HappyDays

But offenses aren't measured player for player. The #1 player on the offense is magnitudes more important than the #11 player. The #1 non-Josh Allen player in 2020 was Diggs, full stop. He was an elite true #1 WR, inarguably top 5 in the league. The #1 player the last half of last year was... I really am not 100% sure? I guess it was Shakir? That's a loooooooong drop off from a guy that was a top 5 player at his position. This is the old debate about top end talent versus depth. You could argue the depth of the 2023 offense was better than the depth of the 2020 offense. For the record I don't think even that is clearly true but sure you could argue it. It is undeniable however that the top end talent of 2020 was drastically better than the top end talent of 2023. Which means the offensive talent as a whole was better no matter how you want to stack the depth players. I think Allen has just become a good bit better since 2020. He was flat out a better QB in his next two playoff games against the Chiefs. That AFCCG offensive performance was absolutely not a matter of offensive skill talent. It was a combination of Allen being a bit unwilling to take underneath throws and our top three WRs entering the game injured.

It was the defense... There was a period from the London game to the Denver game where the defense was the WORST defense in the league by DVOA. Dorsey got fired and then the defense happened to turn into a top 5ish unit again. That, not Brady taking over, was by far the biggest reason we went from nearly missing the playoffs to going on a big winning streak to steal the division. Excluding the first game where Allen melted down, the passing offense was very consistent throughout the year. It had single-game peaks and valleys but on the whole it never got markedly better or worse over the course of the season. The one thing I really thought Brady did better than Dorsey was he took out some of the offense's worst tendencies. We took some of Davis' targets and moved them to Shakir, and Kincaid became the clear primary TE over Knox who became an afterthought. Moving targets from low efficiency players to high efficiency players was smart offensive coaching but it didn't flip the passing offense on its head or anything. It just made it a bit less mistake prone.

The other perspective is that it's malpractice to elevate Shakir above the low-target role that his skill set probably deserves. Malpractice not just for the offense but for Shakir himself by laying bigger expectations on him than he can likely deliver. In fact that is verbatim what happened with Gabe Davis. If he had remained the WR4 for his entire stint here I bet he would have gotten $18M per year this offseason. Some team would see what he did in that role and convince themselves he would explode in a more featured role, as most fans and analysts predicted after his divisional round performance. Instead we elevated his role which laid his faults out bare for everyone to see, and as a result he ended up getting Darnell Mooney money instead of Christian Kirk money. Giving players the right amount of opportunity for their skill set is best for everybody involved.

Shakir is better after the catch but Beasley was much better before the catch. That's why I think he might just be better as an inherently low target player... He's no more than average as a separator and I appreciate that he has sure hands but he's not going to be a contested catch specialist with that body type. His is a very valuable skill set but it's complementary, not focal, IMO. So as to how I would like to see Shakir used - I want him ideally to get 4-5 targets per game. Primarily schemed throws from free releases that give him the ball in space. He plays like a greased up pig with the ball in his hands, his YAC is very deceptive and I really appreciate that about his game. For similar reasons he makes an excellent check down/outlet. If the plan is to use him more than 33% outside I think that plan will fail. Stick him where his skill set can shine and don't mess with a good thing.

An uplifting story of a good citizen and the professional cameraman that happens to be following him around. The whole experience probably cost Rashee Rice a good $300, not to mention the cost of the three large pizzas!

Who knows if this defense has any merit, but innocent until proven guilty applies every time to any and all charges. I hate that arrest warrants have become synonymous with guilt. I guess it's probably always been that way but social media has made it many times worse.

Keeping the WR room as it is today is not what I want. I'm one of the biggest proponents on here of investing at the position. It is just what the current construction of the room tells us will happen. Samuel - lock Coleman - lock Shakir - lock MVS - guaranteed money which means lock Hollins - guaranteed money which means lock Those five are on the roster unless MVS or Hollins have an awful camp like what happened with OJ Howard a couple years ago. Other than him, every player Beane has given guaranteed money to has made the team. That leaves one WR spot open on the roster. I'm sorry but they are not reserving that spot for a new WR. They wouldn't bother having guys like Claypool and Hamler at camp if a trade was pending. Or they wouldn't have signed MVS to guaranteed money. I'm not happy about the plan but you have to really stretch to have all of these moves make sense in the context of another big addition coming.

I think they're trying to copy the KC offense of the past two seasons. Funnel the passing offense through the TEs and RBs. MVS as the field stretcher but rarely actually throw the ball deep. Big outside, quick/fast inside, with a primary TE that effectively plays WR. Grind out efficient drives, don't make mistakes, the QB will make a few magic plays to will his team down the field. That's what the ingredients tell me the plan is. I obviously don't think we have the offensive coaching or IOL to execute that style of offense, but I think that's the plan. Of course the Chiefs themselves barely managed to execute that plan last year but maybe we'll show them up?

I don't think the shade is intentional actually. It says something about Diggs as a person that a lot of generic buzz phrase soundbites we're getting this offseason sound like subtle criticisms of him. "Receivers can't be selfish" "We have to spread the ball around" "The receivers have to be on the same page as Josh Allen" "Josh Allen is the leader of the offense" These entirely normal throwaway soundbites take on a whole different meaning because of Diggs' reputation. As concerned as I am about the WR room I don't regret one bit that we got rid of him. Adversity will inevitably hit the room but everyone can work through it instead of walking on eggshells.

I think Elam is better than his snap percentage would have you think. He shut down Tyreek Hill a couple of times and has had several game changing INTs despite limited playing time... I just hope the coaching staff lets him get on the field. Either way you can't read much if anything into secondhand reports of OTA performances. This time of year I'm more interested to see how certain roster battles are playing out and where players appear to be stacked on the depth chart.

One more:

Updates from Matt Parrino:

Keep it saved for a WR at the trade deadline. If the room turns out better than expected, roll it over to 2025.

Is anybody on the board arguing the offense won't produce "solid results"?

Their skill sets couldn't be more different.

We haven't added, we've subtracted. Davis, Harty, and Sherfield all have replacements on the roster. Diggs does not. But my point is that every single offense can argue they have "multiple good options." That's a meaningless statement because it's the utter floor of any offense that exists in the modern NFL.

I also don't know what "multiple good options" means. I mean that could describe literally every offense in the NFL if you squint your eyes hard enough.

What if they had a stud and multiple good options

First time visiting the forum?