ICE Posted September 9, 2004 Author Posted September 9, 2004 See that is a stupid fuggin reply. Just because it is a bad move doesnt' mean the guy should be fired now does it? No it just means I am going to get dumbassed responses...
TigerJ Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I think Evans is going to get playing time in 3 WR sets. Reed will move to the slot and Evans will pairoutside with Moulds. He'll get his chance to start, probably later in the season.
MDH 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] Don't you want the best players on the field no matter where they were drafted? I do, if Mularky says Reeds is better for this team than Evans I'm sure he knows more about it than your or me. You want Evans to start because you HOPE he'll be good, not that he's actually better than Reed right now. And since when does the #3 WR "sit on the bench"? He'll see plenty of playing time and once he is a better wideout than Reed he'll be starting, but not until then. Reed is a MUCH better WR than you give you credit for. He had no viable #1 opposite of him last year (with a gimpy Moulds running half speed), so how can you judge him on his merits of being a solid #2?
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 yeah - really, really fast guys should be on the field, no matter what 23479[/snapback] time to snap Antonio Brown back up and demote Moulds. Seriously, Reed has looked effin' great this preseason. And I like him on returns. I didn't notice, has Reed stopped the "one-eye-black" Nelly nonsense? That looked pretty damned stupid. If Reed is our Hines Ward and Lee eases into the #1 role under Moulds' tutelage, we are going to have a hell of a receiving corps. And that's not considering how long Moulds hangs around with us.
MDH Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Don't you want the best players on the field no matter where they were drafted? I do, if Mularky says Reeds is better for this team than Evans I'm sure he knows more about it than your or me. You want Evans to start because you HOPE he'll be good, not that he's actually better than Reed right now. And since when does the #3 WR "sit on the bench"? He'll see plenty of playing time and once he is a better wideout than Reed he'll be starting, but not until then. Reed is a MUCH better WR than you give you credit for. He had no viable #1 opposite of him last year (with a gimpy Moulds running half speed), so how can you judge him on his merits of being a solid #2? If we threw Evans into the starting lineup now and he didn't put up huge numbers right off the bat you'd be the first guy calling him a "bust".
Spiderweb 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] Sorry, but as others have said, your simply wrong. I think I recall a guy named Moulds who wasn't worth much until his third year, despite his talent.
nobody Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 It's not like the first play is going to be a pass to Reed. Evans will be coming in on 3 wide sets and Reed moves to the slot. Evans will be getting plenty of plays. The term "starter" doesn't mean too much nowadays.
Spiderweb Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 See that is a stupid fuggin reply. Just because it is a bad move doesnt' mean the guy should be fired now does it? No it just means I am going to get dumbassed responses... 23671[/snapback] No, actually your opening statement was a bit on the "dumbXXXed" side. Kinda like a "rookie" mistake, zillion posts or not. The "move" is simply conventional wisdom coupled with the play of Reed and Evans to date. Reed wins this one 2 to 0. Evans will get his time, as he earns it.
YOOOOOO Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 See that is a stupid fuggin reply. Just because it is a bad move doesnt' mean the guy should be fired now does it? No it just means I am going to get dumbassed responses... 23671[/snapback] Dumb ass responses to dumb ass posts....It tends to happen... EVANS will play ... so what if he isnt out there the opening formation of the game... now if he isnt out there on 3WR sets and only sees the field a hand full of plays then you can start to complain
Rico Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 now if he isnt out there on 3WR sets and only sees the field a hand full of plays then you can start to complain 23900[/snapback] No complaints from me IF Josh Reed performs this year. If he doesn't, get the quick hook ready.
1billsfan Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 ICE's concern about Reed is warranted until he show's he's starting material which he did not do last season. Heck, Bledsoe and the starting line are in the same boat as far as us fans waiting to see who can play. I hope they all play well this Sunday.
Recommended Posts