GunnerBill

Of course none of those teams look forward to playing the Bills, but that's a given and isn't really relevant to the question in this thread. The question here is who do the Bills match up least well against. I think it is the Ravens because the things they do best on offense and defense - pound the rock, primarily using play action for their chunk plays and take away the middle of the field (even more so with drafting Starks) and use lots of simulated pressure looks on defense are the things that play best to the weaknesses of the Bills. I can see the argument for playoff time KC because I think at this stage it isn't even an Xs and Os or personnel advantage they have so much as a mental one. Cincy's pass game is a concern, sure but I like how the Bills match up to them everywhere else and the Bills nearly beat the Texans last year Josh playing like trash and completing just 9 passes - get anything like normal Josh Allen the Bills beat them 9/10 times. So purely on what do we do well and less well vs what does another team do well and less well it is Baltimore who give me most pause for thought.

Yep agree. I was a pretty decent semi-pro soccer player over here. I was never gonna make it pro but between 18 and 22 I earned decent money from playing in the leagues just below the professional pyramid. I had a knee cartilage op at 22 and I was just never the same. I never had the same confidence in my body, in my ability to explode into a sprint, in my ability to leap into aerial challenges. Even in my ability to plant with my right leg when I really wanted to strike full force with my left foot - which as a left back was a pretty key component of my game, I'd get the ball and had the passing range to drop the ball short, intermediate or long into that left channel for team mates to run onto. I lost control of my long ball totally. By 24 I'd slipped down three tiers of the pyramid (i.e. was playing in a league three standards lower) wasn't enjoying it and quit. So I do cut Kincaid some slack. It's fair to do so. But year 3 is massive for him. The Bills need to take a view on his option at the end of this season. Right now I'm not sure they'd pick it up.

I do think it is Baltimore. They do the most things well that matches up to Bills weaknesses.

I am not on about any of the off field. But you are simply wrong to say he was terrible against good competition in college. He wasn't. His game has warts, for sure, he definitely holds it too long and I think he refuses too many tight window throws that you have to make in the NFL. He isn't a franchise guy I ever see anyone committing to long term. But I think he has the ability to play in the league as a low end starter / bridge type. Whether his ego will allow that is a different question. I am talking purely about his game and what is on tape.

Terrible is an exaggeration. I am not a big Sanders guy, but he was not terrible against FBS schools. He played 5 ranked teams last year and other than the Arizona game he played pretty well. I think he can be a low end starter / bridge type Quarterback in the NFL based just on talent.

A team that hasn't been mentioned for worst that belongs in the conversation is the 49ers. He is their list of losses since last season: Deebo Samuel - starting WR Aaron Banks - starting LG Javon Hargrave - starting DT Maliek Collins - starting DT Leonard Floyd - starting DE Dre Greenlaw - starting LB Charvarius Ward - starting CB Talanoa Hufanga - starting S That's a ton of talent walking out of the door in one go. They went big on DL in the draft to replenish there but I'm not a huge Mykel Williams guy and I think both of the DTs they took are more 1Ts than the penetrating 3T Robert Saleh's defense needs. But everywhere else I think they are worse. There is a lot riding on McCaffrey and Aiyuk returning to (and maintaining) health otherwise this looks like another season of relative struggle. I don't think they are a playoff team in 2025.

Yea it is also a numbers point for me. If he can start stacking 800+ yard seasons together then fine, I'm willing to bump him up to a WR2 definition despite his limitations anywhere but the slot. At the moment in his two years starting he has a 600 yard season and an 800 yard season. If he settles more at the 2024 end of that (and I think he can), fine, happy to call him a WR2. And before I get the pile on I will just remind everyone that my yards and touchdowns prediction for Shakir in 2024 was out by one single yard. I had 820 and 4. I've got a good handle on who he is.

To add to the two backup QBs they already had..... seriously it's soooo bizarre. I'm pretty confident if it is a genuine competition Sanders will win the job. But I got the strong sense that the GM and HC don't want him to so I doubt it is a genuine competition.

What Shenault can do at his position? Yea that's diddly squat.....

Yea if Beane had come in saying "guys look, I know you have been talking a lot about receiver this morning but honestly I'd love to have drafted one but I stuck the board and went in other spots and I feel good about what we have" then no issue. It was the "this is 2018", "let me speak" and "you guys wanna play fantasy football" that was the issue. I have no problem at all with him pushing back on the receiver narrative some. But he came in unnecessarily hot and actually I think if you listened to the full show as I did Jeremy and Joe had actually given quite a lot of credit for the defense moves and their conversation about receiver was a broader one about prioritisation of them, salary cap strategy, and how you factor that into draft value. Equally I actually thought Jeremy responded pretty well but then his closing after Beane had finished the call of "we are not playing fantasy football, we are smarter than that, and we are not here to be belittled" was equally unnecessary and petty. I've been there. I got the famous Sir Alex Ferguson hairdryer treatment back in 2005 when interviewing him because I asked a question he didn't like. You just have to keep your cool.

