San-O Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think they took a receiver because, like McGahee, TD and company thought he was too good a player at that point to pass on. Look at Reed's career, bigger picture: Year one: had a very solid rookie season, nobody was compaining too much. Year two: Under a new offensive coordinator, in a new offense, Reed was asked to switch positions on the offense. He probably didn't learn as quickly as fans, and coaches would have liked... Year three: after what was being called a good summer, Reed was injured most of the season, and had few opportunities to produce. I am not saying that Reed will ever be the caliber of Eric Moulds, Andre Reed, Lee Evans, and maybe not even Roscoe Parrish. What I am saying, however, is that, at the price we have him for, I don't think that he will/should be written off as quickly as some here would have it. If Aiken or Wilson are just heads and shoulders better than Reed, so be it, let him go. But all seem to jumping to the conclusion that they are already better, when the reality is, neither have done a thing as of yet. Drew Haddad is a great story, but there must be some reason that, after all these years, he has had little success cracking the line-up. Yet, the coaches seem to see enough to let him compete for a job, year in year out. Some guys just take a little longer than others. Let's go back in Bills history a few years. Remember Robb Riddick? This guy was a role player/fan favorite back-up running back in the 1980's. He was drafted (or maybe signed as a FA, I can't remember) in 1980 under Chuck Knox. Year in, year out, the guy had good training camps, but never dazzled anyone. For the first 4 years, he was mostly injured, or dressed in street clothes on the sidelines. Every summer, he was just assumed to be an automatic cut. Yet, when he finally got some playing time, around 1985 or so, he became a very productive, big play guy for the Bills. It was the era right before the Super Bowl run, but Riddick became a difference maker, because he was a good athlete, smart, and tough. He learned to catch out of the backfield, and could rush for 70-80 yards every few weeks, when called upon. I see Reed developing into that type of player, somewhere. 406098[/snapback] He seems to have problems catching the ball. He had a solid rookie season, all the receivers had a good year, even Price. Buffalo threw the ball a lot. What system is he going to be in that fixes his dropping the ball issue?
eventualchamps Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 He seems to have problems catching the ball. He had a solid rookie season, all the receivers had a good year, even Price. Buffalo threw the ball a lot. What system is he going to be in that fixes his dropping the ball issue? 406139[/snapback] The CFL system.
Amstel Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I like him I think he has a good attitude. I hope he lives up to his potential and makes a contribution.
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I'm with you on this. Certain Bills fans have to have a whipping boy, and now that Travis Henry is gone, Josh Reed is the designated vessel for all these fans' disappointment and scorn. I'm not saying he doesn't have to prove himself, but the degree to which he is being written off by most of the posters on this thread and elsewhere strikes me as being excessive and unwarranted, especially when they are hyping guys like Drew Haddad and George Wilson over him. 405906[/snapback] at fans rating Haddad and Wilson over Reed. Haddad has been circulating around the league for 2 more years than Reed and yet has only 2 career regular season game appearances. If this perpetual PS'er gets the benefit of the doubt for being a late bloomer, then so should Reed. As for Wilson, I think we fans tend to get way too excited over undrafted rookie free agents who look good against preseason 3rd stringers. Remember Kwame Cavil? Antonio Brown? The career fates of UDRFA WR's like them are the norm in this competitive league. Josh Reed was an enormously talented and productive college WR who has had to battle obstacles in the NFL like injuries and QB's who can't throw accurate passes on short to intermediate routes (Drew...RIP). On these factors alone, Reed deserves to play out the full 4th (and final) year on his contract. If he still sucks by January 2006, then we simply don't re-sign him. But for the 2005 season, Reed's potential far outweighs the meager salary cap savings we get by cutting him.
Buftex Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 What system is he going to be in that fixes his dropping the ball issue? 406139[/snapback] I have heard coaches, and fellow players (Moulds, Drew Bledsoe, etc.) comment, in passing, that Reed has enormous talent, but for whatever reason, does not have tremendous confidence...that is something that may (or may not) correct itself the longer he plays. Like Kelso said, the benefit of cutting him is negligable, unless all of the pre-fab super studs (Haddad, Wilson & Aiken) really show something. I also remember reading somewhere last season, an interview with Lee Evans, where he said that it was more Josh Reed, than Eric Moulds, who helped him with his game...remember, the Bills kept Charles Johnson around for a couple of season, despite zero production. because he was a good team player...Reed makes this squad in 2005!
eventualchamps Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 at fans rating Haddad and Wilson over Reed. Haddad has been circulating around the league for 2 more years than Reed and yet has only 2 career regular season game appearances. If this perpetual PS'er gets the benefit of the doubt for being a late bloomer, then so should Reed. As for Wilson, I think we fans tend to get way too excited over undrafted rookie free agents who look good against preseason 3rd stringers. Remember Kwame Cavil? Antonio Brown? The career fates of UDRFA WR's like them are the norm in this competitive league. Josh Reed was an enormously talented and productive college WR who has had to battle obstacles in the NFL like injuries and QB's who can't throw accurate passes on short to intermediate routes (Drew...RIP). On these factors alone, Reed deserves to play out the full 4th (and final) year on his contract. If he still sucks by January 2006, then we simply don't re-sign him. But for the 2005 season, Reed's potential far outweighs the meager salary cap savings we get by cutting him. 406168[/snapback] If Wilson or Haddad outplay Reed during camp as well as in pre-season games, you bet I'll take them over Reed. Waxing on eloquently about his potential is great, but he hasn't shown much the last few years. Past examples of UDRFA WR's are not a future indicator of Wilson's or Hadadd's performance. Brown and Cavil.....Remember Kurt Warner? Besides, the streets of the NFL are littered with the corpses of "enormously talented and productive college players". And I've seen too many catchable balls dropped to agree with the inaccurate QB assesment. I do agree however that many WR's don't hit their groove until the 3rd or 4th seasons. If Reed is looking good, then keep him. If the others are clearly overshadowing him, then it's time to make a change. Decent #4 WR's are pretty easy to come by.
OGTEleven Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 I'm with you on this. Certain Bills fans have to have a whipping boy, and now that Travis Henry is gone, Josh Reed is the designated vessel for all these fans' disappointment and scorn. I'm not saying he doesn't have to prove himself, but the degree to which he is being written off by most of the posters on this thread and elsewhere strikes me as being excessive and unwarranted, especially when they are hyping guys like Drew Haddad and George Wilson over him. 405906[/snapback] You're ignoring the fact that no other receiver in the history of the franchise has ever dropped a ball. Why do we want a ball dropper on our team all of a sudden? Remember two years ago, he dropped that flea flicker and we ended up only winning 31-0. 5 more touchdowns and we would have lost that game all because of stupid stupid Reed. Add to this the fact that our QB for the last 3 years is the best in the NFL at throwing over the middle and spreading the ball around. He'd never get locked in to one receiver or the outside part of the field. I remember one throw down the seam where Campbell only had to jum 14 feet to catch it. Where was your beloved Reed then? George Wilson has never dropped a ball in his life, plus he's got a great potential nickname: "Flip". He's our man.
San-O Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 You're ignoring the fact that no other receiver in the history of the franchise has ever dropped a ball. Why do we want a ball dropper on our team all of a sudden? Remember two years ago, he dropped that flea flicker and we ended up only winning 31-0. 5 more touchdowns and we would have lost that game all because of stupid stupid Reed. Add to this the fact that our QB for the last 3 years is the best in the NFL at throwing over the middle and spreading the ball around. He'd never get locked in to one receiver or the outside part of the field. I remember one throw down the seam where Campbell only had to jum 14 feet to catch it. Where was your beloved Reed then? George Wilson has never dropped a ball in his life, plus he's got a great potential nickname: "Flip". He's our man. 406268[/snapback] Isn't the ability to "catch" a football a prerequisite for an NFL receiver?
OGTEleven Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Isn't the ability to "catch" a football a prerequisite for an NFL receiver? 406279[/snapback] Reel off his list of drops there chief. It's a bit tougher than coming on and making stupid assertions based on herd mentality isn't it?
San-O Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Reel off his list of drops there chief. It's a bit tougher than coming on and making stupid assertions based on herd mentality isn't it? 406296[/snapback] He had like 15-16 catches last year, and I bet about 7-8 drops.
Dan Gross Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 He had like 15-16 catches last year, and I bet about 7-8 drops. 406300[/snapback] Close. 16 catches, 6 drops, per snap
OGTEleven Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 He had like 15-16 catches last year, and I bet about 7-8 drops. 406300[/snapback] Thanks for being so specific.
erynthered Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Thanks for being so specific. 406305[/snapback] You're on my sh*t list
San-O Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Close. 16 catches, 6 drops, per snap 406304[/snapback] Cool. Thanks for the info. That seems a very high drop per completion percentage.
San-O Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Close. 16 catches, 6 drops, per snap 406304[/snapback] Don't see where it has drops?
Dan Gross Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Cool. Thanks for the info. That seems a very high drop per completion percentage. 406310[/snapback] Thus the unruly mob with the torches and pitchforks...
OGTEleven Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Thus the unruly mob with the torches and pitchforks... 406316[/snapback] Does 6 drops from a total of 37 total attempts constitute a good random sample? Enough to cut a guy? If the coaches think he needs to go then great. I know I saw some pretty bad throws his way last year. It wasn't all 37, and I'm not sure if even one bad throw caused a drop, but it hardly seems like enough information for those pitchforks to be justified.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 Does 6 drops from a total of 37 total attempts constitute a good random sample? Enough to cut a guy? If the coaches think he needs to go then great. I know I saw some pretty bad throws his way last year. It wasn't all 37, and I'm not sure if even one bad throw caused a drop, but it hardly seems like enough information for those pitchforks to be justified. No, the 37 "targets" mean he was thrown to that many times. He had 16 catches and 6 drops, so the other 15 incompletions were not his fault. But to have 6 of 22 passes dropped (27%) is horrible. He did much better in 2003 (8% drops) and for some reason they don't have the drops for 2002, but I have to believe he's getting worse than getting better.
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 If Wilson or Haddad outplay Reed during camp as well as in pre-season games, you bet I'll take them over Reed. Waxing on eloquently about his potential is great, but he hasn't shown much the last few years. Past examples of UDRFA WR's are not a future indicator of Wilson's or Hadadd's performance. Brown and Cavil.....Remember Kurt Warner? Besides, the streets of the NFL are littered with the corpses of "enormously talented and productive college players". And I've seen too many catchable balls dropped to agree with the inaccurate QB assesment. I do agree however that many WR's don't hit their groove until the 3rd or 4th seasons. If Reed is looking good, then keep him. If the others are clearly overshadowing him, then it's time to make a change. Decent #4 WR's are pretty easy to come by. 406257[/snapback] During the preseason games, Reed will most likely be playing against starters and backups. Haddad and Wilson, on the other hand, will most likely be matching up against backups and 3rd stringers and other various camp fodder. Keep that in mind when comparing preseason stats and before leading the mob to run Reed out of town. By the way, I saw the same games as you did during the past 2 years. I saw Reed drop too many passes for my liking, too. And I also saw Aiken drop his fair share. As well as Campbell. Not to mention Henry. And even Moulds made some huge drops. The common denominator? For the most part, they were pass routes that were within 10 yds from the line of scrimmage. But also, Drew Bledsoe was throwing them. Sorry to give this Dead Horse another blow to the head, but come on...Drew had no touch on the short passes....to go along with his inabilty to scan the field for other players besides Moulds. I'm telling you, Reed's first 3 years in the NFL have been slowed by: 1. Drew Bledsoe. 2. Kevin Killdrive making Reed run similar kinds of routes in 2003 that Peerless Price, a very different type of receiver, ran in 2002. 3. Injury in 2004. 4. Lack of confidence, partly due to the above 3 problems. Right now, only #4 is holding him back from a very productive career. Dropping balls is a problem of confidence and concentration and technique more than any innate lack of talent. Comment all you'd like about Reed's slowness and shortness, but Tom Brady has won three Super Bowls with a bunch of similarly short and slow WR targets.
eball Posted August 13, 2005 Posted August 13, 2005 at fans rating Haddad and Wilson over Reed. Haddad has been circulating around the league for 2 more years than Reed and yet has only 2 career regular season game appearances. If this perpetual PS'er gets the benefit of the doubt for being a late bloomer, then so should Reed. As for Wilson, I think we fans tend to get way too excited over undrafted rookie free agents who look good against preseason 3rd stringers. Remember Kwame Cavil? Antonio Brown? The career fates of UDRFA WR's like them are the norm in this competitive league. Josh Reed was an enormously talented and productive college WR who has had to battle obstacles in the NFL like injuries and QB's who can't throw accurate passes on short to intermediate routes (Drew...RIP). On these factors alone, Reed deserves to play out the full 4th (and final) year on his contract. If he still sucks by January 2006, then we simply don't re-sign him. But for the 2005 season, Reed's potential far outweighs the meager salary cap savings we get by cutting him. 406168[/snapback] good post. i'm skeptical that reed will regain the confidence he needs (in his hands) to be productive, but it doesn't make sense to schitt-can him now.
Recommended Posts