How Do You Explain The Late-Career Success for Steve Tasker on Offense?

[TheFunPolice]

Tasker was a great player for the Bills and I also enjoy his commentary now. It's also pretty cool that he stayed right here and lives in WNY, like many other former Bills and especially Sabres players. 

 

I wonder if Belichick, being the student of the game that he is and having studied the Bills quite a bit in his time as a DC, saw what Tasker could do and decided to find someone like that for his own offense, leading to a lot of the early success of NE's short passing game that teams had so much trouble stopping. 

[Buftex]

5 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

I remember hearing the same, and if memory serves as I’m not looking it up, we lost Lofton,  Beebe left on 1995 for GB, so they needed WR’s.  So Yasker finally started getting Tim on offense from 95-97.  His predominant role was still ST, but I remember him going in on offense much more.

 

To the OP, John I didn’t listen today, but the guys are usually pretty receptive to answering questions on air especially if framed positively.  I think Brown is out so it’s Maddie and Steve.

 

If I have time or you can do it, one of us can wait on hold and call into the show.  My words would be something like “Steve, quick trip down memory lane.  I remember hearing in the early 90’s, we were stacked with Beebe, Andre, and Lofton and you were the best ST player ever, I’m guessing you had to focus so intently on ST, which probably made you so effective at ST. Then by 95, Lofton and Beebe were gone.  Was that a contributing reason to you getting much offensive playing time?  If so, I remember how well you did towards the end of you’re career and I was asking why didn’t we do this more earlier in the 93-4 at least after

Lofton left the team.

 

it might be interesting to hear his response.  I think I know his answer, but it’s just so you have time to wait on hold today.

im not sure on. My part, but I’m interested on his take as well.

As I recall too, 1995 was the first season that Tasker saw any significant play time at WR... Andre Reed had a nagging hamstring issue the whole season, and missed about 10 games, they had to bring Brooks back early in the season... Copeland was a struggling rookie...Brooks got the bulk of the targets that season, when Reed was out, and Tasker got a few.  They really didn't have much established depth behind Reed.  I remember being surprised when they originally cut Brooks.  He was really underrated in my book.

[machine gun kelly]

14 minutes ago, Buftex said:

As I recall too, 1995 was the first season that Tasker saw any significant play time at WR... Andre Reed had a nagging hamstring issue the whole season, and missed about 10 games, they had to bring Brooks back early in the season... Copeland was a struggling rookie...Brooks got the bulk of the targets that season, when Reed was out, and Tasker got a few.  They really didn't have much established depth behind Reed.  I remember being surprised when they originally cut Brooks.  He was really underrated in my book.

Buftex, I know it gets blurry so I finally looked it up this morning.  Lofton’s last year with Buffalo was 93. Beebe’s last was 94.  The guys after those two were not as good as them.  After Lofton, I would’ve started using Tasker more in 94.  It’s all water under the bridge now.  I just remember when Tasker had a shot in the slot he did well.

Edited June 22, 2021 by machine gun kelly

[Seasons1992]

For anyone that didn't get to see Tasker play......he was GREAT at his job(s). Great. Should be in the HOF. 

 

[TOboy]

Was pretty simply the time in his career he got the opportunity to contribute. Those earlier teams were stacked. 

[Homey D. Clown]

11 hours ago, JohnNord said:

I was listening to OBD yesterday and started thinking about Steve Tasker’s career.

 

How do you explain his brief career resurgence as an offensive weapon during the 1995 and 1996 seasons?

 

At that time Tasker was a special teams who rarely played on offense.  So little that he never had double digits receptions.  He also was about 33 years old at that time and his best years physically were behind him.

 

Yet he became a solid contributor on that Bills as a kick returner, receiver and even an effective rusher on reverses.  While he was never a star, you can argue that he was the difference maker in a playoff win versus Miami.  
 

I know there is a story of Jim Kelly lobbying to use Tasker on offense, only to get shot down by Marv and Bruce DeHaven.  I was never sure if that was entirely true or just

and exaggeration.  
 

Either way, why do you think Tasker was had these blips after hardly ever playing offense in his previous 12 years in the NFL?

 

I think Tasker could have been a Wes Welker type of player well before Wes Welker re-defined that type of role.  I don't think there was any reason to develop that type of weapon, given the team had HOF caliber players at the skill positions already.  A completely missed opportunity in my mind, but hindsight is always 20/20, and before Welker, who knew a small scrappy receiver could be so effective.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Homey D. Clown

[nucci]

Kelly used to argue with Marv to get Tasker on the field more but Marv apparently wanted him to focus on special teams. Once he got on the field his talent showed

[K-9]

Watch at your leisure and enjoy the memories.