But that wasn't what he attacked them for. He attacked them for their response to this draft "this is just like 2018 when you all wanted Rosen."

I think Codrington would beat him out comfortably.

The addition of Moore to me means the Bills have four proven high end #3 receivers: Palmer, Shakir, Moore and Samuel. With Josh Allen throwing them the ball at least a couple of those guys are capable of putting up at least WR2 type numbers. And then Coleman's development and the role of Kincaid are kinda the wildcards for me.

Except the task he thought he was taking them to was not really a fair reflection of the discussion they had been having. He flew off the handle at them based on listening to 2 minutes out of context. It was a bad look.

Yea as Gonzo said a page or so back the guy this hurts is Shavers. He was the clubhouse leader for WR5 before this signing.

There is not a zero chance of Shenault making this roster but it is close to zero.

Yea I like it. I think he gives you depth behind Shakir and he is versatile he can do some boundary stuff (although he isn't quite your pure outside vertical guy). I know he hasn't done it a ton in the league but he did some return stuff at Ole Miss too. So that gives him some ST value.

Agreed.

I think that plan will fail. I just don't think he has the skillset to do it.

He was taken in the third. But yes. I think the unusual skillset and Arkansas' inability to always use it effectively played in.

I'd have gone up for BTJ. I am on record with that. I'd have gone up for Addison the year before too.

I said it up thread, but appreciate that it is a lot to wade through.... part of it is scheme fit. I think he has to play in a 4 man front that use bigger ends at the 5 and the 7. I think right now there are more 3-4 teams given the proliferation of Fangio copycat defenses knocking about and even among the 4-3s there are some teams - like Houston and Cleveland that run a lot more wide 9 concept stuff where you want your ends to be fast and bendy. In fact rather than me repeating it I've found the link to the earlier post:

Yea basically this. I don't have a view on Prather actually I haven't watched any of him. I will at some point over the summer try and find some tape but as of now, no view. But I do think there is a gap between the top 2 who we would have had to trade up slightly for cost us one of the 5ths and Lundt and the guys on @JGMcD2's list below them. I think @BillsVet actually summed up my frustration with receiver quite well when he said it just feels like there are some positions where Beane is always worrying about the pipeline - DL, DB, LB, OL, even running back. But it just feels like he is content to go year to year at receiver making tactical adds like Samuel and Palmer in FA rather than being a bit more strategic. The frustration isn't just that he didn't take one this draft. It has been building for four years when he has always seemed to find a reason to prioritise something else over keeping that pipeline of weapons for Josh well stocked (do you stock a pipeline? mixed metaphor maybe.... but you get the point )

All of this kind of proves my point though, it comes down to what you prioritise. Would a developmental receiver, likely our WR5 in 2025, play fewer snaps as a rookie than Hancock if he wins that job off Cam Lewis and a TE3 who is a blocker? Yep. But is that what we are prioritising? Which guy has the easiest path to snaps in 2025? Why are we not looking at these rookies as potential four year investments? I'm really only talking about the trade up guys - Horton and Lambert - developmental speed receiver who can play outside and the Bills had for a 30 visit. To get either of them the trade up would have meant giving up one of the 5ths (either Hancock or Hawes) and Lundt to trade up. One way of looking at it is your way and saying who plays most snaps in 2025? My approach might be more if all six guys we are talking about here: Hancock, Hawes, Lundt, Strong, Horton and Lambert are starting level players by the end of their rookie contracts which ones cost the money to pay? It's the receivers, then Strong and Lundt (if he stays at tackle). So if I have a chance to take a shot on getting one of those at a discount rate who makes the most sense to get - it's the receivers. Add to that - how much better are the Bills if Hancock is 25% better as a DIME and DB utility piece than Cam? How much better are they if Hawes is on the field instead of Anderson? Whereas how much better are they if a Horton or Lambert does outplay expectations and by their second year are a legit piece of the offense? I think unquestionably the last of those makes the biggest % difference in the Bills as a team. I like Lundt and Strong and while I watched less of Hancock and very little of Hawes I understand the fit for them. In isolation they all make sense. It is the opportunity cost that makes less sense to me when you pass on a developmental guy who could potentially in future years be a receiver that makes plays for you. I think Beane takes the wrong message from Khalil Shakir. It shouldn't be "great he hit I don't need to worry about shooting for developmental receivers much for the next few years." It should, in my opinion, be "great, day 3 is a place where you find less well rounded receivers but guys with specific skillsets that you can then fuse together and make work with Josh Allen."

I thought he was an ordinary prospect, I'm sorry to say. I like this year's first three picks a LOT better than I liked last year's. Elijah Moore would give you that, and if Shakir can stay healthy give you some snaps outside too. I like that idea more the more I think about him.