Fan in San Diego Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Seems to me that at some point he should be sent in. That all I'm saying. But I feel that in light of the fact that some people expect him to play a role next year, shouldn't we have at least got a look at him this year? I believe he did get on the field this year. The last two or three games he got some spot duty.
Adam Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Did we know he was going to be a project that would include zero playing time this season? I didn't. Given how much help this team needed and still needs we cant afford to draft projects that wont contribute something. Did I miss something with him? yep, everything is always about this season......forget building a winner
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 So who do you sit out instead? That's the problem? It doesn't make sense to play him and sit someone whop's playing better. The depth and lack on injuries kept him off the field. Seems to me that at some point he should be sent in. That all I'm saying. But I feel that in light of the fact that some people expect him to play a role next year, shouldn't we have at least got a look at him this year?
beerme1 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Posted January 3, 2007 yep, everything is always about this season......forget building a winner You mean like knowing Willis wasn't going to play his first year only to lead us to playoffs every year thereafter right?
2003Contenders Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I'm with your beerme, a 3rd round pick needs to find some playing time somewhere. I found it quite discouraging that he never made it onto the field. I still hope he pans out The reality is that the Bills' pass defense finished #7 in the league. Thus, we were doing pretty well with the guys we had in there -- and the coaches did not feel that there was a need to make a switch, especially toward a player who had missed virtually all of training camp. I know that many will respond, "What about McGee? He was awful!" While McGee did struggle at times, his spot on the Active list was assured because of his KR abilities. (Even guys like Greer saw playing time because of their prowess on Special teams.) There are only so many players who can be on the active list each week, and AY lost out to the numbers game. Given the coaches' understanding that the running game was so suspect, extra LBs, DL, and players who were tabbed for run support were probably more at a premium than another CB. With that said, AY obviously turned some of the coaches heads, because he was active for the last few games. I wouldn't read too much into anything about the amount of playing time (or lack thereof) that AY had last season. As it was, we already had two rookies playing in the secondary -- more out of necessity than design. As there was never a great necessity to rush AY onto the field, he was one rookie that did what most rookies do -- watched and learned. Given that both Nate and Thomas are free agents, I suspect that AY will be afforded plenty of opportunities to reward the coaching staff's initial faith in him, when they drafted him on Day 1 in the April draft. I for one hope that he is not a bust, as we have other holes to fill than just CB. Recall that 3 of our first 4 picks last year were DBs -- and we can't afford to draft heavy for the secondary again. If Nate AND Thomas leave, then AY will surely have to step it up -- AND we will probably still need to bring in another CB to boot. In the best of all possible worlds, Nate stays, AY competes with McGee for the other starting spot -- and the loser of that contest takes the role (likely) vacated by Thomas.
Sketch Soland Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Seems to me that at some point he should be sent in. That all I'm saying. But I feel that in light of the fact that some people expect him to play a role next year, shouldn't we have at least got a look at him this year? Look at it this way: this team was in the playoff hunt at the end of the season. Would you have rather sacrificed even a little possibility of being in the hunt to play all of our rookies just because we want to see them play? (Note that he did get action in the Jets game due to injury). you don't just play "rookies" when you are trying to win ballgames if they do not give you the best shot to win them (yes, we did play a lot of rookies this year and were still in the hunt, but that was out of necessity not luxury). We were 2-5 and could have easily bailed out completely on the season but we didn't and the team is all the better for it (I'm not saying that playing youboty would have been 'bailing' out on the season, but obviously the coaches thought that the depth ahead of him were more ready to play at the moment) This coupled with all the other off-the-field things mentioned above gives a pretty reasonable and honest picture. The jury is not out yet on Youboty because his case hasn't even gone to trial yet....
beerme1 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Posted January 3, 2007 Would you have rather sacrificed even a little possibility of being in the hunt to play all of our rookies just because we want to see them play? (Note that he did get action in the Jets game due to injury). you don't just play "rookies" when you are trying to win ballgames if they do not give you the best shot to win but obviously the coaches thought that the depth ahead of him were more ready to play at the moment) I understand what you're saying. Awhat you're saying is pretty much in agreement with Ed Roch's points. No I don't want to sacrifice any chance at a W. EVER. It just seems a little odd. And if you are the Mangini and you saw that AY was on the field, don't you immediately go after him? I was at the Jets game and never saw him on the field. (could be due to alcohol though)
Recommended Posts