Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Or it simply testifies to the lack of depth we had at other positions last season. The Parrish injury situation was a factor, but maybe Wilson was just the best of the marginal talent left competing for a roster spot? I guess Wilson as a 7th WR was much better than whomever was competing for the 4th DE spot? PS: Nice to see a good thread move back towards civility. In the future, when someone's facts are incorrect, correct them and move on. Don't have a mental breakdown over it. This is directed primarily towards my new internet pal, LaDairis, in case he hasn't yet been banned. 710320[/snapback] The lack of depth thing doesn't make any sense to me. They knew that they would never activate Wilson barring injury, and if by some freakish occurence and he jumped three guys in front of him on the depth chart, they wouldn't activate the new #7. It's a roster spot that is never ever going to play as opposed to all others that have a chance. It's like having a 5th TE or a 4th RB and activating him, it just isn't going to happen. Again, 6 is fairly unnecessary. I believe most teams carry 5, and maybe one on the practice squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The lack of depth thing doesn't make any sense to me. They knew that they would never activate Wilson barring injury, and if by some freakish occurence and he jumped three guys in front of him on the depth chart, they wouldn't activate the new #7. It's a roster spot that is never ever going to play as opposed to all others that have a chance. It's like having a 5th TE or a 4th RB and activating him, it just isn't going to happen. Again, 6 is fairly unnecessary. I believe most teams carry 5, and maybe one on the practice squad. 710328[/snapback] Perhaps the reason is a blend of all the points you guys have made...what I mean is... 7 WRs 3 locks...EM, LE, JR 1 injured...RP 2 Special Teamers...SA & FS #7 Wilson Perhaps SA & FS are not as good as Wilson(or at least in potential/development) but their ST abilities locked them into the squad....on a good ST team, 6 slots are often appointed just for ST players. Therefore, with an injured RP(who healthy probably makes FS redundant), Wilson becomes the true #4 receiver(or at least the guy you want there on game day to obtain the experience). Or it could be that MM liked his mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 That's what I was going to suggest. Perhaps the Special Teams play of the other receivers, notably Aiken, was what really put them above Wilson; making him the #7. However, if he was really better than these guys or the coaches saw some flash of brillance, why wasn't he given more chances? I do kinda like the "he was the best of the worst arguement". And when I see idiots spouting nonsense, I usually just ignore them and don't respond, unless I'm really bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The lack of depth thing doesn't make any sense to me. They knew that they would never activate Wilson barring injury, and if by some freakish occurence and he jumped three guys in front of him on the depth chart, they wouldn't activate the new #7. It's a roster spot that is never ever going to play as opposed to all others that have a chance. It's like having a 5th TE or a 4th RB and activating him, it just isn't going to happen. Again, 6 is fairly unnecessary. I believe most teams carry 5, and maybe one on the practice squad. 710328[/snapback] OK, so here's what I think a "traditional" roster amounts to (one that employs a standard pro set and 4-3 formation): 1 K 1 P 3 QB 3 RB 2 FB 5 WR 3 TE 10 OL 9 DL 7 LB 9 DB And, of course, 7 of these players (not including the 3rd-string emergency QB) don't suit up on any Sunday. Usually it's the 9th DL, 7th LB, 9th DB, 9th and 10th OL, and 2 more depending on the injury and game circumstances. How did our roster deviate from this last year? This varied throughout the season, but I'm pretty sure we started out with 1 long snapper, 2 extra WR's, 1 less DL, 1 less DB, and 1 less OL. So what's my point? That the coaching staff last year thought that protecting Wilson as a 7th WR was worth more than protecting the 9th DL or 9th DB or 10th OL - all of whom would have been inactive every Sunday, anyway. In other words, the talent and potential of the 9th DL or 9th DB or 10th OL wasn't as good as Wilson's. So that's my explanation for why the Great White Satan/Coach Meathead went loco and decided to keep 7 WR's (plus, again, the Parrish injury). Doesn't mean they thought Wilson was some amazing talent, just that they thought he was a better talent than McFarland or Jefferson or Rob Lee or what have you... Does this make sense to anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Makes sense to me. And that's why I'd be surprised if he makes the team this year. Despite what many seem to think, Marv has brought in a lot of guys at every position and I'm sure they'll find a few gems in the midst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Me too. I think that if RP didn't get injured(& showed talent) then FS would have been cut & Wilson would have been the #6WR....not that i'm saying he is that good, just a comment on Parrishs & Fast Freddys roles. This year is a huge ???? to me at this point. There is so much 'potential' there that virtually any of them could wind up on the roster. I suppose my guess at this point would be... 1 LE 2 PP 3 JR 4 AD 5 RP 6 hmmm....?????.....Aiken I feel really encouraged at how much