Bills' receivers on Sunday

[Tolstoy]

I was surprised that we didn't stretch the field more. It seems that Jauron gave a lot of lip service to throwing the long ball now and then, if only to back up the safeties and free up the running game more.

 

However, very few long balls were thrown. Was this because of Patriot's coverage? A conservative game plan? It seems to me that the Bills have a lot of speed at WR, and it would be a shame to waste it...

 

I would expect to see some more long throws against Miami.

[The Dean]

I was surprised that we didn't stretch the field more.  It seems that Jauron gave a lot of lip service to throwing the long ball now and then, if only to back up the safeties and free up the running game more.

 

However, very few long balls were thrown.  Was this because of Patriot's coverage?  A conservative game plan?  It seems to me that the Bills have a lot of speed at WR, and it would be a shame to waste it...

 

I would expect to see some more long throws against Miami.

771164[/snapback]

 

You have to give the QB time to throw long.

[Corp000085]

My guess is that it was a conservative gameplan, or it was that their situational playcalls didn't call for any bombs. Also, take into account that the wheels really fell off in the 3rd quarter, so who knows how many of those botched plays were supposed to be deep balls.

[Buffalo Mike1]

I was surprised that we didn't stretch the field more.  It seems that Jauron gave a lot of lip service to throwing the long ball now and then, if only to back up the safeties and free up the running game more.

 

However, very few long balls were thrown.  Was this because of Patriot's coverage?  A conservative game plan?  It seems to me that the Bills have a lot of speed at WR, and it would be a shame to waste it...

 

I would expect to see some more long throws against Miami.

771164[/snapback]

Tune in Sunday. Evans should have a field day. Moulds was the old Dolphin Killer- The torch has been passed.

[The Jokeman]

My guess is that it was a conservative gameplan, or it was that their situational playcalls didn't call for any bombs.  Also, take into account that the wheels really fell off in the 3rd quarter, so who knows how many of those botched plays were supposed to be deep balls.

771167[/snapback]

I agree about the conservative gameplan as feel Fairchild and company wanted to keep 3rd downs at a managable distance in order to give Losman a chance to keep drives alive. To be honest I prefer a dink and dunk offense as it allows the defense more rest and helps an inexperienced QB like Losman confidence. Of course an occasional bomb here and there needs to be completed to also offer something for D's to be concerned with and prevent them from taking away said short routes.

[Buffalo Mike1]

I agree about the conservative gameplan as feel Fairchild and company wanted to keep 3rd downs at a managable distance in order to give Losman a chance to keep drives alive. To be honest I prefer a dink and dunk offense as it allows the defense more rest and helps an inexperienced QB like Losman confidence. Of course an occasional bomb here and there needs to be completed to also offer something for D's to be concerned with and prevent them from taking away said short routes.

771178[/snapback]

I think the game plan changed when we unexpectedly got the lead and held it.

[Simon]

I think the problem is that we only have one deep threat and Belichik wisely spent teh entire day rolling coverage at him. I like Lee matched up against almost any corner in the NFL, but he doesn't have the chops yet to beat two guys.

I didn't care at all for Fairchild's work on Sunday and if he wants to take advantage of teams' respect for Evans, he needs to make a more concerted effort to get the TE's and RB's involved in the passing attack.

Cya

[SDS]

I think the problem is that we only have one deep threat and Belichik wisely spent teh entire day rolling coverage at him. I like Lee matched up against almost any corner in the NFL, but he doesn't have the chops yet to beat two guys.

I didn't care at all for Fairchild's work on Sunday and if he wants to take advantage of teams' respect for Evans, he needs to make a more concerted effort to get the TE's and RB's involved in the passing attack.

Cya

771253[/snapback]

 

Did we throw any screen passes? I don't recall any.

[Dawgg]

It certainly seemed like the playcalling was conservative and geared more towards controlling the clock, avoiding turnovers, and keeping Tom Brady off the field -- for the most part, it worked. Against Miami, however, I would tend to expect a more wide open approach. We'll see come Week 2.. but the one thing I did like was Fairchild's balance. There were just as many run plays as pass plays and even though the run wasn't working in the 2nd half, he continued to use it which IMO sends the right message to the team.

 

I didn't care at all for Fairchild's work on Sunday and if he wants to take advantage of teams' respect for Evans, he needs to make a more concerted effort to get the TE's and RB's involved in the passing attack.

Cya

771253[/snapback]

[Pyrite Gal]

I think the problem is that we only have one deep threat and Belichik wisely spent teh entire day rolling coverage at him. I like Lee matched up against almost any corner in the NFL, but he doesn't have the chops yet to beat two guys.

I didn't care at all for Fairchild's work on Sunday and if he wants to take advantage of teams' respect for Evans, he needs to make a more concerted effort to get the TE's and RB's involved in the passing attack.

Cya

771253[/snapback]

 

I don't follow the reasons you lay out to get your conclusion. This is odd to me as I actually agree with your conclusion.

 

I agree with you that Fairchild needs to get the TEs and RB more involved in the passing attack and if that is accomplished this O can fly. However, I think the way you get to this outcome is actually because we have a number of deep threats.

 

Not only do I think that Evans is a legitimate deep threat who has exhibited some athleticism this pre-season that adds a needed dimension to his obvious speed which csn allow him to mimic the threat Moulds posed at his peak. In the passes he caught and in highlights from practice he showed goos concentration on a bouncing ball and the ability to drag it in even with one hand.

 

However, I think we saw with his pre-season TD and from media reports from folks like Allen Wilson that Price retains his speed. He poses a deep threat even with a loss of some of his best speed because the key issue is what is his speed relative to the #2 or lower CB that would be covering him

 

(Walter Payton used to tell an old story when he gave speeches of going on a photo safari to Africa with Matt Suhey and one morning they worke up and found an elephant working its way through their gear toward the tent. Peyon began putting on his tennis shoes and Suhey warned him they should stay put because a human being actually cannot outrun an elephant over the savannah. Payton replied, I don't have to outrun the lelephant, I just need to outrun you)

 

PP is likely to be faster than the competition he faces if Evans in fact is drawing double teams or the coverage is rolling toward him. The dt Moulds drew was a big part of price being effective and he is a deep threat against most Ds.

 

Add to that the smurf like Parrish and in 3 WR sets against these three there should be lots of deep threats.

 

I saw some very good signs for WR productivity Sunday. Both Reed and Price led the way with 3 receptions for the team. They struck me all as good receptions and I was surprised that Fairchild did not do more to go to them also. Particularly interesting to me was that it was PP who played the role of the possession receiver averaging under 10 yds a pop for his receptions,

 

Reed made some nice catches (his catch on the busted play when Fowler hiked it pas t JP showed some great communication and improvisation by JP and Reed. Yet, on the face of it I had figured Reed for a productive role as a 4 WR who when the D was forced into a zone by the speed threats of the 3 recievers, Reed could savage the zone by finding the seams. Fairchild obviously sees something different and is using the WRs in a different way since he has Reed as his #2 WR.

 

I aggree that we should see more work by the RB if our O is working because if JP is making the right reads, he can judge when there will deep cover or the WR match-ups or routes will not result in the quick separation we need and then checkdown to dump the ball off to WM who if he makes the first guy miss should be able to go a long way.

 

I expected that one way that Fairchild would differentiate his O from the St. Louis style he was trained in was by far greater use of the TE (which is not hard to do given the TE often being a non-factor in the St. L approach. I aggree that there will be more RB/TE use but really expected the short pass to a WR getting quick separation and then getting good RAB to set off the checkdown to the TE/RB rather than the other way around.

 

At ny rate, Fairchild clearly has some other definition in mind. Perhaps he was using this game which almost certainly was gonna be a loss for us anyway to test out how his receivers performed and also to begin showing some tendencies which should allow this O to exploit opposing Ds in other situations.

 

The answer i think is simply we'll see.

[Fan in San Diego]

I think the game plan changed when we unexpectedly got the lead and held it.

771182[/snapback]

 

That's a problem in itself. If something is working, don't change. Just keep doing what was working. Don't go conservative and lose ! I hate the prevent idea ! If attacking is working then just keep attacking !

[Dibs]

That's a problem in itself. If something is working, don't change. Just keep doing what was working. Don't go conservative and lose ! I hate the prevent idea ! If attacking is working then just keep attacking !

771304[/snapback]

I totally agree. If statistically your chances improve by going into the prevent D, I always wonder how it is that so many teams come from behind to win. IMO all it does is give the other team some confidence being allowed to march down the field completing short pass after short pass. If a strategy is working & isn't being countered, why change?

[Pyrite Gal]

That's a problem in itself. If something is working, don't change. Just keep doing what was working. Don't go conservative and lose ! I hate the prevent idea ! If attacking is working then just keep attacking !

771304[/snapback]

 

One must also remember that the big change in offensive approach happened not because the HC.OC stopped attacking but changed when Jauron and the gang did try to go for the jugular on 4th and 1 rather than play it safe and go for the FG and we simply got beat.

 

The "philosophy" changed after that but the big change was the Pats confidence was soaring and the Bills from players to HC were reeling,

 

I agreed with the decision to go for it even though in retrospect it did not produce the result we wanted, but I would not add insult to the injury of them losing by accusing them of playing it too safe as well.

[Mile High]

Did we throw any screen passes?  I don't recall any.

771281[/snapback]

Nope.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I think we did try one screen actually, but JP ended up throwing it into the ground because the back (I think it was Train, but it may have been Willis) was covered. If I'm not mistaken, that's the play where Phil Simms went into a rant about some new rule concerning intentional grounding, although it didn't sound any different than its always been.

[Simon]

Did we throw any screen passes? I don't recall any.

I thought I remember something earlier in the game. No details but I just remember thinking to myself "Ah yes, there it is", because I had been assuming all preseason that the dearth of screens in the scrimmages had been a sign that the Bills planned to use them heavily in the opener and didn't want to give Belichik any film. Of course after that I don't recall seeing any more so now I have no idea why they chose not to spend any time working on a play that requires more timing and practice than any other.

 

However, I think we saw with his pre-season TD and from media reports from folks like Allen Wilson that Price retains his speed. He poses a deep threat even with a loss of some of his best speed because the key issue is what is his speed relative to the #2 or lower CB that would be covering him

Peerless Price is simply not a deep threat. I'll ask the same question that SDS asked 3-4 years ago and which nobody has still been able to answer to this day. "Can you name one time in an NFL game when you have seen Peerless Price catch a deep ball behind a defense?" And I don't want to hear any nonsense about camp, preseason, practices or any of that; we're talking about seeing it just one time in a real game. The guy's been in the league for 8 years and in those 100+ games nobody can recall a single instance of him catching a deep ball behind a defense; not one time in over 100 games! And he's still considered a deep threat?! Please........

And so this doesn't turn into "Simon hates Price", I'll take the opportunity to give Peerless credit for a very respectable effort as a blocker in Week1. Good job kid; keep it up and maybe people will stop calling you kid.

 

Add to that the smurf like Parrish and in 3 WR sets against these three there should be lots of deep threats.

Parrish is not a deep threat either. For one thing he's virtually a rookie and as such is just too green to know how to get over the top of guys and beat them bad enough to create vertical separation. For another his strength is his quickness and acceleration, not his top-end speed and as such he will probably never become a reliable deep threat either.

 

The Bills only have one deep threat on this team and any good co-ordinator will recognize that and call a game accordingly. While Price/Parrish may shake loose downfield once or twice this season, it will not likely be enough to ever consider them a legitimate threat to opposing co-ordinators. And if the Bills want to run a good offense they're going to start having to take the things that are available to them when opponents regularly roll their coverages toward one guy.

 

Particularly interesting to me was that it was PP who played the role of the possession receiver averaging under 10 yds a pop for his receptions.....

Fairchild obviously sees something different and is using the WRs in a different way since he has Reed as his #2 WR.

He has Reed as his #2 because Reed is the second best WR on the team (provided he's catching the ball). The Bills will likely use Price in the slot in 3wide sets because that is where he can affect teh most damage. Witness his only good year in the NFL when he did the majority of his damage playing from the slot on Moulds' side.

 

If statistically your chances improve by going into the prevent D, I always wonder how it is that so many teams come from behind to win.

They don't; it's a fallacy that they do. They may make a game closer than it was, but they don't actually win them. If you go into a defensive prevent when you're only up 9 with 5 minutes left in a game then you are asking for trouble, but the truth is that very few teams actually ever do that. Most teams wait 'til the clock is a more pressing factor (i.e. they're up more scores than minutes remain in the game).

[JDG]

he needs to make a more concerted effort to get the TE's and RB's involved in the passing attack.

Cya

771253[/snapback]

 

Well over 25% (6 of 23) of Losman's passes were to RB's and TE's....its not like they were being completely ignored.

 

And if your TE was Robert Royal, would that really be your game plan?

 

JDG

[VABills]

Did we throw any screen passes?  I don't recall any.

771281[/snapback]

Yes, the one to Mcgahee that Losman threw behind him and he slipped. But Mcgahee pulled a Sanders and got a 20 yard gain or so from it.

[Like A Mofo]

Yes, the one to Mcgahee that Losman threw behind him and he slipped.  But Mcgahee pulled a Sanders and got a 20 yard gain or so from it.

771447[/snapback]

 

 

Screw WM, he sucks and should be benched ASAP

[Pyrite Gal]

Thanks for the detailed response Simon.

 

From what I see I am less worried about whether a WR can get by a guy to catch some moonball for a TD (so thus it is fine with me if one ignores or discounts catches like the PP TD in pre-season) than I am about the WR producing big yardage or a TD catching a short pass amd ruinning after the catch.

 

The key to me is the coverage and the amount of cushion which the DB is forced to give the WR because the speed of the WR may burn him for a big gain if he does press coverage.

 

If you are looking for real world examples, simply remember the general case that even with Moulds here, PP usually challenged or lead in TD catches for the 2 or 3 years they merged in productivity for the Bills. PP got these TD catches not because he always beat the WR downfield and got a ball from the rocket srm of Df or AVP (though RJ and Bledsoe could throw the ball deep). Nor did he get them because he was such a great athlete that he would do the Moulds job of beating back a closely covering DB with one hand while he hauled the ball in with the other.

 

The PP speed difference which IMHO produced those TDs and a growing and then in his final year as a Bills quite good ypc was that he had the ability to get quick separation. either receive a short ball in stride or make the first tackler miss and then it was off to the races.

 

My sense is that it is that tyoe if game which Fairchild plans to run with PP in 06. It did not happen on Sunday unfortunately for us, but the team leading 3 catches mad by PP were a very good sign in my book. He actually showed an ability to get open in tight places in the middle of the field. This ability provides a quandary for the covering DB as the stop and go becomes a real threat now if you have to press him to stop the possession reception, and run the risk he may jet off on a pump fake from the QB when you pinch in to block the possession reception.

 

My sense is that PP TDs are likely to come from such plays where he either beats the DB on a relatively short pass with a stop and go and then cannot be caught due to his speed or the DB respons with lose coverage because he fears the speed difference and PP makes the first man miss.

 

My personal concern about PP was whether part of his horrendous AT performance was due to some physical problem like the rumors I heard of his eyes going bad. His receiving work on Sunday while not producing TDs was a clear sign of him seeing and catching the ball as well as any other Bill WR at least. Some folks have tried to maintain that PP was a weenie when he was here.

 

I do not know where this came from beyond the usual conventional wisdom ragging on anyone who leaves the Bills. They harp for example on the one season he actually had a few fumbles which came at bad times as we were trying to mount a comeback. Yet, my memory of these fumbles was that they actually occured when PP dodged but did not totally get away from the first tackler and actually it was a second hit that he was set up for which dislodged the ball. I wound up actually wishing he was more of a weenie and would go down on the first hit.

 

I was very hopeful about the WR performance Sunday. though i was surprised that as you note, Reed was judged the second best WR on the team, this is good news from my perspective. I like others felt that Reed was poised to take the #2 spot in 2003 and had earned it with an impressive rookie campaign. However, the bad case of the droppsies he suffered in 2003 was all on him (the QB would get the ball to him and often in stride, but he simply dropped it).

 

I do not think there was any scheme or route fix to deal with this, he simply just had to get better or we needed to look elsewhere.

 

The rant against him continued in 2004 fropm fans, but I thought this was somewhat unjustified as he was injured that season (Ithink he finally ended up on IR. Folks whining continued last year, but again in my judgment he looked like he had solved the droppsie problem. The fan problem was that our O sucked so bad due to JP needing to learn and the team context being so toxic, reed needed to make catches like he made Sunday and have some good games to really rebuild his rep. I think he has the potential, but potential simply means you have not done anything yet and he needs to produce.

 

It is clear to me that Fairchild is not doing what I thought he could do given the talents of Evans/Reed/Price/Parrish (you are right he is still learning and needs to find and make his nicher/ and even Davis (where was he Sunday and how will he be used). i do not care whether I guess right I just want us to be good. Niether Price nor Reed (nor the young Evans) are perfect, but all seem to me to have skills which can be combined and used in a good combination to produce a good O.

 

I think it makes sense you are not a Price hater (I do not think any Bill fan should hate any Bill- you might argue that Wire or Shelton should be cut, but why hate them or wish them poorly because these means wishing the team poorly) the question which I have is that given his and the otherWR's skillsets, how can they be used in a productive O?

 

My original general cut was:

 

Evans- Great speed and developing athleticism which forces others to dt him or roll coverage his way. He can and should get his share by getting open, having JP look for him with their developing chemistry and once JP throws it in his vicinity he should go get the ball.

 

Price- Its all about RAC and in particular since he showed some ability to work in the slot or as a possession WRon Sunday, the RAC opportunities are even higher.

 

Parrish- A youngster definitely and the Bills are working with him to develop an ability to work over the middle as he defines himself. If he succeeds in this with is scatback shiftiness and speed we would have a potent 3 WR set which essentailly forces opposing Ds into zones.

 

Reed- Tyke Tolbert and the braintrust publicly sing his praises as one of the smartest football players they have worked with and this makes him perfect if other teams are forced into zones as he would have the football smarts to find the seams in the zone and then the RAC ability from his collegiate work as an RB. ERven better if the coaches now judge him to be of good enough quality that he is our #2. In order to deserve this acolade he may have more speed than conventionally thought or his route running ability and now abiliy to hang onto the ball replace that speed issue.

 

Davis- Has the potential to fill in for most of the roles above.

 

I don't not care so much how it works as I just want it to work. it is actually a simple thing for folks to simply whine that it does not work because so and so sucks. Fine and whatever. What is really interesting in how they would make it work with what we got.

 

I think you are on the right track with increased effectiveness and usage of the RB and TE in the passing game occuring if the O is working. However, I think that this production will be a by-product of the WR scheme working rather than as a cause of WR effectiveness,