Small recievers

[gizmo6824]

After watching video and seeing the pictures of ota's today. I realized that even after watching lee Evans and josh reed play for us for years. How small they r when put next to T.O. and James Hardy. People have been saying for years that we needed larger recievers and how they always got taken out of plays. I always just thought it was lack of talent. But when i saw josh and lee next 2 owens,. wow ok i get thier point.

[billybob]

you want a variety of WRs- it is nice to have large WRs as you get into the Red-Zone- but you want a Lee Evans or Steve Smith type WR too

[Guest dog14787]

After watching video and seeing the pictures of ota's today. I realized that even after watching lee Evans and josh reed play for us for years. How small they r when put next to T.O. and James Hardy. People have been saying for years that we needed larger recievers and how they always got taken out of plays. I always just thought it was lack of talent. But when i saw josh and lee next 2 owens,. wow ok i get thier point.

 

 

When you are looking over the top of huge lineman half the time, players like T.O. , James Hardy or Shawn Nelson make great targets, especially for a young, developing QB like Trent Edwards.

[Thurman#1]

Yeah, how has that worked out with Hardy so far?

 

You need a lot more than height. And you can get by without height if you have talent and ability, as many players and teams throughout the years can testify.

 

I've said this a million times, but the high-flying Peyton Manning-led Colts, the ones who held the league record in passing TDs scored in a season till Brady beat him by one, those Colts, had how many receivers over six feet? That would be zero.

 

Height is one thing you can have that will give you an advantage. Others are speed, quickness, route-running ability, burst to the ball, body control, physicality, the ability to block out using your body, and about a million others.

[DanInUticaTampa]

we got more than smurfs now!

[DazedandConfused]

we got more than smurfs now!

A good nickname to bring up as it serves as a reminder that the Deadskins rode a collection of small WRs known as the smurfs to an SB victory in the mid 80s.

 

The keys were that it is not simply size that matters, but the motion in the ocean that made the diff for the Skins was that they had an effective running attack (not brilliant if I remember back but effective enough in episodes so that the D could not just focus on covering the smurfs tightly and just beat the heck out of them.

 

The Skins also ran an effective O with good routes and made far more use of a huge OL (the Hogs) and ran routes which allowed the smurfs to get separation (often by using near illegal pick plays again if I remember correctly).

 

The Bills have simply in my judgment not run their offense well as the pieces are their on paper but we have never configured their usage to maximize what they do well and minimize the deficits that they have.

[Trader]

you want a variety of WRs- it is nice to have large WRs as you get into the Red-Zone- but you want a Lee Evans or Steve Smith type WR too

 

 

Exactly what did Eddie Royal catch like 91 passes his rookie year and Hardy caught 19?

[djcalvin79]

Exactly what did Eddie Royal catch like 91 passes his rookie year and Hardy caught 19?

we knew what we were getting when we picked Hardy.. he had never played in a pro-style offense before, he was still learning how to run routes into the regular season.. our coaches had thought he would learn faster than he ended up doing..

 

besides, the Broncos had 386 completions on 620 pass attempts for the season, compared to 309 out of 479 for the Bills - Hardy was never the main focus of our passing while Royal was used as their key 2nd receiver.

 

i still think Hardy is a bust but would love to be proved wrong..

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Exactly what did Eddie Royal catch like 91 passes his rookie year and Hardy caught 19?

I think that's exactly the point. 91 catches and 5 TDs for Royal the 2nd best season of a rookie WR ever. Hardy had 2 TDs on 9 catches (22%) - including a game winner against JAX. Another big WR on the Bills is Owens (69 catches and 10 TDs). Larger receivers are generally better for TDs for various reasons. Hardy will come around. Braylon Edwards - who seems like a good comparison to me - had 32 catches and 3 TDs in his first season.

[Steely Dan]

Yeah, how has that worked out with Hardy so far?

 

You need a lot more than height. And you can get by without height if you have talent and ability, as many players and teams throughout the years can testify.

 

I've said this a million times, but the high-flying Peyton Manning-led Colts, the ones who held the league record in passing TDs scored in a season till Brady beat him by one, those Colts, had how many receivers over six feet? That would be zero.

 

Height is one thing you can have that will give you an advantage. Others are speed, quickness, route-running ability, burst to the ball, body control, physicality, the ability to block out using your body, and about a million others.

 

PUNCH!!

 

After one, injured, year you're getting on the guy?! It seems to me that larger receivers take longer to accommodate themselves to the NFL style of play.

 

 

 

Exactly what did Eddie Royal catch like 91 passes his rookie year and Hardy caught 19?

 

PUNCH!!

 

Yeah, all players in the draft should be like Royal.

 

I think that's exactly the point. 91 catches and 5 TDs for Royal the 2nd best season of a rookie WR ever. Hardy had 2 TDs on 9 catches (22%) - including a game winner against JAX. Another big WR on the Bills is Owens (69 catches and 10 TDs). Larger receivers are generally better for TDs for various reasons. Hardy will come around. Braylon Edwards - who seems like a good comparison to me - had 32 catches and 3 TDs in his first season.

 

Great point about Edwards. As I mentioned above it seems like taller receivers take longer to catch on:

 

Braylon Edwards;

 

2005 - 32 - 512 - 3

2006 - 61 - 884 - 6

2007 - 80 - 1,289 - 16

2008 - 55 - 873 - 3

 

 

T.O.

 

1996 - 35 - 520 - 4

1997 - 60 - 936 -

1998 - 67 - 1,097 - 14

 

Andre Reed

 

1985 - 48 - 637 - 4

1986 - 53 - 739 - 7

1987 - 57 - 752 - 5

 

Anyone willing to write him off already is jumping the gun big time.

[Hossage]

I am willing to write him off. Not because he doesnt know what he is doing, which is obvious, but because he isnt showing me any skills either.

 

He dropped a lot of balls in college too. He doesnt adjust to the ball. He hasnt gotten stronger. He isnt a major deep threat. He isnt agile enough to run good routes and get open.

 

Cut him and play stevie johnson as our number three in obvious passing situations.

[deep2evans]

I am willing to write him off. Not because he doesnt know what he is doing, which is obvious, but because he isnt showing me any skills either.

 

He dropped a lot of balls in college too. He doesnt adjust to the ball. He hasnt gotten stronger. He isnt a major deep threat. He isnt agile enough to run good routes and get open.

 

Cut him and play stevie johnson as our number three in obvious passing situations.

 

I can understand the frustration with Hardy, but to cut him would be absolutely asinine. Thank God you're not in a position to make any important decisions.

[Steely Dan]

I can understand the frustration with Hardy, but to cut him would be absolutely asinine. Thank God you're not in a position to make any important decisions.

 

+1

 

 

He deserves a PUNCH!!

[DazedandConfused]

I am willing to write him off. Not because he doesnt know what he is doing, which is obvious, but because he isnt showing me any skills either.

 

He dropped a lot of balls in college too. He doesnt adjust to the ball. He hasnt gotten stronger. He isnt a major deep threat. He isnt agile enough to run good routes and get open.

 

Cut him and play stevie johnson as our number three in obvious passing situations.

Writing him off at this point would be a truly football stupid move. Though the conventional wisdom is often wrong one pece of CW which strikes me as correct is that it is often too early to make a judgment on a player's prospects with a team until after one sees him for three seasons,

 

Even in the what have you done for me lately world of the NFL there are simply too many folks who take the Eric Moulds career path of producing like none other than a bust his first two seasons only to have him become clearly the best athlete on the team, a perennial legit Pro Bowl threat. only to have him meltdown personally when a younger player took his traditional role as the Bills go-to receiver.

 

The draft is pretty much a crapshoot anyway with the conventional wisdom being a first round pick should be starting by the end of his first year when the actual occurrence is its only a little better than 50/50 that it will turn out that way.

 

Did Hardy fail to produce as a rookie and have a disappointing first year?

 

Yep.

 

Does his lack of first year production seriously call into question whether he was a good pick with our #2?

 

Should we write him off?

 

No way!!!

 

To do this would not only be fiscally irresponsible as the significant bonus a #2 is slotted to get would all accelerate into one cap hit if we cut or traded him, but the possibility is still significant that his second year can see him develop like a player like Denney who was so easily defeated because he did not bend his knees properly at the point of attack that he was unplayable his rookie year.

 

However, a year of learning pro technique resulted in him being a solid back-up performer for the Bills who merited the raise he got to extend his contract.

 

Writing Hardy off would be the height of mindless panic right now. He may not make it in our now crowded WR corps but turning him into an ST hawk and having him compete with Johnson to see who is the #5 WR for the Bills (after Evans, TO, Parrish, and Reed would be a fine contribution to this team.

[commish95]

I am willing to write him off. Not because he doesnt know what he is doing, which is obvious, but because he isnt showing me any skills either.

 

He dropped a lot of balls in college too. He doesnt adjust to the ball. He hasnt gotten stronger. He isnt a major deep threat. He isnt agile enough to run good routes and get open.

 

Cut him and play stevie johnson as our number three in obvious passing situations.

 

 

SKILLs ----Jacksonville Game ring a bell........Who else would catch that ball

 

Dropped passes = 2....If you hate dropped passes wait untill TO drops 8 this year

 

Stevie Johnson......Really cant compare the two they ran completely different routes and most of Johnson catches were in the flat against LB.

 

Bottom line sure go ahead and cut him but in the right system Hardy would become a stud.

[Hossage]

James Hardy may do fine in the NFL, but there is no reason to think he will and every reason to think that he will not. Comparing him to Eric Moulds, as dazedandconfused did, he is certainly not as athletic as Moulds. Moulds was strong, fast and agile. He displayed great vision and special teams ability as a rookie. Moulds was also clearly a bright guy.

 

Hardy is not a tremendous athlete. He does not have great hands. Even in college he was not seen as someone with a high football IQ or a polished receiver. He caught a very low percentage of the balls that were thrown his way. Our coaches all agree that he has struggled in practice. He was easily covered by each defensive back who opposed him last year. He is hard to cover in goal line situations.

 

Hardy doesnt get it. Even as a rookie you know not to run your routes out of bounds, short of the first down or end zone, where to line up, and have a general sense of where on your route to look back for the ball. Some guys learn that stuff in pop warner football.

 

Hardy has shown us nothing except for the fact that he is 6'5".

 

I hope he turns out to be a great player. The problem is that he takes up a roster spot. Would you keep him instead of Stevie Johnson, Roscoe Parrish, Josh Reed, Terrel Owens or Lee Evans? Or another receiver who looks promising?

[DazedandConfused]

James Hardy may do fine in the NFL, but there is no reason to think he will and every reason to think that he will not. Comparing him to Eric Moulds, as dazedandconfused did, he is certainly not as athletic as Moulds. Moulds was strong, fast and agile. He displayed great vision and special teams ability as a rookie. Moulds was also clearly a bright guy.

 

Hardy is not a tremendous athlete. He does not have great hands. Even in college he was not seen as someone with a high football IQ or a polished receiver. He caught a very low percentage of the balls that were thrown his way. Our coaches all agree that he has struggled in practice. He was easily covered by each defensive back who opposed him last year. He is hard to cover in goal line situations.

 

Hardy doesnt get it. Even as a rookie you know not to run your routes out of bounds, short of the first down or end zone, where to line up, and have a general sense of where on your route to look back for the ball. Some guys learn that stuff in pop warner football.

 

Hardy has shown us nothing except for the fact that he is 6'5".

 

I hope he turns out to be a great player. The problem is that he takes up a roster spot. Would you keep him instead of Stevie Johnson, Roscoe Parrish, Josh Reed, Terrel Owens or Lee Evans? Or another receiver who looks promising?

The last question is actually the relevant one and my choice is actually unless a rookie or unsung journeyman WR shows something great in pre-season, I keep not only the 5 WRs you mention and Hardy as well since in my world, the Bills actually go with 3 WRs as their base offense.

 

My thought is not only does a base O with Evans and TO split wide and Parrish bringing his freakish speed and surprising toughness to the slot. but also the Bills are likely to be a better running team with a wide spread rather trying to bull through with inadequate FBs.

 

We are inadequate not only at a blocking FB I would rely on all the time, but we are weak at having a multi talent at TE. I think this team is better using H-backs to fill the role of FB and TE when needed as the jorneymen we have called upon to focus on one aspect of play rather to be the well-rounded multiple threats we need at TE or can both block and catch the ball.

[commish95]

James Hardy may do fine in the NFL, but there is no reason to think he will and every reason to think that he will not. Comparing him to Eric Moulds, as dazedandconfused did, he is certainly not as athletic as Moulds. Moulds was strong, fast and agile. He displayed great vision and special teams ability as a rookie. Moulds was also clearly a bright guy.

 

Hardy is not a tremendous athlete. He does not have great hands. Even in college he was not seen as someone with a high football IQ or a polished receiver. He caught a very low percentage of the balls that were thrown his way. Our coaches all agree that he has struggled in practice. He was easily covered by each defensive back who opposed him last year. He is hard to cover in goal line situations.

 

Hardy doesnt get it. Even as a rookie you know not to run your routes out of bounds, short of the first down or end zone, where to line up, and have a general sense of where on your route to look back for the ball. Some guys learn that stuff in pop warner football.

 

Hardy has shown us nothing except for the fact that he is 6'5".

 

I hope he turns out to be a great player. The problem is that he takes up a roster spot. Would you keep him instead of Stevie Johnson, Roscoe Parrish, Josh Reed, Terrel Owens or Lee Evans? Or another receiver who looks promising?

 

I would like to know where you base your information from. Did you go to IU? Did you watch Hardy week in and week out? Did you watch him play BB. Please enlighten us on how you KNOW this information.