Dan III Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 We have a lot of Guards if Bannan moves over...and only Peters and German as backup OTs... 428503[/snapback] 5 DTs & 7 WRs but only 4 CBs & 3 DEs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 So we only have one backup DE on the entire roster? Is TD looking to pick someone up or what? 428461[/snapback] Notice that Lauvale Sape is still on the roster. Maybe they plan to use him as a DE as well? Did anyone see Sape getting any reps at DE in training camp? 428495[/snapback] Sape and Bannan made the team.. 5 DTs.. unless Bannan switches to OL. 428501[/snapback] Bannan played both DE and DT last year, they liked him for his flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fast*eddie Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I thought Haddad had put on a pretty good show with the returns . He came close to breaking a few . I wonder if they will get him back on the practice squad . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'm surprised they didn't keep Haddad and put George Wilson on the practice squad. I was also surprised they cut Tucker but I expect TD will be picking up someone let go by another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I thought Haddad had put on a pretty good show with the returns . He came closeto breaking a few . I wonder if they will get him back on the practice squad . 428585[/snapback] Haddad is out of practice squad eligibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Why Josh Reed. Why? And wtf Tucker gone? Thin... I think they are waiting for someone else from another team to be released. Hmm. I'm a little confused. Ritzman and Gause gone too, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Haddad? Bastards. 428431[/snapback] I'm with you Harriet, I've always hoped that Petrino would resurrect his odes and Drew Haddad would be ryned with ..... well you know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I know this post will be followed with a million "i've heard of him!" posts; but does anyone think that maybe Ritzman AND Gause were cut because we're interested in Hugh Douglas? 428484[/snapback] That was my first thought knee jerk reaction when I saw the cut lists ...... but isn't Douglas pretty old and pretty much considered washed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'm happy for Jim Leonard, but I'm astounded by these cuts. It was clearly strategy-based, and a lot of these choices come down to 'who do we think will clear waivers'. Clearly, they didn't think Leonard would make it through. We have 3 DEs, which is a shock, but I'm guessing that they consider Posey a backup DE and that Stamer can fill his role if need be. I'm happy with that - I don't think Posey is more of a playmaker than Stamer on the strong side, so it works out pretty nicely there. But I'm also surprised by *7* receivers. Holy fuggin schitt. I've never seen that before. Most teams carry 5. SEVEN receivers...and Reed, Wilson, Aiken and SMith had better make some fuggin plays by the time Parrish is ready...cuz one of them is gone at that point. We wont' finish the year with 7 receivers, that's for sure. Knew Ezekiel wouldn't make it cuz they like our depth at LB and nobody seems to take an injury there. We've been lucky. Last surprise is the OLinemen. Sape AND Bannan on DL but McFarland AND Tucker cut? Wow. ANd I wasn't at all impressed by the work of Greg Jerman so that came as a shock. In a nutshell, I don't think ANYBODY could have guessed this roster correclty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'll pull a Madden here (stating the completely obvious), but it's pretty clear from this roster that Parrish will not be ready for the Houston game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amstel Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I was surprised by the fact that we only kept 3 DE's but Glenn made the point that Bannon doubled as a DT/DE last year and NodNarb made the point that Posey can fill in at DE which I remember Mularkey pointing out during camp and Nod also pointed out that Stamer can fill in at Posey's LB position..........7WR's.....Damn ST must be a factor (obviously) All in all I have no doubts. I trust Mularkey's decisions............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 But I'm also surprised by *7* receivers. Holy fuggin schitt. I've never seen that before. Most teams carry 5. SEVEN receivers...and Reed, Wilson, Aiken and SMith had better make some fuggin plays by the time Parrish is ready...cuz one of them is gone at that point. We wont' finish the year with 7 receivers, that's for sure. 428678[/snapback] Maybe Mularkey is planning on pulling out the ol' Steve Spurrier "1 QB, 3 O-Lineman and 7 WR" formation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 The Haddad cut has me pretty irked What more is a guy supposed to do? Then you have Stone Hands Reed who makes the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 The Haddad cut has me pretty irked What more is a guy supposed to do? Then you have Stone Hands Reed who makes the roster. 428727[/snapback] I seems to have come down to blocking, which wasn't Haddad's stong suit. We also have too many good punt return men on the roster, which didn't help his cause either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I think that when Parrish is healthy, they will cut a WR or move him to the PS, and activate Gause or Ritzmann (probably Gause) from the PS. In fact, I'll bet they've already told Gause he's gonna be on the team in a matter of a couple weeks. The thing is, they do have some players who can cover a few positions. Peters can also play TE, and Bannon can play DE and OT if needed. I was stoked to see Leonhard make the team, because the Tasker comparisons are inevitable. He was a great 4 year player at Wisconsin, and had a boatload of interceptions, and was a great punt returner. As opposed to a punt catcher, who we all remember as...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I seems to have come down to blocking, which wasn't Haddad's stong suit. We also have too many good punt return men on the roster, which didn't help his cause either. 428741[/snapback] Fair enough, but: Reed can block, but not catch Smith is fast, but dumb as rocks Wilson is... the next Clarence Coleman? Aiken is the slower version of Moulds with poorer hands I suppose there is one complete receiver there if you add the four of them up, but I'm not sure that means 7 roster spots should have been used on receivers. I know there are good reasons why I am not running this team, but nonetheless, I think they are crazy for not keeping a guy who just caught the ball consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I know there are good reasons why I am not running this team, but nonetheless, I think they are crazy for not keeping a guy who just caught the ball consistently. 428751[/snapback] The 5th+ WR has to be able to play on ST. If Haddad wasn't going to be the punt return guy, he didn't have a shot. Aiken is a good ST guy, and George Wilson look's like he can play there as well, so they make sense. But I can't see why Fast Freddie made it, since I doubt he'll be returning punts either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 The 5th+ WR has to be able to play on ST. If Haddad wasn't going to be the punt return guy, he didn't have a shot. Aiken is a good ST guy, and George Wilson look's like he can play there as well, so they make sense. But I can't see why Fast Freddie made it, since I doubt he'll be returning punts either. 428759[/snapback] Do we then see a justifiable difference between Aiken and Wilson where they each offer different talents for this team, then? I just don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 So we only have one backup DE on the entire roster? Is TD looking to pick someone up or what? 428461[/snapback] Nope, not really. It's what I've been saying for quite awhile that I am still trying to figure out the Bills D scheme. I'm not sure what you should name the positions (I like CG Nittan's naming the role played by Posey and backed-up by Denney "The Keeper"). But though I'm not sure what shorthand applies to the positions, I do know that the standard 4-3 alignment which calls for there to be 4 DEs simply does not apply to our depth chart. The Bills have four guys Posey, Denney, Schobel and Haggan who can play the Keeper and RDE role and that is plenty, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Fair enough, but: Reed can block, but not catch Smith is fast, but dumb as rocks Wilson is... the next Clarence Coleman? Aiken is the slower version of Moulds with poorer hands I suppose there is one complete receiver there if you add the four of them up, but I'm not sure that means 7 roster spots should have been used on receivers. I know there are good reasons why I am not running this team, but nonetheless, I think they are crazy for not keeping a guy who just caught the ball consistently. 428751[/snapback] When in doubt, go to the bottom line, andjust say NO to white WR's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts