No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

[Cali512]

I dont get everyone being so worried bout the number 2 receiver being a huge issue. Teams with spread formations usually have a really good route running WR then a bunch of good 1 skill WRs. None of our WRs are horrible, and i think most of our WRs would be a good 3rd WR on other teams. I think we our better off at WRs than most teams. Having 4 WRs who couldve easily started this year for us is a plus to me. At least were not forcing horrible players to start, they all have upside. We have some fast, strong, good route runners, big WRs, and there all smart. Were not going to have 2 WRs with over 1000 yds, but we will have possibly 3 500 yd WRs along with Johnson having 1000.

Easily is very fast, strong, big, and can fight for a ball
Nelson is big, if he can use his body he can be great, and has amazing hands
Jones is good size, smart, at least attempts the ball at the highest point
Hagan has good size, good at getting seperation, strong, has good hands
Graham is exceptionally fast, has good change of direction, and great moves after catch
Roosevelt has consistant hands, good at getting first downs, and is smart
Aiken is unknown, but has shown good hands, and good seperation, and is good size

Then we have Spiller and Chandler in the spread

Spiller- Amazingly fast, can catch, get seperation running down or across the field, and is great after the catch
Chandler- Good consistant hands, redzone threat, can catch anywhere from 30 yds under, and catches at the highest point


With all these WRs with good skill sets, but not the full package, they can feed off eachothers strength and make a dominant passing attack. It has nothing to do with a 2nd WR, the patriots arent needing a 2nd WR every year, they have a bunch of WRs that do good at what they do, and thats all they need. Players develop skills when they have confidence, players like Nelson, Jones, Graham, Hagan, and Easily all have good skill sets, Nelsons the only one missing speed, but if he gets confidence he can make up for it with being a big version of Hines Ward, or almost a spread formation TE type WR. The rest will begin to be more comfortable with routes, getting seperation, and locating passes, just by having that opportunity. We have 5-6 WRs that have more motivation than any WR we could possibly bring in.

[mush69]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

I remember when we started out of the box last year it was a "Team of No Names" in the wings, I have hope and have confidence that our receiving group will be top notch this year!

........

[Night Train]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

One would expect FJ & CJ to catch a boatload of swing passes out of the backfield. SJ will obviously see a heavy workload. Nelson and Chadler get lots of looks, especially in the red zone.

Your logic makes sense and the Bills are not going to go out and chase a name. They'll let the current candidates fight it out. If it upsets some, tough *****t.

[DraftBoy]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

One would expect FJ & CJ to catch a boatload of swing passes out of the backfield. SJ will obviously see a heavy workload. Nelson and Chadler get lots of looks, especially in the red zone.

Your logic makes sense and the Bills are not going to go out and chase a name. They'll let the current candidates fight it out. If it upsets some, tough *****t.

Yes but minus Easley and Graham this was the same grouping in the same system as last year that many complained about.

The spread system is not a cure all, you still need people who can make plays consistently. Defenses can, will, and have adjusted to singular based spread systems where they only need to eliminate one good WR and let the others try and be the focal point.

[Jan Reimers]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

We simply need one of our receivers - most probably Graham or Easley - to step up and be that fast guy who can stretch the field and keep the opposing defense honest.

[justasportsfan]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

I guess what we're looking for is someone else who can step up CONSISTENTLY when teams concentrate on Stevie. We don't have that.

[Mahdi]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

Don't agree, no matter what offense you run you need a #2 WR who is good enough to take coverage away from your #1 and good enough to take on the #1 role when your #2 is getting taken out of a game.

We didn't have that last year and yet to see who if anyone will take it on this year. If no one steps up our offense will struggle at times. If Chandler can get 60 receptions instead of 30 he can offset the #2 need a bit.

[OpIv37]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

Not buying it.

This sounds a lot like "Well we don't need CB's who can play man in the cover 2 because it's a zone D." "Well, we don't need a good OL as long as we have good skill players like McGahee, Henry and Moulds to take the pressure off."

Every year, it seems people (or even the team themselves) say "X deficiency doesn't matter because we can cover for it with Y." It never works.

[stuckincincy]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

Not buying it.
This sounds a lot like "Well we don't need CB's who can play man in the cover 2 because it's a zone D." "Well, we don't need a good OL as long as we have good skill players like McGahee, Henry and Moulds to take the pressure off."
Every year, it seems people (or even the team themselves) say "X deficiency doesn't matter because we can cover for it with Y." It never works.

I agree. I'll yammer on about CIN, last season. Rookies Dalton and Green. Jerome Simpson and 2nd year Shipley (53 rookie grabs). Shipley goes out in game #2. Simpson has some highlight reel catches, but was something like 2nd in the league with drops per tries. Got some nice play out of 5'7" Andrew Hawkins (incl. ST).

CIN runs its' share of multiple WR formations. Green gets a steady diet of double coverage - does ok, but if Shipley's there vacuuming up the slot passes...

