We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Saratoga Slim
    Registered User
    • Jul 2005
    • 4154

    #46
    Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

    Originally posted by Historian View Post
    Lets be honest.

    The last time the Bills had a legit #1 receiver, it was Eric Moulds.

    We are way overdue.

    KC won two SBS because of their quarterback's ability to vamp on the run, plus they have the best TE in football.

    Josh is a traditional pocket passer who needs a deep threat.
    Josh is a traditional pocket passer?????
    Wake up, brush your teeth, and get ready for a day of hating the Dolphins. Or the Pats? How to choose?

    Comment

    • sukie
      Seriously?
      • Sep 2012
      • 21509

      #47
      Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

      Originally posted by Saratoga Slim View Post
      Josh is a traditional pocket passer?????
      Yes he’s a mobile pocket passer. Duh, what have you been watching?

      Comment

      • YardRat
        Well, lookie here...
        • Dec 2004
        • 86155

        #48
        Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

        Originally posted by cookie G View Post
        Well you could interpret it that way, but that's not what he meant. There are a few teams that have 2 legit No. 1's. Of courze there aren't too many of them.

        San Fran with Deebo and now Ayuk (at present);
        Tampa
        Miami
        Philly
        The Chargers did with Keenan Allen and Mike Williams

        Again, he said "ideally" or a word to that effect.
        I think it's exactly what he meant..."What this offense needs are guys that are smart, versatile, selfless, and can make the plays that their skillsets allow them to make."
        That doesn't scream traditional "#1 receiver" to anybody.
        YardRat Wall of Fame
        #56 DARRYL TALLEY
        #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

        Comment

        • POTLAND PSILBYLO
          Asst to Dean Vernon Wormer
          • Nov 2012
          • 13979

          #49
          Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

          I like the idea of not getting a vet #1 for high dollar and then have him double-teamed or otherwise schemed into nothing.

          Get a rotation of speedsters with hands and rotate them so that the D doesn't have a clue who's gunna do wut.

          That's just me, a jamo with a keyboard, but trading for Jefferspin or whomever just doesn't seem right. Get two good picks and maybe watch the wire or UDFAs. See if sukie can still run.
          3

          Comment

          • Mad Max
            Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
            • Mar 2003
            • 6698

            #50
            Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

            Originally posted by POTLAND PSILBYLO View Post
            I like the idea of not getting a vet #1 for high dollar and then have him double-teamed or otherwise schemed into nothing.

            Get a rotation of speedsters with hands and rotate them so that the D doesn't have a clue who's gunna do wut.

            That's just me, a jamo with a keyboard, but trading for Jefferspin or whomever just doesn't seem right. Get two good picks and maybe watch the wire or UDFAs. See if sukie can still run.
            Sukie can definitely run. Back and forth from the buffet table.

            Comment

            • Historian
              2020-2023 AFC East Champions!
              • Dec 2002
              • 61715

              #51
              Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

              Originally posted by YardRat View Post
              putting somebody who barely saw the field in offensive sets like Mike Mosley with Woods, Reed, Piccone, etc is an insult to the other guys.
              I disagree.

              Mosley had good speed, soft hands, and made some spectacular catches for us whenever called upon.

              Unfortunately he couldn't stay healthy. (knees I believe)

              I always thought Byron Franklin was pretty special too.

              Comment

              • YardRat
                Well, lookie here...
                • Dec 2004
                • 86155

                #52
                Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

                Originally posted by Historian View Post
                I disagree.

                Mosley had good speed, soft hands, and made some spectacular catches for us whenever called upon.

                Unfortunately he couldn't stay healthy. (knees I believe)

                I always thought Byron Franklin was pretty special too.
                Production should be the benchmark, not potential or physical attributes.

                I met Mosley during training camp his rookie season...kind of. He was pretty hammered sitting propped up against a wall on a barstool. I straightened out one of his beers so he wasn't spilling it.
                YardRat Wall of Fame
                #56 DARRYL TALLEY
                #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

                Comment

                • notacon
                  Registered User
                  • Aug 2012
                  • 32999

                  #53
                  Re: We don’t need a number one receiver…says Beanie Baby

                  Originally posted by ghz in pittsburgh View Post
                  Amen to historian. Diggs is not a #1 receivers. Beane himself used words carefully that Diggs filled the #1 wr role when he got to Buffalo, not that he is the true #1 receiver in Buffalo. An argument can made that Davis in the last 2 years is used more like a #1 receiver, out snapped Diggs , running more boundary routes. More of the “using your size” kind of targets. Both Samuel and Shakir are projected to be in Diggs role.

                  +1

                  Diggs (mostly) totally crappy performances in the Bills' playoffs deem him to not be a true #1 WR.

                  His 100% awful, terrible ****ty performance in the Bills' playoff losses during his time here made him more like a poor #4 WR, barely hanging on to a roster spot.

                  TGS REC Catch % Yards AVG/Y/C Long TD AVG/Y/G
                  4 Playoff LOSSES 35 16 45.71% 140 8.75 34 0 35
                  3 Playoff loses Vs Chiefs 25 12 48.00% 105 8.75 34 0 35

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X