[ProcessAccepted]

12 hours ago, Solomon Grundy said:

Here’s an easy explanation…not enough footballs. Andre, Thurman, Lofton, McKellar, Beebe, Early, Metzelaars, etc

Marv didn't want him on offense. #12 lobbied hard for him coz at practice no one could cover him. He was just too good at special teams play. 

[Let's Go Buffalo]

I think Tasker utilized his experiences gained over the years to his advantage when he entered the NFL. He was a Swiss Army Knife at Dodge City Community College, where he started out.....then became a record holding Kickoff Returner at Northwestern later on.....and even played Rugby for a while, so you know he was tough as nails as well. I think he always played with a chip on his shoulder, because a lot of people always told him that he was too small to play, but he proved a lot of folks wrong for sure. He had a tremendous work ethic, and also had a motor that never quit.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Let's Go Buffalo

[Lofton80]

This my recollection as well. 

 

 

Marv didn't want him on offense. #12 lobbied hard for him coz at practice no one could cover him. He was just too good at special teams play. 

[BuffaloMatt]

TB12

[Flip Johnson]

14 hours ago, K-9 said:

They gave him more opportunities on offense. Simple as that. 

 

The talent level at the skill positions had totally dropped off and we needed Tasker. Tasker could have done it earlier, it just wasn't necessary.

Case in point, Billy Brooks had 53 catches and 11 TDs in '95. 

[Patrick Duffy]

4 hours ago, Seasons1992 said:

For anyone that didn't get to see Tasker play......he was GREAT at his job(s). Great. Should be in the HOF. 

 

Agree. He was fun to watch. Was pretty good WR too the few times he got the chance. Think he will eventually get in at some point or other. ST players seem to have a harder time getting in.

 

 

[ThurmanThomasEnglishMuffin]

13 hours ago, Tuco said:

By 1995 we had to use Tasker. Lofton and Beebe were gone. Reed only started 6 games. That left us with guys named Bill Brooks, Russel Copeland, Justin Armour, Lonnie Johnson, Tony Cline and Steve Tasker.

 

We used him more because we had too.

 

^ this the cupboard was getting threadbare at offensive weapons and he knew the system

9 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

Agree. He was fun to watch. Was pretty good WR too the few times he got the chance. Think he will eventually get in at some point or other. ST players seem to have a harder time getting in.

 

 

He and Bill Bates should be considered for ST

[Patrick Duffy]

2 minutes ago, ThurmanThomasEnglishMuffin said:

He and Bill Bates should be considered for ST

Yeah, just no telling how long it will take.

[Shaw66]

One of my favorite sports quotes of all time.

 

When Tasker was having success as a receiver late in his career, Kelly said something like "Steve Tasker would be an All-Pro receiver if he started regularly."   Something like that. 

 

When asked about what Kelly said, Tasker said, "Comments like that are the reason the NFL has a drug policy."

[Old Coot]

Tasker was a humble lunch pail type of guy.  He came to work and did his job -- very well.  As has been said, Kelly stated that he was impossible to cover.  He was a Welker-Beasley slot WR.

 

My recollection of his early offensive use (1993) is that we had injuries to our WR.  I recall one game when the Bills ran the daylights out of some team using the old Single Wing offense with Tasker as the single wing.

 

I hope he eventually makes the HOF on ST

[freddyjj]

9 hours ago, Buftex said:

Copeland was a struggling rookie...Brooks got the bulk of the targets that season, when Reed was out, and Tasker got a few.  They really didn't have much established depth behind Reed.  I remember being surprised when they originally cut Brooks.  He was really underrated in my book.

Russell Copeland was in Yr 3 with Bills in 1995.  He was drafted in 1993 as a potential downfield threat the year after Lofton left.  He led the Bills in targets in 1995 but was 3rd in catches behind Billy Brooks and Lonnie Johnson that year.  And he only had 1 TD.  By 1996 Moulds arrived as a rookie and Quinn Early in place of Billy Brooks and Copeland became a non-factor.  By 1997 Copeland was gone from the Bills.

 

Tasker had 20 catches and 3 TDs in 1995 and 21 catches and 3 TDs in 1996.  He had 0 catches in 1997 his last year as a Bill.  I am not sure that qualifies as a successful career as a WR, even given the lower passing stats back then.  

Edited June 22, 2021 by freddyjj

[RoyBatty is alive]

Because he was needed later in his career especially as wear and tear took its toll on our receiving corps late in the season and the playoffs.