BuckeyeBill Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 The complaint.... why did we take a TE so early? Why when we didn't lose them with Bledsoe? Why when MM didn't use them in Pittsburgh? Why why why? Easy... JP LOSMAN. JP Losman will have a good TE, a playmaking TE... that will help him develop. (a check down guy) We didn't use TE's as much last year, because we didn't play Losman last year. Pittsburgh didn't use TE's as much when MM was there, because they didn't play with Losman. Apparently, the Bills figure that JP will flourish with a speedy slot man and a play-making Tight End. I tend to agree with them. Give them a chance to see if their hunch is right before you start asking WHY WHY... OH GOD WHY. Drive me crazy.
EC-Bills Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Wheat Chex, please. 318104[/snapback] What's the matter with Crispex? You have issues with that cereal because Troy Aikman was on the box?!?!
todd Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 I'm curious as to why you are evaluating this year's offense, with a new signal caller, and comparing it to last year? It doesn't make much sense. Also remember that our TEs were all injured for a number of games, limiting the impact a TE could have stat-wise. Mularkey has repeatedly said they couldn't do many of the things they wanted to do on offense because of Bledsoe. I think involving a TE is one of them. Drafting a TE makes perfect sense given this reality. Curious about a 2nd year of a higher pick of a TE. Everett seems to be a reach - if they wanted to feature a TE in the pass offense, they should have drafted Stanford's Alex Smith. The Bill's offense - since Reismerma left - is not close to TE - oriented. Bledsoe seldom looked in the te's direction, even with last year's injuries notwithsanding, and with their drafting of the wr smurf as top pick, I am at a loss. Bottom line - TE is not part of their offensive scheme - why waste a pick? Even if Everett is the best thing out there, they don't toss the business that way. Cripe, I'm sure that JP will follow Cincy's Palmer - wet behind the ears with eyes on one or two wr's - the B'gals TE catches fell almost in half from '03 because the functional rookie Palmer did not have the experience to pick up the opportunities. And nothing against the pick of a CB - could have done that in lieu of the te pick -but I'm surprised that they PASSED on LB Mike Boley. 318027[/snapback]
Kelly the Dog Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 I'm curious as to why you are evaluating this year's offense, with a new signal caller, and comparing it to last year? It doesn't make much sense. Also remember that our TEs were all injured for a number of games, limiting the impact a TE could have stat-wise. Mularkey has repeatedly said they couldn't do many of the things they wanted to do on offense because of Bledsoe. I think involving a TE is one of them. Drafting a TE makes perfect sense given this reality. 318123[/snapback] We sure as hell could have used him last year regardless of how raw he was. When Campbell and Euhus went down our offense suffered greatly.
stuckincincy Posted April 25, 2005 Author Posted April 25, 2005 What's the matter with Crispex? You have issues with that cereal because Troy Aikman was on the box?!?! 318117[/snapback] Not a bad product. But you will never know true roughage until you have to eat All-Bran or Grape Nuts.
Dr. Fong Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Everett = one more cookie-cutter Bill's TE who will seldom see the ball. 318077[/snapback] Everett is as different from Campbell and Euhus as a TE can get. So how can he just be cookie cutter? What you need based drafters need to understand is that isn't reality in the NFL these days. With the era of free agency teams can fill needs through free agency and focus their draft on best player available. Agree with it or not, that's just the way the NFL is these days.
BRH Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Not a bad product. But you will never know true roughage until you have to eat All-Bran or Grape Nuts. 318155[/snapback] The best part about those cereals is you can eat the box too. Tastes the same and saves money in the long run.
stuckincincy Posted April 25, 2005 Author Posted April 25, 2005 We sure as hell could have used him last year regardless of how raw he was. When Campbell and Euhus went down our offense suffered greatly. 318133[/snapback] Huh? Those cats weren't notable for catch the few passes directed towards them...even with a QB formerly noted for seeking out a TE. After those whips went down, the Bills beat up on weak sisters or injured clubs but got slapped come crunch time... I'd be surprised if any Bill's TE would be picked up if cut - perhaps Euhus, but only out of curiosity...
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News is a very good draft analyst. He gave the Bills a "C" (like most teams this year). Here's his post-draft blurb, which notes the KE pick in particular: http://www.cowboysplus.com/topstorync/stor...s.448de44e.html "The Bills didn't have a first-rounder. But GM Tom Donahoe puts together a quality draft regardless of where he picks or how many selections he has. This year was no exception. Kevin Everett gives the Bills hands in the passing game."
Rico Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 I agree that TE wasn't a must have that early, but I don't agree that we won't be using the TE much. I think we'll see more of Everett/Euhus, and less of Damon Shelton.It's already clear what MM is changing on offense with the change from DB to JP. We went from a power running team, to a wide open offense in one offseason. Everett is a vertical threat from the TE position with his speed and hands. 318056[/snapback] It does appear that we're becoming a more wide open offense. That being said, I still don't understand the signing of Bennie Anderson, who (to date) has only been effective in the power running game. I'm not so sure MW is a good fit in a wide-opened offense either.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Huh? Those cats weren't notable for catch the few passes directed towards them...even with a QB formerly noted for seeking out a TE. After those whips went down, the Bills beat up on weak sisters or injured clubs but got slapped come crunch time... I'd be surprised if any Bill's TE would be picked up if cut - perhaps Euhus, but only out of curiosity... 318163[/snapback] Uh, those cats had seven touchdowns in 12 games on a weak passing team. When was the last time the Bills TEs caught 7 TDs total in a season, let alone 3/4 of a season? I'll tell you, it was 1998 with 8 in 16 games.
Dr. Fong Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News is a very good draft analyst. http://www.cowboysplus.com/topstorync/stor...s.448de44e.html That's a well written article, but I really hate draft grades that give teams that have two picks in the first round high grades. Of course they got some good players, they had two picks.
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 That's a well written article, but I really hate draft grades that give teams that have two picks in the first round high grades. Of course they got some good players, they had two picks. 318178[/snapback] Then there's always the Redskins....
stuckincincy Posted April 25, 2005 Author Posted April 25, 2005 Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News is a very good draft analyst. He gave the Bills a "C" (like most teams this year). Here's his post-draft blurb, which notes the KE pick in particular: http://www.cowboysplus.com/topstorync/stor...s.448de44e.html "The Bills didn't have a first-rounder. But GM Tom Donahoe puts together a quality draft regardless of where he picks or how many selections he has. This year was no exception. Kevin Everett gives the Bills hands in the passing game." 318172[/snapback] Short and kind. But the fact is, if you are in the media and say what you really think, you will soon be overtly or subtly excluded by your food source. Not limited to football, of course. So you gotta play that grade-inflation game - nobody gets less than a C. This was yet another draft by the Bills not to build a competitive club but a draft to get the Madden-esque fans into the stands.
obie_wan Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Bledsoe seldom looked in the te's direction, 318027[/snapback] You answered your own question. Bledsoe was incapable of finding secondary receivers, be they TEs, RB, or WRs.
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Short and kind. But the fact is, if you are in the media and say what you really think, you will soon be overtly or subtly excluded by your food source. Not limited to football, of course. So you gotta play that grade-inflation game - nobody gets less than a C. This was yet another draft by the Bills not to build a competitive club but a draft to get the Madden-esque fans into the stands. 318191[/snapback] Really, how many teams had a good draft? He only gave 3 AFC teams and 5 NFC teams a grade of "B" or higher. Same with Kiper. This was a "draft for depth" year. No immediate starters (ex. JP) but I think the Bills depth has been improved at each position sellected: Parrish vs. Reed Everrett vs. Neufeld (and possibly even Euhus, by year-end) Preston vs. Tucker King vs. Greer Geisinger vs. Smith/Sobieski Gates vs. Burns
stuckincincy Posted April 25, 2005 Author Posted April 25, 2005 Really, how many teams had a good draft? He only gave 3 AFC teams and 5 NFC teams a grade of "B" or higher. Same with Kiper. This was a "draft for depth" year. No immediate starters (ex. JP) but I think the Bills depth has been improved at each position sellected: Parrish vs. Reed Everrett vs. Neufeld (and possibly even Euhus, by year-end) Preston vs. Tucker King vs. Greer Geisinger vs. Smith/Sobieski Gates vs. Burns 318204[/snapback] Yes, but while nice to gain depth, did they do it where needed? I've nothing against a long term view, but do it right. I really what them to find out about the back-up LB's on the club. I see a crisis there if they don't.
todd Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Yes, but while nice to gain depth, did they do it where needed? I've nothing against a long term view, but do it right. I really what them to find out about the back-up LB's on the club. I see a crisis there if they don't. 318212[/snapback] Dude- I've been reading your posts long enough to know that you wouldn't be happy no matter WHO we drafted, or what we did on draft day. Am I right, or what? Can I hear an amen?
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Yes, but while nice to gain depth, did they do it where needed? I've nothing against a long term view, but do it right. I really what them to find out about the back-up LB's on the club. I see a crisis there if they don't. 318212[/snapback] This year's LB group was the weakest I can remember...no need to make a reach pick. Besides, we've got my man "Lame 'em Liam" on board now, so the ILB backup is improved as well!
stuckincincy Posted April 25, 2005 Author Posted April 25, 2005 This year's LB group was the weakest I can remember...no need to make a reach pick. Besides, we've got my man "Lame 'em Liam" on board now, so the ILB backup is improved as well! 318228[/snapback] Weak or not, build your club. What do we really know about Stamer and Haggan and Crowell? I'm worried that Haggan will leave without a fair shot. Play him during the season for a number of snaps.
Recommended Posts