Jump to content

Spiller should play the Spiller position, not RB

Kelly the Dog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted

I was curious about what Gailey said after the Jackson and Lynch injuries that we wouldn't be seeing a lot of the two back stuff and Spiller used as Gailey intended to use him and will use him when Lynch and/or Jackson get back.

 

My question is, why not?

 

Why have Spiller replace the RB position more than he has to, as well as deprive the other 10 guys on the field for the offense the chance to practice those plays and that style and that offense? I'm sure they will do a little of it, but I would much rather see Spiller play RB a portion of the time and have him play the Spiller position, with Bell or Simpson in the Jackson or Lynch role, and practice the hell out of that -- at least as much or more than Spiller just lined up at RB.

 

In other words, get Spiller in there in all the various formations and plays he wanted to just as if Lynch and Jackson were there, PLUS get Spiller more reps at straight RB in place of Jackson or Lynch.

 

The line and WRs and TE and QBs need practice on the offense we're going to actually run during the season.

 

Gailey sounded like he was scrapping that idea until the starters get back.

tennesseeboy Veteran

tennesseeboy

Posted
Posted
I was curious about what Gailey said after the Jackson and Lynch injuries that we wouldn't be seeing a lot of the two back stuff and Spiller used as Gailey intended to use him and will use him when Lynch and/or Jackson get back.

 

My question is, why not?

 

Why have Spiller replace the RB position more than he has to, as well as deprive the other 10 guys on the field for the offense the chance to practice those plays and that style and that offense? I'm sure they will do a little of it, but I would much rather see Spiller play RB a portion of the time and have him play the Spiller position, with Bell or Simpson in the Jackson or Lynch role, and practice the hell out of that -- at least as much or more than Spiller just lined up at RB.

 

In other words, get Spiller in there in all the various formations and plays he wanted to just as if Lynch and Jackson were there, PLUS get Spiller more reps at straight RB in place of Jackson or Lynch.

 

The line and WRs and TE and QBs need practice on the offense we're going to actually run during the season.

 

Gailey sounded like he was scrapping that idea until the starters get back.

what he said. This is preseason, time to get things in place for the regular season, evaluate and get rid of the weak sisters and perhaps even find some new talent where we need it. There are some very good running backs to evaluate and having Lynch and Jackson gone has the silver lining of letting us get a long look at the talent and to get Spiller ready to do what we want him to do in the regular season. The offensive line and wider receiver situation is fluid and if we are stuck with what we have we have to get them used to the regular season playbook and perhaps amed the regular season playbook if they can't hack it.

FightClub RFA

FightClub

Posted
Posted
I was curious about what Gailey said after the Jackson and Lynch injuries that we wouldn't be seeing a lot of the two back stuff and Spiller used as Gailey intended to use him and will use him when Lynch and/or Jackson get back.

 

My question is, why not?

 

Why have Spiller replace the RB position more than he has to, as well as deprive the other 10 guys on the field for the offense the chance to practice those plays and that style and that offense? I'm sure they will do a little of it, but I would much rather see Spiller play RB a portion of the time and have him play the Spiller position, with Bell or Simpson in the Jackson or Lynch role, and practice the hell out of that -- at least as much or more than Spiller just lined up at RB.

 

In other words, get Spiller in there in all the various formations and plays he wanted to just as if Lynch and Jackson were there, PLUS get Spiller more reps at straight RB in place of Jackson or Lynch.

 

The line and WRs and TE and QBs need practice on the offense we're going to actually run during the season.

 

Gailey sounded like he was scrapping that idea until the starters get back.

 

Yeah, totally agree with you. This organization has a tendency to panic and not believe in itself and its own decisions.

 

Back when the McGahee fiasco was going on, Levy was telling us about this Fred Jackson, how he was going to be a good player, then didn't believe his own words and went out and drafted Lynch.

 

If he had just believed in his plan, Jackson would've been the starter from the beginning and we could have drafted Revis that year.

 

Ok, so that's water under the bridge. But if this year there was a plan for Spiller to play a lot in the slot and such, go ahead and stick to it. You must have developed the plan because you thought it was a good idea. If the other backs are out for an extended period of time, let Bell / Simpson take their place and keep Spiller where you planned him. Especially since these backs look like they might have something, but again the Bills are going to get skiddish and not believe that they actually picked someone up worth something and instead are going to change their plans around completely.

tbonestake RFA

tbonestake

Posted
Posted

On a serious note, Gailey is on record as saying they are going to show more Offensive looks tonight (no link but i heard the soundbyte on WGR this morning). That may translate to different looks for Spiller instaed of just the RB position. Of course, the same man said that he wants to stress fundamentals and we were fundametally brutal last Friday. Rome wasn't built in a day I guess.

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I guess I understand the concept but this is not what I meant, and not what Gailey said earlier this week. He said because of the injuries, he's not going to use Spiller the same way he intended to in pre-season, saying he's not going to use as much, say, two back offense that he was planning on.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp...tory?id=5467973

The Bills next host Indianapolis at Toronto on Thursday.

 

Rather than using Spiller as the featured running back, the Bills' intention was to use his dynamic potential in several roles, from splitting out as a receiver to using him in a two-back formation alongside either Jackson or Lynch.

 

Gailey said the injuries will prevent the team from working on those plays and formations until at least Lynch returns.

SuperKillerRobots RFA

SuperKillerRobots

Posted
Posted
I was curious about what Gailey said after the Jackson and Lynch injuries that we wouldn't be seeing a lot of the two back stuff and Spiller used as Gailey intended to use him and will use him when Lynch and/or Jackson get back.

 

My question is, why not?

 

Why have Spiller replace the RB position more than he has to, as well as deprive the other 10 guys on the field for the offense the chance to practice those plays and that style and that offense? I'm sure they will do a little of it, but I would much rather see Spiller play RB a portion of the time and have him play the Spiller position, with Bell or Simpson in the Jackson or Lynch role, and practice the hell out of that -- at least as much or more than Spiller just lined up at RB.

 

In other words, get Spiller in there in all the various formations and plays he wanted to just as if Lynch and Jackson were there, PLUS get Spiller more reps at straight RB in place of Jackson or Lynch.

 

The line and WRs and TE and QBs need practice on the offense we're going to actually run during the season.

 

Gailey sounded like he was scrapping that idea until the starters get back.

 

I was thinking the same thing. They should continue to practice the 2 RB sets.

 

But, I wonder how much they were actually going to use to 2 RB set in the preseason anyways, since I'd think you'd want to save it (or at least the best parts of it) for the first games of the season to get a jump on teams that haven't seen it yet.

 

I would rather see Spiller playing the Spiller position, but I think this might actualyl show us what to expect out of Spiller when he is actually running the ball. Of all the players that he's been compared to (Bush, Harvin), I think he might be the best true RB of the bunch (not to say he won't do the other things too, just that I think he could actually be a viable RB option).

 

I hope they're still practicing the 2 RB sets in the closed practices with Spiller in the Spiller position...

kota Veteran

kota

Posted
Posted
I guess I understand the concept but this is not what I meant, and not what Gailey said earlier this week. He said because of the injuries, he's not going to use Spiller the same way he intended to in pre-season, saying he's not going to use as much, say, two back offense that he was planning on.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp...tory?id=5467973

 

Gailey did say that. Chad Simpson and Bell are not receiving threats based upon what i saw at training camp. Lynch Jackson and Spiller all have great hands which is why Gailey was looking at two back sets. You could just throw simpson/Bell in there with Spiller and run the two back offense but it wouldn't be as effective. The defense would just key in on Spiller. This would ruin the evaluation of players and the plays for the coaching staff which is why they are probably putting it on hold until Lynch gets back. This is my assumption anyway.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...