Now for the last real concern... - Page 3 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Nors · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

Boy Nors... I watched all those games. The Bills defense, even when they were losing was very good. Not giving up many points at all.

Reese is just "OK".

My guess is that we'll be drafting a safety in one of the first three rounds next year. The other two spots being a WR and a DT.

Bills started winning when Reese was benched - coincidence - could be.
He's not a playmaker.

**MichaelWinicki** · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nors

Bills started winning when Reese was benched - coincidence - could be.
He's not a playmaker.

You won't get an argument out of me that he isn't a playmaker. His greatest claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that he's better in coverage than Lynn Scott or Dixon. He may not be as good in coverage as Davis.

Nors · 06-04-2005

St. Louis will go against a Bills pass defense that is fourth in the league (177.6 yards per-game). Last week, New England's Tom Brady competed 19-of-35 passes for 233 yards, two touchdowns and an interception. But the Bills secondary that began the game against the Patriots won't be the one that will go against the Rams. Veteran free safety Izell Reese was benched in the first half and replaced by rookie Rashad Baker, who will start against the Rams. On the injury front, veteran cornerback Troy Vincent has missed six straight games with a knee injury, and Terrence McGee is slated to start for him once again. Last week's interception by Nate Clements was only the Bills' sixth of the season, which ranks 12th in the AFC.

He was torched and benched 1st half against Pats. 3-6 at time of benching. Vincent went on to play Free Safety. Any older savy CB's out there? Maybe injured that we could talk into a FS Switch like that? Justa thought! Mornin

Duane · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

You won't get an argument out of me that he isn't a playmaker. His greatest claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that he's better in coverage than Lynn Scott or Dixon. He may not be as good in coverage as Davis.

And while I'd love to have a legit starter at FS, my main goal is to have someone take away Scott's job in coverage. Reese can't be any worse and seems to be as good on special teams as Lynn.

**MichaelWinicki** · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane

And while I'd love to have a legit starter at FS, my main goal is to have someone take away Scott's job in coverage. Reese can't be any worse and seems to be as good on special teams as Lynn.

Well said Duane.

**big dog cowboy** · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane

And while I'd love to have a legit starter at FS, my main goal is to have someone take away Scott's job in coverage.

My grandmother just got a new walker and she can really go now. I'll bet she would be better in coverage than Scott.

Waffle · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

Oh, gimme a break... do some research before you go saying things like that...

Fact-- Izell Reese was the starting FS for the Bills, until he got hurt in game 9...

Fact-- the Bills had the 3rd ranked pass defense in the league last year... even though they were thrown on an average of 30.4 times per game, 7th most in the league... they were also first in completion percentage allowed, at 53.7 per cent...

So, Reese was a starter on one of the very best pass defenses in the league last year... this suggests that not only will he be a fairly safe bet to "even earn a roster spot as a vested veteran", he is in fact the logical favorite to be the starter at FS...

At the very least, he'll set the bar for who the starter will be... Davis, Dixon, Beriault et al now know they're gonna have to outplay Izell in training camp if they hope to be the starter...

[View Full Quote]

One break...coming up. Fact- Izell Reese was BENCHED by Buffalo in Week 9. He's a decent player, but not spectacular. Now he's 31 and on his fourth team in four years.

If you think Izell Reese will be our starter at FS, that's fine. If he is, we're in worse trouble at the position than I'm willing to admit. I hardly think my opinion about him and the "vested veteran" comment deserved a terse response, but whatever.

I think Nors', BZ's and Rack's responses all hit the nail on the head. Mikey probably said it best when he described Reese as just "OK."

Thanks guys.

Erik_H · 06-04-2005

Ok, I like this move. Not because it gives us a great FS, but because it settles things for us. There are a bunch of advantages to this signing. Let's see if I can make sense of this in a way that can be followed.

We know (pretty much) how good Reese is. He's got experience, and some real know-how about the position, but he's no playmaking star. If he were, he'd still be a Bill.

For the sake of agrument, let's make a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being a player of Tony Dixons caliber (not particlarly fair since he's really a SS, but anyway..) and 10 being Ed Reed. Let's put Reese as a 5.

BP pretty much knows this, so he doesn't have to worry too much about evaluating him. He now knows that in a worst case scenario, he's got a "5" player manning the FS spot.

Now this "5" player has come in and set the bar for the competition. He's come in cheaply enough that there is no pressure to have him start.

Before we got Reese, we had a bunch of real unknowns battling out each other, which makes the comparisions difficult. Without Resses we'd have had a starter by default without really having an idea of his competence.

Now we have a baseline with which to compare the other candidates. If say, Davis, should win the spot, then we can expect that he'll be at least a "6" which I'd satisfied with. Ya can't have stars at every position and FS is one of the easier ones to protect if they're at least "OK"

A bigger signing (such as Chavous, Shulters or that other guy) would have clearly precluded an open competition, whereas Reese's low salary invites it.

Add to that, better than average Special Teams qualtiy of play, I think this helps us.

We ARE in better shape because of this move.

blindzebra · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waffle

I think Nors', BZ's and Rack's responses all hit the nail on the head.

Hell just froze over!

Waffle · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Hell just froze over!

No kidding! I actually had to re-read my post three times before sending.

blindzebra · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waffle

No kidding! I actually had to re-read my post three times before sending.

Law of averages, they have to get something right every once in awhile.

burmafrd · 06-04-2005

Reese will give us more insurance against the terrible possibility of Scott/Dixon playing there. Now we have one SURE better player in Reese and PROBABLY a better player in Davis. So as far as I am concerned we are OK there. Not great- but OK.

**WoodysGirl** · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Hell just froze over!

Indeed it has...

To borrow a page from Brain...

jimmy40 · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

Oh, gimme a break... do some research before you go saying things like that...

Fact-- Izell Reese was the starting FS for the Bills, until he got hurt in game 9...

Fact-- the Bills had the 3rd ranked pass defense in the league last year... even though they were thrown on an average of 30.4 times per game, 7th most in the league... they were also first in completion percentage allowed, at 53.7 per cent...

So, Reese was a starter on one of the very best pass defenses in the league last year... this suggests that not only will he be a fairly safe bet to "even earn a roster spot as a vested veteran", he is in fact the logical favorite to be the starter at FS...

At the very least, he'll set the bar for who the starter will be... Davis, Dixon, Beriault et al now know they're gonna have to outplay Izell in training camp if they hope to be the starter...

[View Full Quote]

Oh those damn stats. Mario Edwards was a starting corner on the #1 defense in the league. Didn't Buffalo's defense play better after Reese went out?

Should have read the whole thread before I posted.

smashmouth · 06-04-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Reese will give us more insurance against the terrible possibility of Scott/Dixon playing there. Now we have one SURE better player in Reese and PROBABLY a better player in Davis. So as far as I am concerned we are OK there. Not great- but OK.

From that stand point, I think it comes down to pressure on the QB. Pressure makes everyone in the secondary look good (Larry Brown/ SuperBowl) So we could go with a Davis and let him get his butt kicked around and if he is what BP says he is ( around the ball all the time) then let's let him loose.

Remember last year with all the rookies and what not at the other CB position, now how would they have faired if we could at least pressure the QB a little bit?