eball Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Here's the link. It is indeed a GOOD thing the Bills did not have a single rookie in the starting lineup Sunday. Reminds me of the "good old days" of the early 90s. No rookies cracked that lineup either, and were allowed to practice and develop at a reasonable pace. This is an interesting team we're watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 defiantly a good thing, and i for one wasn't disappointed with the rooks in game 1 - they have to play to be disappointed in their performance! let's just hope that they aren't forced into additional snaps via injury and earn their playing time the old fashioned way.......as the season goes on, i can defiantly see hardy and mckelvin getting on the field more, and ellis taking bryan's spot when they dress 4 DE's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Good teams don’t play guys who’ve yet to sell their books back to the bookstore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Here's the link. It is indeed a GOOD thing the Bills did not have a single rookie in the starting lineup Sunday. Reminds me of the "good old days" of the early 90s. No rookies cracked that lineup either, and were allowed to practice and develop at a reasonable pace. This is an interesting team we're watching. I'm not buying the argument that this team is so good, it's unreasonable to expect the 11th overall pick in the draft to crack the starting lineup. Would you really argue that having Josh Reed start is a good thing? Remember, Levy would never draft underclassmen either. Which is something Jauron doesn't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 After seeing how the team performed in week 1, I'd say that not having rookies starting is definitely a good thing. However I still think that Hardy can add more to the offense than Reed can and he should have gotten extensive time last weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I'm not buying the argument that this team is so good, it's unreasonable to expect the 11th overall pick in the draft to crack the starting lineup. Would you really argue that having Josh Reed start is a good thing? Remember, Levy would never draft underclassmen either. Which is something Jauron doesn't mind. The 11th overall pick was a DB, not a WR. Unless I'm wrong in connecting your 1st 2 statements, is that what you meant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I'm not buying the argument that this team is so good, it's unreasonable to expect the 11th overall pick in the draft to crack the starting lineup. Would you really argue that having Josh Reed start is a good thing? Remember, Levy would never draft underclassmen either. Which is something Jauron doesn't mind. So its sucks that we have to use expierence? And Josh Reed is a good reciever and a great downfield blocker, thats why hes in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 So its sucks that we have to use expierence? And Josh Reed is a good reciever and a great downfield blocker, thats why hes in there And Reed made a nice catch for a first down. I know that it is fashionable on TSW to hate on ol' Josh... but the kid is a solid pro. Eventually, Hardy should supplant him, but there is no need to rush him in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 And Reed made a nice catch for a first down. I know that it is fashionable on TSW to hate on ol' Josh... but the kid is a solid pro. Eventually, Hardy should supplant him, but there is no need to rush him in there. It's typical. I'm waiting for chandler81 to chime in with why Reed shouldn't be in the league any minute now, just because he hasn't put up monster stats as the 3rd or 4th WR on the roster. "If I don't see him scoring TDs, how could he be contributing?" If putting Hardy in means a downfield block will be missed, or an incorrect route will be run that could lead to a turnover, then let the kid continue to work hard in practice and learn. One thing folks have neglected to mention about last Sunday's game is that the Bills really didn't have a true red zone possession. Inside the 20 is where I believe Schonert intends to make Hardy useful first, and the opportunities weren't there last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 The 11th overall pick was a DB, not a WR. Unless I'm wrong in connecting your 1st 2 statements, is that what you meant? Yeah, those statements are meant independently. So its sucks that we have to use expierence? And Josh Reed is a good reciever and a great downfield blocker, thats why hes in there I'm not saying it sucks. I'm saying I'm not convinced it's a good thing. And the general belief is that Reed is not a good receiver. That's why we drafted someone to replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 And the general belief is that Reed is not a good receiver. That's why we drafted someone to replace him. Wrong and wrong. Reed never was suited to be a #2 WR and THIS coaching staff knows it. His value is in the slot as a #3 or #4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Wrong and wrong. Reed never was suited to be a #2 WR and THIS coaching staff knows it. His value