Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Those two are going to be interchangeable, like Kelsay and Denney. Certain formations and plays to start the game, Evans will be in there. Right now, Reed is a better blocker in the run game. They may surprise up and open with three WR. Don't worry, Evans will see plenty of time, even with the first O in two WR formations.
IndyJay1234 Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 You draft a guy with the 13th pick to start, not sit the bench behind a guy that has proven he couldn't be the #2 guy. If reed could be then why draft Evans? You draft STARTERS with a pick as high as 13. We could have picked up a DE that could START opposite schobel with that pick. Is it a "we're billsfanone" type of deal? Nope...just a bad personel move. WR's don't get better on the bench. 23233[/snapback] Marv Levy said something to the effect of the Draft picks that help you this year are your draft picks from the following year. Lee Evans will help this year but no where near to the level that everyone hopes. 1st year WR generally do not make the impact that everyone hopes for.
1billsfan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I hope Malarkey is smart enough to provide in game adjustments. If our running game is stuffed and Reed is not getting open during some game, then we have an option in Lee Evans to throw at the opposition.
BB2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Ice- We have to see what Reed is capable of in the starting lineup. This is not a mistake. Lets wait and see after week 1.
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Those two are going to be interchangeable, like Kelsay and Denney. Certain formations and plays to start the game, Evans will be in there. Right now, Reed is a better blocker in the run game. They may surprise up and open with three WR. Don't worry, Evans will see plenty of time, even with the first O in two WR formations. 23373[/snapback] Enter the voice of reason.
EndZoneCrew Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Why does ICE make a weak point......then NEVER backs it up.......are you just looking for a response or are you serious??????
nodnarb Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 ICE, this is a stupid post and you know it. Come on man, let these guys do their jobs. First of all, Reed outplayed Evans in camp. Secondly, Mularkey and Clements know what's best for the team. Thirdly, the days of blindly naming #1/#2 at any position are over. It's all about specific team matchups. Haven't you noticed that the Pats never have the same lineup week in and week out? They'll line up Bethel Johnson as a "#2" one week, and Deion Branch the next. It makes it harder to prepare for them. This is how it's done. Fourthly, we run a lot of 3WR sets, and Lee Evans will see A LOT of time on the field. So "#2" or "#3" is irrelevant.
obie_wan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 You draft a guy with the 13th pick to start, not sit the bench behind a guy that has proven he couldn't be the #2 guy. If reed could be then why draft Evans? You draft STARTERS with a pick as high as 13. We could have picked up a DE that could START opposite schobel with that pick. Is it a "we're billsfanone" type of deal? Nope...just a bad personel move. WR's don't get better on the bench. 23233[/snapback] yeah - really, really fast guys should be on the field, no matter what
obie_wan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Wrong ICE just wrong 23260[/snapback] big surprise there.
obie_wan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 The issue is whether there was a de worthy of a thirteenth pick on board. I don't think so. I agree that trading down and going for a de and ol pick would have been very understandable given the need for help in the line dept., but he did get a pretty good de out of the draft. Moulds Evans Reed will give us a chance to develop a Drew Bledsoe passing game to complement a Travis Henry WM running game. If Evans is a game-breaker...great pick TD. If the bills don't make the playoffs, I don't think we'll have TD to kick around anymore. 23277[/snapback] could have traded down and taken Vince Wilfork, who instead went to the best talent evaluators in the league
drnykterstein Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 You draft a guy with the 13th pick to start, not sit the bench behind a guy that has proven he couldn't be the #2 guy. If reed could be then why draft Evans? You draft STARTERS with a pick as high as 13. We could have picked up a DE that could START opposite schobel with that pick. Is it a "we're billsfanone" type of deal? Nope...just a bad personel move. WR's don't get better on the bench. 23233[/snapback] ICE I just lost any respect i had for you opinion after reading that post. You know that rookie WR's dont usually play well, it takes time to get used to playing in the NFL. Reed has a few years under his belt and at least wont make any big mistakes. And if MM says that Reed had a good camp then I will believe him. He's the coach let him decide. Reed could very easily be poised for the traditional WR 3rd season breakout. Besided I like the kid, he's got good strength and size and I think he can handle the job. Sorry if you think we need another peerless price to have a good passing game, but I promise other teams have had good passing games without a peerless and others will do it in the future without him.
Cobra Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Lee can be the third guy and still be the speed guy we need.
JoeF Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 The Americans with Disabilities Act clearly states his employer need to try to accommodate him. 23322[/snapback] You should have seen the fight JP and Ralph had over the handicapped spot outside the Bills offices on Tuesday....ugly man, just ugly... MM said it yesterday---Evans will get plenty of reps and that more than 11 guys are starters in his mind. Moulds has his speed back and in fact is faster than at the beginning of last year according to Vincent and Clements, he's the deep threat for the short term in the 2 WR receiver sets. In the 3 WR sets--you've got Josh working the short edges and middle and Moulds and Evans working the posts, flags, flys and deep slants....we will play a lot of 3 wide...it will open up the running game and the passing game--no one is going to play 8 in the box when you have Moulds, Evans and Reed wide--if they do---its like conceding big plays--even if we hit 30% of the opportunities--that's a lot of yards and points...
Guest Guesteroo Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 You draft a guy with the 13th pick to start, not sit the bench behind a guy that has proven he couldn't be the #2 guy. If reed could be then why draft Evans? You draft STARTERS with a pick as high as 13. We could have picked up a DE that could START opposite schobel with that pick. Is it a "we're billsfanone" type of deal? Nope...just a bad personel move. WR's don't get better on the bench. 23233[/snapback] Yes, ICE is absolutely correct. It was clearly shown last year that Josh Reed is CLEARLY a better 3rd slot receiver than trying to be a 2nd WR. What about all the off season talk that we need speed outside to stretch the field and ease the pressure off Moulds?? Evans adds speed. Reed is a much better fit as a slot receiver. Hopefully, this move is temporary, until evans gets his feet wet in a couple games.
Bossman Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 starting way over rated ,means shi#t 23423[/snapback] I don’t know what is more moronic, Ice’s statement to lead this thread off or the above. I am so sick of people saying that starting doesn’t matter. Why do you work so hard in the off season? Why do you run the extra mile? Lift the extra weight? Study film into the night? When the Coach names you the starter that means you are the best at your position on the team. Starting means shi#t? Spoken like a true bench warmer!
scribo Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 the term "STARTER" is overrated. With so many special situations on offense, the only thing it does is stroke an ego.Reed could start 16 games over Evans yet still finish the season with fewer plays. 23366[/snapback] I completely agree. Coming in off the bench will not hurt Evans' ego, but it would be a big blow to Reed's. This is without a doubt the correct thing to do. MM did good.
Engineer1 Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 ICE-errr Ran... err Did you even think before you wrote that statement? Or did you just react to something you read?
Corp000085 Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Reed could start 16 games over Evans yet still finish the season with fewer plays. kenny davis started in a super bowl. that's a big accoplishment. Start reed, play shaw in the 3 wr set, rotate evans in with shaw after the first few successful 3 WR set plays.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 You draft a guy with the 13th pick to start, not sit the bench behind a guy that has proven he couldn't be the #2 guy. If reed could be then why draft Evans? You draft STARTERS with a pick as high as 13. We could have picked up a DE that could START opposite schobel with that pick. Is it a "we're billsfanone" type of deal? Nope...just a bad personel move. WR's don't get better on the bench. 23233[/snapback] Most receivers do not "blossom" until their third season. This is Reed's third year. MM made Ward a superstar. Why not Reed? Did Evans do something in the preseason that leads you to believe he could do a better job? Was he geeting good seperation? Did he block down field well?
Recommended Posts