SDS Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Except he hasn't "played poorly for years". He had one rough season and everyone has ridden him since then. Given where he was drafted, I don't think he has met expectations. No big deal though, he appears to have put whatever bothered him in the past behind him.
The Dean Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 ... and a couple more where he was not good, not bad, just mediocre Well, there were a few years that he wasn't a factor in the stats, I will give you that. But, compared to the other offensive skill positions, WR is almost totally dependent on others. If the his # isn't called, if the QB isn't throwing to him, how can he make plays? Regardless of how he was being used in the offense, Reed has always played hard, blocked and made the tough catches, when thrown to. He just wasn't being used much as a go-to WR for a couple of years. I don't blame him, for that.
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 B.S. The offense was mediocre and it was based on a variety of factors - and Josh Reed's play were rarely a part of it. Frankly I'm sick of people who have very little knowledge of this game calling guys out who're working their asses off in less than optimal conditions for their success. Yeah, it was a big shock to me that a possession receiver like Reed who relies on accurate QBs who can diagnose a defense would flourish with a guy like Edwards in there instead of Bledsoe or Losman. 04-06 He was mediocre, never breaking 40 receptions in any of those 3 seasons. You'd expect more from a starting receiver, like his stats from last year or better.
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Well, there were a few years that he wasn't a factor in the stats, I will give you that. But, compared to the other offensive skill positions, WR is almost totally dependent on others. If the his # isn't called, if the QB isn't throwing to him, how can he make plays? Regardless of how he was being used in the offense, Reed has always played hard, blocked and made the tough catches, when thrown to. He just wasn't being used much as a go-to WR for a couple of years. I don't blame him, for that. Yeah, I can agree with that. I just find it hard to say that he was good in '04-'06
Indy Dave Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 04-06 He was mediocre, never breaking 40 receptions in any of those 3 seasons. You'd expect more from a starting receiver, like his stats from last year or better. Well don't mediocre teams have mediocre players? Josh has talent. Put more talented players around him and the entire team gets better. This isn't rocket surgery.
/dev/null Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 he appears to have put whatever bothered him in the past behind him Yeah, Drew retired and JPs on his way to the UFL
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 04-06 He was mediocre, never breaking 40 receptions in any of those 3 seasons. You'd expect more from a starting receiver, like his stats from last year or better. Yeah, let's go back to the stats as the only gauge. Let's pretend there weren't significant issues with offensive scheme, OLine play, QB play, terrible defense necessitating offensive conservatism, etc. You win. Josh Reed was terrible and finally just figured it out.
Captain Hindsight Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Well don't mediocre teams have mediocre players? Josh has talent. Put more talented players around him and the entire team gets better. This isn't rocket surgery. Or Brain Science
The Dean Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Yeah, Drew retired and JPs on his way to the UFL
Captain Hindsight Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Yeah, I can agree with that. I just find it hard to say that he was good in '04-'06 I like that picture tho Most clutch btw not must clutch typo on my part before
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Wow, I am getting flamed again for this. All I am saying is that Reed didn't produce up to standards that you would hope for a #2 or #3 receiver for a few years. He appears to have gotten himself back on track. Yes, receiver depends on the quarterback and offensive ability. However, Reed battled injury in '04, and that excuses that season. However, in the following two years, he didn't earn the trust of the QB enough to warrant enough throws. Yes, the playcalling sucked, but a conservative offense that refuses to throw the ball down the field would allow for a possession receiver like Reed to get more throws. That all said, I am happy that he is finally playing at the level of a #2 receiver.
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I like that picture tho Most clutch btw not must clutch typo on my part before I left that up for giggles.
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Wow, I am getting flamed again for this. All I am saying is that Reed didn't produce up to standards that you would hope for a #2 or #3 receiver for a few years. He appears to have gotten himself back on track. Yes, receiver depends on the quarterback and offensive ability. However, Reed battled injury in '04, and that excuses that season. However, in the following two years, he didn't earn the trust of the QB enough to warrant enough throws. Yes, the playcalling sucked, but a conservative offense that refuses to throw the ball down the field would allow for a possession receiver like Reed to get more throws. That all said, I am happy that he is finally playing at the level of a #2 receiver. So now Losman didn't throw the ball down the field enough? Let me guess, his strength is his accuracy underneath and pocket presence? Next you'll be telling me that Fairchild was a guru but Reed couldn't gain separation. Care to tell me how many games our #2 receiver Josh Reed started in 2005 and 2006?
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 So now Losman didn't throw the ball down the field enough? Let me guess, his strength is his accuracy underneath and pocket presence? Next you'll be telling me that Fairchild was a guru but Reed couldn't gain separation. Wow, you got that out of my post I was saying that Fairchild didn't call enough deep passes, and Reed didn't fit that system. He fits this current West Coast-ish offense better. That said, he didn't start much those years, because he couldn't beat out a burnt out Peerless Price.
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I was saying that Fairchild didn't call enough deep passes, and Reed didn't fit that system. So Reed, a possession receiver, doesn't fit an offense that "didn't call enough deep passes". Go ahead and tell me how many games our "#2" receiver Josh Reed started in 2005 and 2006. Then you can tell me how he wasn't productive enough last season with a rookie QB and rookie RB starting.
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 So Reed, a possession receiver, doesn't fit an offense that "didn't call enough deep passes". Go ahead and tell me how many games our "#2" receiver Josh Reed started in 2005 and 2006. Then you can tell me how he wasn't productive enough last season with a rookie QB and rookie RB starting. 7, but he couldn't beat out Peerless Price, who was an underwhelming #2. Jeebus christ, we are arguing over history of Josh Reed.
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 That said, he didn't start much those years, because he couldn't beat out a burnt out Peerless Price. I'm sure that's based on some more of your really good analysis. Now tell us again how Josh Reed, who wasn't the number 2 receiver, didn't produce like a number 2 receiver. He also didn't produce much as the starting Will. You're a !@#$ing idiot.
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Jeebus christ, we are arguing over history of Josh Reed. Only because you don't actually know it but "are really happy he's finally producing".
justnzane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I'm sure that's based on some more of your really good analysis. Now tell us again how Josh Reed, who wasn't the number 2 receiver, didn't produce like a number 2 receiver. He also didn't produce much as the starting Will. You're a !@#$ing idiot. Yes, he didn't produce up to the standard of a #2 receiver, and in those given years, he couldn't and didn't beat out a subpar #2. Now if he was that great, he would be easily beat out Price and gotten more balls thrown his way. Again, he is performing that level at the moment, so no big. As I stated earlier, I am eating some humble pie. So back off, you insensitive jackass
Nanker Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Well, at least we can all agree that Ralph Wilson is the best owner The Bills have ever had!
Recommended Posts