is in the slot as a #3 or #4. Reed is a solid contributor to this team. Sometimes those things wont show up on the stat sheet but im glad we have a guy like reed on the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 One thing folks have neglected to mention about last Sunday's game is that the Bills really didn't have a true red zone possession. Inside the 20 is where I believe Schonert intends to make Hardy useful first, and the opportunities weren't there last week. Agreed. Both the TDs were scored while on the cusp of the red zone. We'll probably see Hardy when Edwards and the gang are lined up at the 10 yd or less. The game against Seattle didn't present that opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 Agreed. Both the TDs were scored while on the cusp of the red zone. We'll probably see Hardy when Edwards and the gang are lined up at the 10 yd or less. The game against Seattle didn't present that opportunity. That's right. It's the one place on the field where Hardy can use his natural ability to immediately make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Wrong and wrong. Reed never was suited to be a #2 WR and THIS coaching staff knows it. His value is in the slot as a #3 or #4. That's exactly my point! Thanks for stating so much more clearly. Reed was never suited to be a #2. The fact that he is a #2, therefore, is not a good thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 That's exactly my point! Thanks for stating so much more clearly. Reed was never suited to be a #2. The fact that he is a #2, therefore, is not a good thing! I would argue we dont have a number two reciever but a lot of recivers who can do different things. Evans is the number one no doubt, Parrish is the explosive playmaker, Reed is a reliable slot/ possession guy and Hardy is our Red Zone threat. If we win every sunday i could care less about their stats or who started. If each of these guys contributes to their roles on in the gameplan and we walk away with a W who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Wrong and wrong. Reed never was suited to be a #2 WR and THIS coaching staff knows it. His value is in the slot as a #3 or #4. I think people get too caught up in assigning these guys a number and then forcing them into the corresponding role. Traditionally, the #2 receiver lines up on the outside of the formation, opposite the #1 guy. You can call that the #2 position, the X position, it doesn't matter. You could then call the guy in slot the #3 guy. Now here is the football riddle: if the guy in the slot catches more balls over the year than the traditional #2 guy, is the guy in the slot the #2 receiver? Just cause you play on the outside as a receiver, does not mean that you have to be worse than the guy at #1 and better than the guy at #3. So in effect, if you call Hardy the #2 guy, he plays more (i.e. starts), and gets less catches than Reed, is that a problem? It might mean they have different roles in the offense. If you look at NE and Welker, he is really their #3 guy positionally because he plays in the slot most of the time with two other receivers on the field - or even one other receiver on the field. He is obviously not the third best receiver on the roster though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Who is on the field opposite Moss when they only use 2 recievers? Serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Read that article and I think it's right on target. How many rookies have we seen rushed onto the field and told they have to play at an all-pro level, because of their draft pick spot, who end up failing miserably and get run out of the town that drafts them? How many of them have we seen end up doing well on other teams once they get a chance to develop?(Kerry Collins, Testaverde, Favre...there's tons of them) On the flip side, how many rookies have we seen who have marginal success, or even great success, who end up generating ridiculous expectations that they will never meet early in their careers, and when they inevitably don't, everyone turns on them like a mother-in-law?(Um, Vince Young, Eli Manning, and another ton of players) Meanwhile they spent the time before they mess up having their heads inflated to the size of China, and people wonder why they have "attitudes"? When do we say: enough of the BS? Because that's precisely what it is. This is why the NFL needs to get rookie contracts under control. This is also why some "fans" need a verbal B word slapping for attempting to ruin the game with this "Madden/fantasy football" mentality. As if you can simply "insert player here" and suddenly his Madden rating and fantasy projection automagically turn into results on the field. All this does is feed a-hole agents the fodder they love to eat, and then crap holdouts on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I think its dumb that we still use McGee to return kicks, yes I know he is one of the best in the league; but kickoffs seem to be one of the most dangerous instances in game. Why risk injury to our our best corner, when we have Leodis or Roscoe as an option to return kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts