brihs2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Just was thinking the other day that TD was heavily criticized for this and a lot of people thought it should have been Reed that got the ax. What is everyone's opinion on this move almost a year later? Did it help play a part in the turn-around of last season, or was it just a move to make a move to make it look like management was displeased with an 0-4 start?
smokinandjokin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 It was a move to let the team know nobody was safe. Shaw was a well-liked "locker room" guy. Cutting him was a message to the team, more than an evaluation of on-field performance. I think it probably got some Bills to notice.
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Just was thinking the other day that TD was heavily criticized for this and a lot of people thought it should have been Reed that got the ax. What is everyone's opinion on this move almost a year later? Did it help play a part in the turn-around of last season, or was it just a move to make a move to make it look like management was displeased with an 0-4 start? 386401[/snapback] I loved the move. Many here criticised TD for not getting something for him, but they failed to take into consideration the fact that Shaw sucked. I would rather see the young guys get a shot.
eSJayDee Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I would've thought it was more of a MM move rather than TD's decision. Overall, from a moral/psychi standpoint, I think it worked out. From an empirical measurement, our offense was substandard w/ or w/o Shaw, so no matter.
ch19079 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 reed was injured. you can see those things comming.
BRH Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Was it a TD move or an MM move? 386430[/snapback] According to Florio, if it worked out it was a TD move and if it didn't it was an MM move. Personally I think it worked out just fine. You don't see Shaw on another team's roster, do you?
JoeF Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 It was an MM Move. Shaw missed two hot reads on blitzes. One each in consecutives games I believe. On one Drew hit him in the back with a pass. I think the message was--those who have their head up their ass during the game--will not be on my team. I questioned the move at the time--especially with Reed hurt--but you can't argue with the results.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 According to Florio, if it worked out it was a TD move and if it didn't it was an MM move. Too true.
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 It was an MM Move. Shaw missed two hot reads on blitzes. One each in consecutives games I believe. On one Drew hit him in the back with a pass. I think the message was--those who have their head up their ass during the game--will not be on my team. I questioned the move at the time--especially with Reed hurt--but you can't argue with the results. 386444[/snapback] I once saw the Bills in a situation where they needed many yards for a first down. Shaw caught a pass for a gain of 6 or 7 yards (nowhere near a 1st down), and celebrated as if he caught the winning TD in a playoff game. I'm with you.....he sucked.
IDBillzFan Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Actually, an alternate way of looking at things is like this: once we went 0-4, if we had a healthy JP, would he have gone in in place of Drew? And if so, would they have still cut Shaw?
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I loved the move. Many here criticised TD for not getting something for him, but they failed to take into consideration the fact that Shaw sucked. I would rather see the young guys get a shot. 386414[/snapback] I agree with the move to cut Shaw as it coincided with a turnaround in team W/L results which indicated to me that for some players who needed motivation that they saw that if a vet player like Shaw could get cut because he was the 4th or 5th WR on this team they better get to work and produce on the field because the extra guys might be gone even if the team was already on the hook for a full-season's pay to Shaw after the second game. I disagree with you however in concluding he sucked. In fact, I think he was still a good player who as an above post pointed out was still looked upon favorably in the locker room as a good guy and team guy. If Shae had sucked I do not think this cut would have sent the right message to the players. It simply would have said don't suck and you will not be cut. It would have sent a message if he had been kept that even if you are a non-ccontributor to this team as a benchwarmer, that is OK if you are a good guy. Instead, the fact we cut a good player who as recently as the year before had been the best WR on the field when Moulds got hurt and Reed developed the droppsies. The fact that we cut a good guy who we were already on the hook for a season's pay and might prove useful down the line if we had an injury problem at WR actually sent a message to all players that not sucking was not good enough. A clear message went out that the Bills demanded production from all players and being there just in case was not good enough. To me, Shaw got cut not because he sucked, but because it became clear that Moulds was back and Evans was the real deal so #1 and #2 WR were locked up, Further, there were still question for #3 but between the fact Reed was not back to his rookie form but had overcome the bad form he showed with is droppsies, that Aiken had the potential to earn the #3 slot and that even Fast Freddy Smith show some capability that emerged late in the season on PR, it made even the best WR on th field in 2003 who had continued to get older but was not done yet a player whose highest and best use was to cut someone who did not suck. I agree with the cut but disagree that he sucked. In fact, if he sucked or was a cancer there was little good message to be gained from cutting him.
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I agree with the move to cut Shaw as it coincided with a turnaround in team W/L results which indicated to me that for some players who needed motivation that they saw that if a vet player like Shaw could get cut because he was the 4th or 5th WR on this team they better get to work and produce on the field because the extra guys might be gone even if the team was already on the hook for a full-season's pay to Shaw after the second game. I disagree with you however in concluding he sucked. In fact, I think he was still a good player who as an above post pointed out was still looked upon favorably in the locker room as a good guy and team guy. If Shae had sucked I do not think this cut would have sent the right message to the players. It simply would have said don't suck and you will not be cut. It would have sent a message if he had been kept that even if you are a non-ccontributor to this team as a benchwarmer, that is OK if you are a good guy. Instead, the fact we cut a good player who as recently as the year before had been the best WR on the field when Moulds got hurt and Reed developed the droppsies. The fact that we cut a good guy who we were already on the hook for a season's pay and might prove useful down the line if we had an injury problem at WR actually sent a message to all players that not sucking was not good enough. A clear message went out that the Bills demanded production from all players and being there just in case was not good enough. To me, Shaw got cut not because he sucked, but because it became clear that Moulds was back and Evans was the real deal so #1 and #2 WR were locked up, Further, there were still question for #3 but between the fact Reed was not back to his rookie form but had overcome the bad form he showed with is droppsies, that Aiken had the potential to earn the #3 slot and that even Fast Freddy Smith show some capability that emerged late in the season on PR, it made even the best WR on th field in 2003 who had continued to get older but was not done yet a player whose highest and best use was to cut someone who did not suck. I agree with the cut but disagree that he sucked. In fact, if he sucked or was a cancer there was little good message to be gained from cutting him. 386470[/snapback] Other than RJ, are you able to come up with any Bills player that in your opinion, "sucked?"
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Other than RJ, are you able to come up with any Bills player that in your opinion, "sucked?" Travis?
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 The best WR on the 2003 BILLS (after Eric Moulds got hurt) is the equivalent of a tiny fleck of aluminum foil on a steaming turd. Shaw was nothing more than an easily replaceable journeyman who brought almost nothing to the table.
loadofmularkey Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 According to Florio, if it worked out it was a TD move and if it didn't it was an MM move. Personally I think it worked out just fine. You don't see Shaw on another team's roster, do you? 386433[/snapback] Yeah and according to Florio, TD is a retard who can't tie his own shoes. I believe absolutely nothing that guy says, especially after what recently transpired with the Henry trade.
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 The best WR on the 2003 BILLS (after Eric Moulds got hurt) is the equivalent of a tiny fleck of aluminum foil on a steaming turd. Shaw was nothing more than an easily replaceable journeyman who brought almost nothing to the table. 386480[/snapback] Thank You! PS: He sucked.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 The best WR on the 2003 BILLS (after Eric Moulds got hurt) is the equivalent of a tiny fleck of aluminum foil on a steaming turd. Shaw was nothing more than an easily replaceable journeyman who brought almost nothing to the table. Good god! Who would want to replace a tiny fleck of aluminum on a steaming turd, and how would it be easy?
JPL7 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 check out his web site..... http://www.bobbyshaw83.com/default.htm haha, his web site is stupid!
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 The best WR on the 2003 BILLS (after Eric Moulds got hurt) is the equivalent of a tiny fleck of aluminum foil on a steaming turd. Shaw was nothing more than an easily replaceable journeyman who brought almost nothing to the table. 386480[/snapback] The point is that the Bills O was so bad in 2003 particularly after Moulds was hurt that it is possible that one could be the best Bills WR and still not be very good. To me was Shaw a good player? No Did Shaw suck? Yes and no but mostly no as he was the best we could do at WR. I think Reed sucked as he was prone to drop key passes and could not be depended upon at all. I think he was worse than Shaw by a longshoy. Again this does not say Shaw was good but describes hiw problematic Reed was. I think Shaw clearly was not going to do the job a lot, but I think he was clearly the best alternative we had in an offense that hit the wall.
Recommended Posts