So they draft Sanu and Marvin Jones. BUF drafts Graham. Both clubs see the need.

Having a Chad Johnson/TJ Housh and 3 others beats having an AJ Green/4 other players or Stevie Johnson/4 other players.

[acehole]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

Post of the year.

I dont get everyone being so worried bout the number 2 receiver being a huge issue. Teams with spread formations usually have a really good route running WR then a bunch of good 1 skill WRs. None of our WRs are horrible, and i think most of our WRs would be a good 3rd WR on other teams. I think we our better off at WRs than most teams. Having 4 WRs who couldve easily started this year for us is a plus to me. At least were not forcing horrible players to start, they all have upside. We have some fast, strong, good route runners, big WRs, and there all smart. Were not going to have 2 WRs with over 1000 yds, but we will have possibly 3 500 yd WRs along with Johnson having 1000.

Easily is very fast, strong, big, and can fight for a ball
Nelson is big, if he can use his body he can be great, and has amazing hands
Jones is good size, smart, at least attempts the ball at the highest point
Hagan has good size, good at getting seperation, strong, has good hands
Graham is exceptionally fast, has good change of direction, and great moves after catch
Roosevelt has consistant hands, good at getting first downs, and is smart
Aiken is unknown, but has shown good hands, and good seperation, and is good size

Then we have Spiller and Chandler in the spread

Spiller- Amazingly fast, can catch, get seperation running down or across the field, and is great after the catch
Chandler- Good consistant hands, redzone threat, can catch anywhere from 30 yds under, and catches at the highest point


With all these WRs with good skill sets, but not the full package, they can feed off eachothers strength and make a dominant passing attack. It has nothing to do with a 2nd WR, the patriots arent needing a 2nd WR every year, they have a bunch of WRs that do good at what they do, and thats all they need. Players develop skills when they have confidence, players like Nelson, Jones, Graham, Hagan, and Easily all have good skill sets, Nelsons the only one missing speed, but if he gets confidence he can make up for it with being a big version of Hines Ward, or almost a spread formation TE type WR. The rest will begin to be more comfortable with routes, getting seperation, and locating passes, just by having that opportunity. We have 5-6 WRs that have more motivation than any WR we could possibly bring in.

[ddaryl]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

I think we have a guy or 2 on our roster that will rise up this year and Nelson has already shown solid production on top of all that.

You can always use talent, but chasing FA talent is hit and miss... Nix only pursued Meechem as a WR in FA so that tells you that Nix is very picky about the talent he chooses to bring in, and will only do what is clearly beneficial to this team long term.

We are developing our own, and that is the way great teams become great and stay great for long stretches. FA is useful, but it's not the way to build the foundation

[BillsOverDolphins]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

I'm impressed and relieved by some of the responses in this thread. There's no bigger cop-out for a lack of talented #2 WR's than "Well, it's a spread, who needs them anyways?" Give me a spread with talented WR's over a spread with a pile of poop.

[ddaryl]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

I'm impressed and relieved by some of the responses in this thread. There's no bigger cop-out for a lack of talented #2 WR's than "Well, it's a spread, who needs them anyways?" Give me a spread with talented WR's over a spread with a pile of poop.

and there is no substitution for some patience and developing your own players.

From the camp reports I don't think we will have a problem at all with our WR corps. Many of them are entering year 3 and have been patiently developed by this org. SOme of them are vets who have worked hard and should give us good depth, or more

What worries me is when fans clamor for that FA fix of a known name.... I am not worried at all about our WR corps. Like I said a few will rise up, not even a concern of mine, and I believe patience and developing will prevail over the quick fix solution.

if not call me out at the half way mark

[OpIv37]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

Post of the year.

Um, no. It's nothing but wishful thinking. It's poor logic to try to get around the reality of the glaring hole we have at #2 WR.

[BillsOverDolphins]

Re: No need for 2 great WRs in a spread

and there is no substitution for some patience and developing your own players.

From the camp reports I don't think we will have a problem at all with our WR corps. Many of them are entering year 3 and have been patiently developed by this org. SOme of them are vets who have worked hard and should give us good depth, or more

What worries me is when fans clamor for that FA fix of a known name.... I am not worried at all about our WR corps. Like I said a few will rise up, not even a concern of mine, and I believe patience and developing will prevail over the quick fix solution.

if not call me out at the half way mark

Nah, I'll call you out at the end of the season when the dust settles and it showed we became painfully easy to cover again.

I have a shred of hope for Easley (as long as he's healthy), but the rest of the bunch are wholly unspectacular. Unless Easley breaks out, we do not have starting caliber WR's on our roster outside of SJ. No other team would start the crap we have to throw out there (maybe Miami, but certainly no one else). You keep citing FA pick-ups, but that's not even the major issue here. We didn't draft a game-changer when we had the chance in the 1st round (Floyd)--and we actually traded up to take a likely 6th-7th rounder who's only apparent skill as of now is the 40-yd dash.