over the last 3 years. Played in a Martz offense and had McNabb throwing to him last year.

Bobby Engram - Averaged 62 receptions and 3 TD per season over the last 3 years. Started much of 2007 and has an excellent quarterback.

Mike Furrey - averaged 53 receptions and 2 TD per season over the last 3 years. Played in a Martz offense with first-round receivers that busted out completely.

Antwaan Randle El - averaged 39 receptions and less than 2 TD per season over the last 3 years. Utilized much in the way Parrish is in Washington.

Brandon Stokley - averaged 30 receptions and 2 TD per season over the last 3 years, though he missed much of '06 due to injury. Played with Peyton Manning in Indy's pass-happy scheme.

Josh Reed - averaged 39 receptions and less than 1 score per year. Dealt with two separate QB transitions during his career.

I'm interested to see how Reed's numbers would look in the role he'll have next season with consistent play from Edwards. I'm betting he could approach 55 receptions and score a couple of touchdowns. But apparently, that's not enough to be considered a good slot receiver.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record

I wasn't trying to prove anything by providing those numbers - Nick asked for them, I threw them out there. :)

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weird choice of numbers

Furrey has only really played the last two seasons, Stokely missed most of 'o6, Welker really didn't get a regular role until '06, etc. I don't think you can lump three years together and divide raw data by three and tell me that's an accurate indication of who these players are. In any case, Reed falls short even using your arbitrary study in his defense. Try looking at the best seasons of each of their careers. Has Reed ever approached those figures in the 6 years he's had a chance? You continue to discount the numbers of some players (Welker, Furrey, Curtis) because they played in perceived great offenses, well, don't you think having excellent options inn the slot had something to do with those offenses succeeding? Don't you think Reed's lack of ability has anything to do with Buffalo's lack of success? I just don't get who you perceive as the problem. Apparently, the problems are always the scapegoats that are gone (Fairchild) and never the bums that link bad season to bad season (Reed). That's not gloomy; that's reality. In fact, I'm so optimistic about the additions on defense, the ability of the offensive line to grow, and Marshawn Lynch, that I can't stomach wasting an easy schedule in 2008 by marching a career failure like Josh Reed out there to hinder us once again. And for the record, if you want to reference the bad offense of the Bledsoe era as Reed's golden years, you need to comment on the fact that the only season when Buffalo finished above .500 since 1999 was 2004, when Reed missed most of the season with an injury and Buffalo's offense put up large amounts of points in the 2nd half of the season. Any connection that the points explosion coincided with Reed's role being reduced dramatically? I'll argue it's linked at the hip.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 29, 2008 11:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Just wondering....

What exactly have you expected out of a slot WR? Why do you hate Josh Reed so much? Seriously, you must expect the player in his role to be putting up 80 catches a season. With our craptastic QB situation of the past 10 years, I can't imagine you'd think other players would have produced much more? Don't you think the play of our QB's has been the MAIN problem with our offense?

And for the record, if you want to reference the bad offense of the Bledsoe era as Reed's golden years, you need to comment on the fact that the only season when Buffalo finished above .500 since 1999 was 2004, when Reed missed most of the season with an injury and Buffalo's offense put up large amounts of points in the 2nd half of the season. Any connection that the points explosion coincided with Reed's role being reduced dramatically? I'll argue it's linked at the hip.

WOW. Do you remember the teams we were playing in that stretch? They were the absolute dregs of the league. We were able to run the ball successfully with McGahee that year, but the passing game wasn't anything to be proud of, with or without Reed. We averaged less than 200 yards passing over the final 7 games of that season, while the run game churned out 136 ypg. We also got 29 turnovers from our D in those 7 games, which was the major reason we put up so many points. By the way, in the 4 games that Reed missed in the middle of that season we only average 180 ypg passing. So yeah, there is very little, if any, correlation between Reed's absence and the points we put up in those games. I think it's safe to say that regardless of who we had in the lineup, the offense has stunk for years. You can't seriously keep blaming everything on Josh Reed, a #3 receiver.

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice, K

A much more convincing argument than I provided below.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I just don't get who you perceive as the problem. Apparently, the problems are always the scapegoats that are gone (Fairchild) and never the bums that link bad season to bad season (Reed).

I'm pretty sure I made that clear - I said it was the revolving door at quarterback that's been the offensive problem for years. If you want to put QB under the "scapegoat" category, go ahead - but that's the real reason we've had problems.

The "arbitrary" numbers were generated from your comment of "look at the last few years of these receivers" (paraphrased). I guess I took it a bit more literally than you meant it.

Any connection that the points explosion coincided with Reed's role being reduced dramatically? I'll argue it's linked at the hip.

I think that points explosion had much, much, MUCH more to do with the emergence of Willis McGahee and the fact that '04 was the last time we had a weak schedule - not surprisingly because we played the NFC West.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

Had the same opinions expressed a bit differently....

by Kurupt on Mar 29, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just keep looking the other way

Obviously, the entire fault of our decade long putrid offense doesn't rest on the #2.67 receiver. But seriously, ask yourself if it makes sense that we've had a revolving door of QBs, RBs, offensive coordinators, head coaches, and yet Reed continues to keep his job without producing. There's no getting around the fact that Levy's initial stab at free agency was a complete disaster. Ryan Denney, Larry Tripplett, Peerless Price, Melvin Fowler, Josh Reed, and Robert Royal were all handed extremely important roles on the team and I'd argue that all 6 players are central reasons as to why we've had some of the worst offensive and defensive units in the NFL over the last two seasons. When I see subpar football players playing key roles on the team, it makes sense to connect the team's struggles to their presence. In Reed's case in particular, his presence blocks a more talented player in Parrish, and handicaps Edwards with his limited size, speed, playmaking ability, and guts. Reed admitted as much in a Buffalo News article a couple of years back, that he lost a lot of confidence after failing miserably in replacing Peerless Price as a starter in 2003. His gutless alligator arm act in the 4th quarter of the Jacksonville game last year is just another example of how little he brings to the table (if his stats alone weren't enough to call for a change). You could look back to the preseason in 1998 as an example of why Reed needs to be pushed aside. You could've made tons of excuses for Quinn Early's pedestrian numbers in 1997 regarding the QBs around him, but Phillips had the foresight to recognize that Early didn't produce enough for the role he played on the team and he moved him aside in favor of the thus far, underachieving Eric Moulds. The rest is history. Get a true starter opposite Evans, give Parrish a shot as the #3, and draft a backup plan in the middle rounds in case Parrish isn't the answer in the slot. I want to see Edwards have a real chance to succeed in his first full season as a starter- I don't want to see him end up lumped together with Bledsoe, Losman, and Holcomb as burn victims in Buffalo from the lack of talent around THEM. It's easy to blame the litany of QBs we've watched this decade, but Reed's been a constant for all of them. The correlation between him and our failures is evident. But go ahead, just keep looking the other way until he's gone when it's too late and two more 7-9 seasons, another QB, offensive coordinator, and head coach later, he's just another scape goat in the rear view mirror of past Bills failures.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 29, 2008 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

wow

jeez Nick, this is getting pretty ridiculous. You said that the FO's, Brian's and basically everyone else's judgement is clouded about Reed based on some personal connection or past memories or whatever. Isn't it obvious that your judgement is even more clouded by the fact that you despise him? You are starting to sound like some crazy conspiracy believer.

"The correlation between him and our failures is evident."

This has to be the first time in the history of the NFL that a slot receiver has been blamed for a team's lack of success that has spanned a decade.

I think Reed will be an above average slot receiver. If Reed doesn't have to start I bet he catches 35-40 balls while being on the field for only half of the Bills offensive plays. Parrish would be on the field about 25% of the time and could catch about 20 balls. Personally I think Parrish is suited for a screen pass and a deep attempt a game and not much else. Isn't that solid production from non-starters on a team that won't complete 300 passes?

by kaisertown on Mar 29, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And on we go

But seriously, ask yourself if it makes sense that we've had a revolving door of QBs, RBs, offensive coordinators, head coaches, and yet Reed continues to keep his job without producing.

I do think it makes sense - we're onto three regimes at this point (Donahoe/Williams, Donahoe/Mularkey and Levy/Jauron/VPs) that have kept him around. He's coming off of a career season. I honestly can't see your beef, even though you repeatedly try to enlighten us. And going back to an earlier comment of yours...

In "Moneyball", Billy Beane and the author discussed the problem with basing player personnel on memory when compared to statistics. Josh Reed's catch against the Redskins or his touchdowns in his 2nd and 3rd games as a pro stand out when thinking about him, shaping our flawed opinion of his play and thus, probably clouding the judgement of OBD in evaluating what he's capable of doing.

Are you entirely sure that the points you brought up - the Jacksonville game, the Buffalo News quote that he's since overcome, your preconceived notions - aren't playing the same roles in your mind? You seem so hell-bent about seeing him cast off of the roster that you consistently ignore the fact that, again, we have bigger fish to fry in terms of offensive problem resolution.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Career season

The fact that Reed's "career season" contained 0 TDs tells me all I need to know about your expectations for the Bills' offense, Brian and calling last year's offense "mediocre" is the positive spin of the year...hard to call six years of the same crap "conspiracy". It's on film...Frankly, I don't care about Josh Reed; it's hard to say I despise him. You could substitute Robert Royal's name for Josh Reed's name and the story stays the same- Reed's just more frustrating because he's been here longer. Who else on the Bills has ever sucked for six seasons without being replaced or even demoted? It's absolutely insane that they're going into a seventh season with the same garbage taking up space. Bad players make for bad offense and Reed has played a prominent role in a bad offense for six seasons. The fact that anyone who follows this team seriously could ever attach "elite" to a sentence with Reed (as part of a combo or not) is crazy and invalidates all arguments on their part. Reed has 6 TDs in his last 85 games, playing continuously as a top 3 receiver for an NFL team. Is that good enough for you? It's not for me. You want to know why the Bills have gone 0 for the decade? It because we settle for mediocre to subpar. Take your Josh Reeds and your Melvin Fowlers and your Robert Royals and tell me where the improvement is going to come from if you kep marching the same crap that hasn't worked out there. If Fairchild was the only problem, why didn't Jauron just strip him of his playcalling duties last year? Don't dig deep into this culture of losing in Buffalo, just make yourself a mock draft and tell yourself that Jauron has us on the right track. Pathetic.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 29, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boy, you're fired up

The fact that Reed's "career season" contained 0 TDs tells me all I need to know about your expectations for the Bills' offense, Brian.

I'm pretty sure that my saying that Josh Reed had a career season last year has no bearing on my expectations for the offense. Not sure how you can draw any conclusion from that - I'm merely stating a fact. Do I wish he'd scored 14 touchdowns? Clearly, the answer is yes. But he's not the problem.

Take your Josh Reeds and your Melvin Fowlers and your Robert Royals and tell me where the improvement is going to come from if you kep marching the same crap that hasn't worked out there.

All of those players you mentioned can be part of a competent NFL offense with improved play-calling and better consistency at quarterback.

If Fairchild was the only problem, why didn't Jauron just strip him of his playcalling duties last year?

I don't believe I've ever stated that Fairchild was the only problem - that's clearly untrue. I don't view his firing as the creation of a scapegoat as you do - just a necessity. Jauron wouldn't do that, either, because he's the first Bills coach since Marv Levy that's stuck to his guns. (Yes - I even speak of last year's QB switcheroo.)

Don't dig deep into this culture of losing in Buffalo, just make yourself a mock draft and tell yourself that Jauron has us on the right track. Pathetic.

What's funny about that is that I'm actually working on a mock draft. I'm certainly hopeful you don't find said mock draft pathetic tomorrow. And I'd also caution you to avoid digging too deep into what you refer to as the "culture of losing", because we've established the problems that need to be fixed. Josh Reed isn't one of them. Not yet, anyways.

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Onto a (slightly different and) related topic

Make sure y'all vote in the new poll on the home page!

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

by Brian Galliford on Mar 29, 2008 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Every one cant have the ball

You cant pass the ball to all the recivers all the time expect them all 4 recivers plus the tight end and running to all have 50 plus cathes and the primary guy getting 80 plus. or we would end up in the same sittation as the lions last year and become a pass happy team.

by The Buffalonian on Mar 29, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Spread the defense out

The Bills struggle to utilize the outside of the field without Losman throwing the sideline bomb to Evans. However, Losman lacked the accuracy to throw good seam or slant routes. Those balls were overthrown or off target most of the time. Edwards uses the deep middle of the field but we haven't been able to utilize that same sideline route(see: James Lofton, Don Beebe). If we can get corners to quit shading our guys from the inside, than we can open up our passing game more. Andre Reed used to abuse the middle of the field. He would catch the ball and break tackles. Reed was set up by our 40-50 shot down the sideline on our first drive. Devin Thomas may have that same skill, but less reliable hands. Jim Kelly didn't have amazing arm strength but he put the ball where it had to be(something I think Trent is ok at and hopefully will improve). If we can't spread the field than we're too predictable. Reed doesn't have the speed to stretch the corners outside and Parrish doesn't have the size or great hands. Maybe Parrish(too small) and Reed(doesn't show up every game) don't have the skills to compliment what Evans can do. We need an opposite side burner to stretch the defense and someone who can work the middle and pick up yards after the catch. I'm not sure we have to give up Reed or Parrish(...Reed) but if we don't then we have to keep 6 recievers active.

by jj24 on Mar 29, 2008 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh my goodness!

Somedody please tell me this man is crazy.http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d807746e6 This has to be a joke right?

by jj24 on Mar 29, 2008 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Flowers!

AT 11! Is this guy trying to get fired?

by jj24 on Mar 29, 2008 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just one person's opinion

I'm really not surprised by anything anymore. I'm going into the draft with an open mind.

I've heard some good things about Flowers. However, I do not think that he has the talent to excel in man coverage.

Does Allen Wilson have inside information?

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 29, 2008 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Allen Wilson

I've been used the assumption that the reporters knew more than the average fan. From what I've read by the comments on this blog and other internet sources Flowers is not even a top 20 pick and possibly a 2nd rounder. Also, if check this out http://thebiglead.com/?p=4061 he's got some real growing up to do.

by jj24 on Mar 29, 2008 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Receivers

Lee Evans is a very good receiver but not one to take over a game. Using him as a possession WR is wasting him. I think he is one of the best in the game at timing an over the shoulder catch. Josh Reed is just brilliant at getting 6 yards on 3rd and 8. Whose fault is that, the WR or the play caller? Parrish has his moments of greatness, but they are few and far between. Currently, we do not have a big or tough WR. If Evans is looking for the pot at the end of the rainbow, he walks. Question is, with salary cap and OBD salary philosophy, how many studs can the Bills afford? If it is a WR at 11, mabye they are expecting Evan's salary demands to be excessive. In that case take Kelly and let Lee walk. If the goal is to resign Evans for big bucks, take Devin Thomas later with a trade down. If Bobby April has a healthy say in this draft (and he should considering the special teams losses) they take Thomas. Relieving McGee from KR duties should be a high priority. I'm guessing that Thomas will turn out to be tougher than Kelly. We desparately need to get taller and bigger. It is hard to picture any of this years WR at 11. If they do not want Harvey at 11, I smell a trade. Most mocks now have DRC going before 11. Crap. We need to get taller at CB too. That is why I do not like Jenkins. How do you beat NE with a CB crew all under 6ft?

Fairchild was the worst OC I have ever seen. His main philosophy was fear. He had NO confidence in his players. A totally predictable game plan that never changed. We lost two games that can be directly placed on his shoulders. The Dallas game was just as tough a loss for me as wide right. By all rights, with an average OC in charge, our record last year is 9-7. Remarkable. The base line for judging our offense will be this year. Just a bit of a normal offense, please. How about an OC that studies his players and calls a game that plays to their strengths.

DJ has brought many good things to us. His strength is obviously defense. Too early to pass judgement. Just hire a good OC and get out of his way.

WR and CB. Taller and bigger please. BTW, Josh Reed dropped a lot more balls earlier in his career. I do not like Thomas's drops, but too early to pass on him just for that.

by keuka121 on Mar 29, 2008 8:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Worse off?

How can anyone describe the 'loss' of Peerless Price as anything other than addition by subtraction? The Bills aren't 'worse off' without him but rather pretty much the same. He didn't perform on the field so his departure doesn't drop Buffalo into a deeper hole. #### On a tangentally related topic, Fowler would also be an addition by subtraction. I think Buffalo was the only team in the league to not even try to run the ball between the guard (either) and center. Instead, Buffalo's up-the-gut runs involved the guard and tackle crashing down with Fowler as merely a pivot point. The TE (and many times the WR) sealed off the outside of the running lane. If Buffalo had a real center--one capable of not only holding his ground (which Fowler can occasionally manage) but also of driving a DT off the ball--those 4th and inches plays wouldn't be such sources of anxiety....even if the RB does forget what down it is.

by Ron From NM on Mar 29, 2008 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs