Shaw66

Taron Johnson, for sure. One of the most amazing games was the Monday night against the Cowboys in 2007. Amazing game. Chris Kelsay had zero-yard return pick six.

I think Josh and Edmunds are different. First, the last sure-fire #1 overall QB in the draft was Peyton Manning. There are essentially no QBs in college who have anything close to showing everything they need to be star NFL QBs, so that means every QB pick is a bet. You have to suck it up and bet on someone. Beane and McDermott understood that Josh was less of a bet than some teams thoughts, but they knew it still was a bet. Edmunds was definitely a bet, but he was a bet of different kind. First, he didn't have much downside. It was pretty clear that guy was going to play linebacker on some team, either in the middle or on the outside. He was just too talented and had too much size to have much bust potential. So, the bet was sort of risk free - at worst, you're going to get a linebacker who can play, at best you're going to get a Hall of Fame player, a physical freak who had the potential to be talked about with the greatest linebackers of all time. Elam and Coleman and Kincaid have never been considered to have that kind of upside. I agree with pretty much all the stuff I didn't quote, by the way. I just think Allen and Edmunds were different.

You know, I took a look. Douglas had two tackles, five passes defended, and an interception. He was assigned to John Metchie, who had 34 yards receiving on the day. Nice day for Douglas, until you do the comparison. Benford had one tackle and one pass defended, and an interception. Benford had a sack. Benford's interception was a pick six for a touchdown that probably won the game. And Benford was man on man on LaMarr Chase, arguably the best receiver in the league, and gave up 44 yards. Chase has had five straight 1000 yard seasons. Metchie's best SEASON was 254 yards. Chase's best GAME was 266 yards. Tell me again who had the better day.

Thanks. The reason I think he's making bets is based mostly on the Elam pick and what followed. If I recall correctly, the scouting reports said his potential was as a great cover guy and that his tackling was a bit weak. When the Bills drafted him, it said to me that they believed they could make him into the kind of corner McDermott wants - a guy who runs the system flawlessly, with a lot of zone and a lot of tackling responsibility. That is, they were hoping they could develop his other skills and then have the benefit of his good one-on-one skills. Or, in other words, they took a guy who wasn't a good natural fit but who looked to Beane like he could be developed into a great fit. It's interesting to me that Beane essentially flipped the script in that draft. He made a bet on Elam when he should have taken the the guy who looked like the most sure-fire, long-term starter. He needed to be sure he was getting a starter. And then in the fifth round, when he should be willing to bet on a guy, he took Benford. NFL.com's draft profile said things about Benford like good football IQ, impressive talent for reading routes in space, willing tackler. Those skills are the skills that Beane HOPED McDermott could bring out in Elam. In fact, what happened was that almost from day one they realized they didn't need to teach Benford much of any of those things. Then I look at Kincaid and Coleman, and I see two guys who projected to be good and who might be great if they became something more than they were. In other words, they look like bets to me. Kincaid is still an open question, I suppose, but it seems pretty clear that this roster would be considerably stronger is Beane had taken solid starters instead of Elam and Coleman.

I agree. My philosophy about first and second round picks is that it is essential to get guys with those picks who will start for your team. Not necessarily as rookies, but who will become valuable starters, usually by the second season. When you use a high pick on a guy who doesn't start for you, you've weakened your team for several years. Beane seems to be using a different approach. He seems to be looking for the guy who is going to outperform the consensus the league has formed about the guy. That is, he takes Elam, Kincaid, and Coleman because he thinks after two or three years everyone will recognize that he should have gone in the top half of the first round. In other words, he takes a longshot bet, and I think that's a mistake. Why? Because when he loses that bet, he has weakened the team for the next five seasons. He traded up to get Elam, and he could have taken a lot of other guys who would still be on the team and contributing. I didn't particularly want Worthy, but the point about Coleman is not that Beane didn't take Worthy but that he didn't take someone who is a solid contributor in his second season, like Bishop. The time to make the longshot bets is the third round and beyond, because it's a bit of crap shoot in those rounds - you just can't be sure you're going to get a starter. So, for example, he bet on Bernard and took him higher than the league in general valued him. He won that bet, but the point isn't that he won - the point is that it wasn't a bad risk to take.

