LynchMob23 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Hey y'all. I was just listening to the Opening Drive on Sirius, with Randy Cross and Carl Banks. They took a caller, who was a 'Skins fan that mentioned they wanted a big receiver. From there, Banks asked the caller what exactly this "big receiver" was needed to do, because if it's just jump-balls in the redzone, without an ability to separate he'll be a walking offensive PI outside of it. Banks' point was that if you want a bigger receiver you don't necessarily get the guy that's 6'3, 6'4. You need a guy with separation ability and if you look at teams like the Chargers, their big wr for the longest was Antonio Gates. Now they have Jackson doing well, but that's because he can roam a lot more freedom thanks to Gates. So what do you think, TBD bretheren (and sisteren?) ? In the draft, do you think that will give flexibility to get a "bigger" TE like Bennett or Rucker and smaller person like an Avery (who has been said to be a Lee Evans clone)? Just looking for non-april fools' convo...
stewy23 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 You should have posted this with the 300+ other threads about which Tight End we need to draft in Round 2.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Hey y'all. I was just listening to the Opening Drive on Sirius, with Randy Cross and Carl Banks. They took a caller, who was a 'Skins fan that mentioned they wanted a big receiver. From there, Banks asked the caller what exactly this "big receiver" was needed to do, because if it's just jump-balls in the redzone, without an ability to separate he'll be a walking offensive PI outside of it. Banks' point was that if you want a bigger receiver you don't necessarily get the guy that's 6'3, 6'4. You need a guy with separation ability and if you look at teams like the Chargers, their big wr for the longest was Antonio Gates. Now they have Jackson doing well, but that's because he can roam a lot more freedom thanks to Gates. So what do you think, TBD bretheren (and sisteren?) ? In the draft, do you think that will give flexibility to get a "bigger" TE like Bennett or Rucker and smaller person like an Avery (who has been said to be a Lee Evans clone)? Just looking for non-april fools' convo... Should put that in the Dr. Mediocre thread who thinks we don't need a te, because the bills haven't historically used one. While ignoring how awful we've been the past decade, and the ever changing defenses that make a good receiving te almost essential to offensive success.
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 You should have posted this with the 300+ other threads about which Tight End we need to draft in Round 2. I really can't stand some people on this board. Way to be a douche.
stewy23 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 I really can't stand some people on this board. Way to be a douche. You're welcome. I'm just commenting on the fact that this sentiment (along with a whole lot of others) has been beaten to death. I opened it up with the false hope that it would be something different with a new perspective or...GASP!...new information. I'm sorry if it makes me a "douche"...I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just on hear looking to kill some time and BS about football just like everyone else.
BUFFALOTONE Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 You're welcome. I'm just commenting on the fact that this sentiment (along with a whole lot of others) has been beaten to death. I opened it up with the false hope that it would be something different with a new perspective or...GASP!...new information. I'm sorry if it makes me a "douche"...I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just on hear looking to kill some time and BS about football just like everyone else. You could have easily closed the thread, instead you threw in a snide remark. That=Douche
Fewell733 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 I don't think this has been beaten to death at all. People on this board are constantly pushing the idea that a big receiver is a good receiver. It just doesn't work that way in the NFL. Look at Jacksonville's receivers - they draft high to get big receivers and they all stink - Reggie Williams, Matt Jones - both 1st rounders. receivers are virtually useless if they can't get open. If we had two players just like Lee Evans, I don't think there would be many people calling for more size in the receiving corps except for maybe a depth guy with size.
stewy23 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 I don't think this has been beaten to death at all. People on this board are constantly pushing the idea that a big receiver is a good receiver. It just doesn't work that way in the NFL. Look at Jacksonville's receivers - they draft high to get big receivers and they all stink - Reggie Williams, Matt Jones - both 1st rounders. receivers are virtually useless if they can't get open. If we had two players just like Lee Evans, I don't think there would be many people calling for more size in the receiving corps except for maybe a depth guy with size. True. I agree with you that size does not equal success in the NFL. I am not on board with anyone who thinks that a 6'6" guy is automatically going to rule the red zone. I am also not on board with those that think we need to address the Tight End position before we address the Wide Receiver position. There are only a few teams who rely mainly on their Tight End for their passing game (San Diego, Kansas City) and both of those teams usually (KC sucked last year) have a top-notch rushing attack. Everyone wants to have a Jason Witten/Kellen Winslow type of guy, but most of those teams go looking for their T.O./Braylon Edwards types of guys first. I'm not getting on Lee Evans either, but his separation isn't all that great. Another threat at wideout would help fix that problem.
Fewell733 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 True. I agree with you that size does not equal success in the NFL. I am not on board with anyone who thinks that a 6'6" guy is automatically going to rule the red zone. I am also not on board with those that think we need to address the Tight End position before we address the Wide Receiver position. There are only a few teams who rely mainly on their Tight End for their passing game (San Diego, Kansas City) and both of those teams usually (KC sucked last year) have a top-notch rushing attack. Everyone wants to have a Jason Witten/Kellen Winslow type of guy, but most of those teams go looking for their T.O./Braylon Edwards types of guys first. I'm not getting on Lee Evans either, but his separation isn't all that great. Another threat at wideout would help fix that problem. I totally agree - TE is a lesser need than a legit starting receiver to start opposite Evans - I'd prefer not to have a midget, but if they really think a littler guy is by far the best receiver, then I'm on board . I really think it'll be WR in the 1st, TE in the 2nd or 3rd, and probably another wideout in the 4th-6th range.
Steely Dan Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 You should have posted this with the 300+ other threads about which Tight End we need to draft in Round 2. I counted 600. You're welcome. I'm just commenting on the fact that this sentiment (along with a whole lot of others) has been beaten to death. I opened it up with the false hope that it would be something different with a new perspective or...GASP!...new information. I'm sorry if it makes me a "douche"...I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just on hear looking to kill some time and BS about football just like everyone else. Which is why there are three posts from you so far. Ok, back on to the purpose of this thread. This is why I like Limas Sweed. He has the athleticism and the size.
LynchMob23 Posted April 1, 2008 Author Posted April 1, 2008 Douche-baggery aside, thanks for the comments. I didn't make this thread to talk purely about tight ends, I made it because I remembered that when Price was on the field, a lot of the time they said he ran a mirror route supposedly to force the safety(ies) to make a choice as to him or Evans to cover deep. If they ran those with moderate success (most notably the Texans game) why not look for someone who is a similar build to Evans OR perhaps a bigger wideout that can separate? Just trying to get away from the negativity that may at times take away from one of the better Bills boards on the net. But apparently even that was a bit a foolish thought...
ndirish1978 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 You could have easily closed the thread, instead you threw in a snide remark. That=Douche Agreed. Cause I actually think this raises a valid point that hasn't really been explored on this board. I think technically by drafting a "big" receiver at TE we could still draft a smaller, quicker wideout like Marshawn's teammate Deshaun Jackson and could still do really well with 2 shorter receivers. Jackson/Carlson could run the fades in the redzone and we would have two burners on the outside.
BuffaloBilliever Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 No seperation = No threat. That's why you need a guy who isn't necessarily tall and fast but tall and agile. He can full out sprint and turn on a dime for the curl route, or, if up for the jump ball, has the ability to reach where the balls being thrown. A 6'4" guy who has a 30" vertical is equal to the 5'10" guy with the 36". I still think it's no good to give up on Adarius Bowman like so many draft experts have. The guys a good kid, and sure he'll slip due to his poor 40 time, but I'll name two recievers who had similar times. Marques Colsten and Anquan Bolden.
colin Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 the reason for a big wr is so he can get the jump balls reach further for fade outs and comebacks use his body to screen the d on slants and inside routes be physical at the line and block cbs take a toll on smaller dbs so they have to take different positions to cover different passes (as the big body makes playing straight up hard). of course the skills to play at the highest level are rare, size is rare, and together they are even more rare. overall every O really does need at least one big (or at least physical if not big) wr to post up on guys and run the corners and slants. we don't have that at all.
Fewell733 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 but I'll name two recievers who had similar times. Marques Colsten and Anquan Bolden. this has been pointed out several times but Colston ran a 4.5, not a 4.7.
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 That's why you need a guy who isn't necessarily tall and fast but tall and agile. He can full out sprint and turn on a dime for the curl route, or, if up for the jump ball, has the ability to reach where the balls being thrown. A 6'4" guy who has a 30" vertical is equal to the 5'10" guy with the 36". I disagree on this. Receiver are not always able to jump or having to jump the extra inches adds the challenge of timing the jump correctly. Further catching a ball on your feet rather than when jumping means that you take less time to get moving and gain any YAC. If we follow your logic further, we would say that a 5'4" receiver is the same as a 5'10" receiver if there is 36" and 30" vertical respectively. Certainly height matters independent of top leaping ability.
stewy23 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Tall and agile doesn't get the job done either. That just brings us right back to a guy like Matt Jones. The guy is 6'6" and runs a 4.4 40. He plays like a small receiver and doesn't use his size to his advantage near enough. A big guy helps, but ONLY if that guy consistently uses his size as an advantage. The reason I'm against using a pick on a tight end is because we can get decent production from our mediocre group of tight ends if we can start to get good production from our wide receivers. I may be the only guy on the Robert Royal bandwagon, but I don't think that he is horrible. If we have to start using him as our second receiving option, there's going to be a problem. If we can get a good 2nd option, Royal (and Lynch) can be relied on as 3rd/4th options when a play breaks down.
tombstone56 Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 Tall and agile doesn't get the job done either. That just brings us right back to a guy like Matt Jones. The guy is 6'6" and runs a 4.4 40. He plays like a small receiver and doesn't use his size to his advantage near enough. A big guy helps, but ONLY if that guy consistently uses his size as an advantage. The reason I'm against using a pick on a tight end is because we can get decent production from our mediocre group of tight ends if we can start to get good production from our wide receivers. I may be the only guy on the Robert Royal bandwagon, but I don't think that he is horrible. If we have to start using him as our second receiving option, there's going to be a problem. If we can get a good 2nd option, Royal (and Lynch) can be relied on as 3rd/4th options when a play breaks down. matt jones is hardly a comparision ,he was a qb in college, take a guy like limas sweed,, size and agility,same as kelly ,etc.. no one is comparing your "average" big guy these receivers are extremely talented to go with the size and exsperience... i do like bowman he has that too but not the prototype stats,, i ll take the exsperience over a smurf with a good 40 time.. getting bowman in day two to go with a tight end threat and a top receiver would make for a scary group . SWEED BENNETT STELTZ BOWMAN.,,,,,,,, O W E N SCHMIDT! WALLACE
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 WALLACE I have my concerns about Wallace. He seems to have attendance problems, and may have got caught up in the drug trade in the past. I think this video discussing his prospects says enough: (there's some bad language here, so NSFW)
RayFinkle Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 this has been pointed out several times but Colston ran a 4.5, not a 4.7. facts suck.
Recommended Posts