competition there will be throughout the WRs. The more potential, the more chance of solid players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 blah blah blah. Dude you seem to make a valid point once in a while. There has to be a way to compress your statements. You seem like you are trying to come off as way to intellectual. Just talk football man. 708412[/snapback] This was.... You must really hate Pyrite's loooooooong posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The lack of depth thing doesn't make any sense to me. They knew that they would never activate Wilson barring injury, and if by some freakish occurence and he jumped three guys in front of him on the depth chart, they wouldn't activate the new #7. It's a roster spot that is never ever going to play as opposed to all others that have a chance. It's like having a 5th TE or a 4th RB and activating him, it just isn't going to happen. Again, 6 is fairly unnecessary. I believe most teams carry 5, and maybe one on the practice squad. 710328[/snapback] You bring up good points about us keeping wilson on the active roster. but if that was the case, mularkey screwed the pooch again by not giving wilson a shot at the end of the season. Hell, bench fast freddie and put wilson in if they kept him on the active roster so no other team would sign him. As for nance, i like what i have heard in mini-camp. Back to the original point of this thread, i'd love to see him stand out in camp and make the team, because he would give a big red zone threat. And those are extremely valuable. FSU this past season had freshman greg carr, a 6'6" WR, who at one point this season, had onyl 22 catches, but 9 TD's. Opposing CB's just couldnt defend the jump ball. I'd love to see the Bills having a threat like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 That would all make sense, except in the Bills situation where they must have thought going into the season that WR was a strength, and they knew that they were woefully weak in depth on the OL and the DL even if by some remote chance they thought their starters were solid. It wasn't like they were going to need to groom more than 4 young WR. But they did know they had to find young OL and DT and DE. So it really wouldn't matter much, IMO, if they thought their #7 WR had more talent than their #9 OL or DL. They had to develop guys there. They clearly thought another team would take Wilson off the PS. Furthermore, I just went back to the gamebooks for early in the season to see what they may have been thinking by who was or wasn't active/playing. Surprisingly, Wilson was active the first game, and he played. He was active three of the first four games. And Jonathan Smith was not used as the PR in the first two games, Clements was. So again, they clearly thought he had talent. Of course, they also thought a lot of other guys had talent who didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 That would all make sense, except in the Bills situation where they must have thought going into the season that WR was a strength, and they knew that they were woefully weak in depth on the OL and the DL even if by some remote chance they thought their starters were solid. It wasn't like they were going to need to groom more than 4 young WR. But they did know they had to find young OL and DT and DE. So it really wouldn't matter much, IMO, if they thought their #7 WR had more talent than their #9 OL or DL. They had to develop guys there. They clearly thought another team would take Wilson off the PS. Furthermore, I just went back to the gamebooks for early in the season to see what they may have been thinking by who was or wasn't active/playing. Surprisingly, Wilson was active the first game, and he played. He was active three of the first four games. And Jonathan Smith was not used as the PR in the first two games, Clements was. So again, they clearly thought he had talent. Of course, they also thought a lot of other guys had talent who didn't. 710446[/snapback] Was that just until Roscoe came back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You bring up good points about us keeping wilson on the active roster. but if that was the case, mularkey screwed the pooch again by not giving wilson a shot at the end of the season. Hell, bench fast freddie and put wilson in if they kept him on the active roster so no other team would sign him. As for nance, i like what i have heard in mini-camp. Back to the original point of this thread, i'd love to see him stand out in camp and make the team, because he would give a big red zone threat. And those are extremely valuable. FSU this past season had freshman greg carr, a 6'6" WR, who at one point this season, had onyl 22 catches, but 9 TD's. Opposing CB's just couldnt defend the jump ball. I'd love to see the Bills having a threat like that. 710442[/snapback] Careful, you are running afoul of the "height is never, ever a factor in evaluating a WR" theory, thereby opening yourself to heaps of scorn. Only idiots like you, me, NFL coaches and NFL players are foolish enough to challenge that theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Sorry, I'm just parroting Chris Brown's blog from today: Martin Nance - showed the ability to be a versatile threat making plays in the red zone, over the middle and deep downfield. Capable of making the difficult catch. An intriguing prospect, but would like to see more of him in a live football setting with contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts