Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Based on what it would mean to the offense to establish viable deep threats to the passing game I'll go with Foster.  I would not cite ball tracking on a blustery day or while looking into the sun as concerns.

Posted
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No. 

 

Dates back to when we signed him someone started a thread saying we had signed McKittrick and it has just stuck. 

I remember this. Cant remember who it was though.

Posted
6 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

McKittrick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foster.  All McKittrick does is make plays.  Foster didn't do ***** last week with his chance.  McD is supposed to be about playing those who produce, so no way McKittrick sits again. 

I don't normally agree with you, but this is spot on.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Try sitting Duke. Play Foster and mckittrick

 

This is what I would do. I got the decision to activate Duke and make him a big part of the gameplan against Tennessee. I said it on here the morning of the game - their corners are really good sticky guys who are hard to separate from but who have a vulnerability against size and strength. 

 

Since then I know he had the nice catch against Miami but Duke's struggles separating have shown up on tape. Particularly last week when if I said he had clear separation from the corner twice all game that would be a stretch. The Redskins are going to play a lot of zone on the back end, I think let's get our speed guys on the field. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

McKittrick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foster.  All McKittrick does is make plays.  Foster didn't do ***** last week with his chance.  McD is supposed to be about playing those who produce, so no way McKittrick sits again. 

 

I always wonder whether the real McKenzie ever reads these posts, and what he thinks about the whole Mckittrick charade ?

Posted
1 hour ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:

I can’t remember the last time Foster ran a route other than a fly. It’s weird. If they activate him, I’d like to see him used more over the middle and on crosses like McK, at least. 

IIRC, he was pretty good at deep outs last year and due to his speed a lot of comeback routes were open as well. I really thought he had enough to build on. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

IIRC, he was pretty good at deep outs last year and due to his speed a lot of comeback routes were open as well. I really thought he had enough to build on. 


yeah— it’s weird. I don’t recall him running any of those comebacks this year. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said:


yeah— it’s weird. I don’t recall him running any of those comebacks this year. 

Maybe it’s related to a lingering groin injury. Not sure. We’ll see how it plays out over the rest of the season. If he doesn’t “turn on” down the stretch he’ll be on the roster bubble. 

Posted
8 hours ago, MJS said:

Can someone explain why and how it started to call a player by the wrong name?

No, if you gotta ask...

Posted

Personally, I think that McKenzie is much more valuable to our offense. Like I assume most other bills fans do, I had much higher expectations for Foster after seeing his climb in our offense last year. But if you go back to preseason, McKenzie has made some really impressive catches both over the top and contested, and I think he's a bigger threat/better catcher down the field than most give him credit for. With that in my mind, its hard to imagine the value of Foster when he's not tracking the football. Now I'll admit, Fosters lack of production could be in large part because of Josh's lack of ability to throw the deep ball thus far this year, but regardless of the reason, if Foster isn't getting the deep ball receptions that he thrives on, what is he providing us that McKenzie is not? I just feel like Isiah gives us more options when he's on the field, which should be the goal of every offensive player imo

×
×
  • Create New...