Thanks. Good discussion. I think your "fundamental point" is incorrect, for two reasons. First, the Bills have used resources on receivers and front seven. They've drafted Coleman and Kincaid in the past couple of years. The point is that it seems cleared that Beane missed on Coleman and the Bills haven't gotten as much out of Kincaid as they wanted and we expected. They also got Sanders in the second round. Thus, I think the quality of Beane's player assessment (particularly given how badly he missed on Elam) is what should be questioned, not his commitment to receiving or the dline. But more importantly, you and several others may think that the Bills need better receivers and front seven defenders, and that they need to commit more resources to getting them, but McDermott and Beane clearly disagree with that philosophy. I laid out their philosophy in an earlier post. They've been very clear about their dline philosophy - they're going to rotate 8 or 9 guys. If that is your philosophy, you cannot spend first round or large cap resources to get a stud dlineman, because that will mean that you're not leaving enough capital for other positions, or you're getting underqualified guys for you 7-9 dlinemen. And although they haven't said it, they obviously believe that receiver by committee, including tight ends and backs, is a better offensive approach than having stud receivers. The Bills have a pretty effective passing attack, just not the kind of passing attack a lot of us enjoy watching. Don't they WANT a stud receiver or dlineman? Sure they do. They just don't think spending a lot of resources trying to get one is as important as spending resources on other positions. I think their approach to getting a stud dlineman is to keep taking them second through fourth or fifth round and hope a star emerges. Sanders and Walker are the examples. Walker already looks like he could be a really good player in the future, so he's a candidate. I think they feel the say way about receiver. Coleman is the latest experiment. Shakir is an experiment who has worked pretty well. You can disagree with their philosophy. A lot of people here do disagree. I've often said the Bills need a stud defensive lineman - a game-wrecker type. But I don't spend much energy worrying about it because, (1) as long as McBeane are with the Bills, they're going to do it the way they think is best, and (2) I don't see the point in getting upset about their philosophy so long as they're winning as much as they're winning. And no that doesn't mean I'm settling for wins - I want the Lombardi as much as anyone, and I don't have a lot of years left to get one. The point is when the Bills are winning as much as they are, they're in the playoffs every season, and being in the playoffs is the first to winning a Lombardi. I just checked, and the Bills apparently are the betting favorite to get to the Super Bowl from the AFC. If they're winning and going to the playoffs and favored to make it to the Super Bowl, who am I to conclude that their philosophy is wrong?

There's a difference from being disappointed, which is natural - I'm disappointed, too - and concluding the roster is a disaster or that the coach and/or GM are doing a bad job. Stuff happens, and stuff happened to the Bills, so sure, we're disappointed. McDermott is 6th among active coaches in wins, and he's fourth in winning percentage. Are the Packers firing Matt LaFleur because he hasn't won a Super Bowl? Might someone else at GM or head coach have won a Super Bowl by now? Sure, someone. Since McDermott was hired, there probably have been 50 head coach hires. None has a better winning percentage and only three - Sirianni, Zac Taylor, and Dan Quinn - have better playoff winning percentages. Disappointed? Yes, but the reality is that the Bills hired one of the very best head coaches available in the past ten years, and one of the best GMs. There's a lot of good discussion to be had about what could or should be done differently, but someone needs to respond to the people on here making up stuff, such as the roster is a disaster. I know you didn't say that, but you got me going!

Excuse me, but this is largely nonsense. The only difference maker you trade up for is a quarterback like, as you say, the Chiefs did. But, of course, you ignore that the Bills did exactly the same thing a year later to get Allen. You do not make moves like that, way up into the first round, for a receiver. They simply aren't worth it. I've never liked Metcalf (I think he isn't a team player) and Pickens got traded on his rookie contract, so that tells you something about him. But even given that, of course you can find good receivers in later rounds. If you actually thought about it for, say, two and a half seconds, you'd remember that Beane did exactly that when he found Shakir. The whole league passed on Metcalf, Pickens, and Collins, not just Beane. Whenever a star emerges from later rounds, it means everyone misjudged him. Zay Flowers is playing with a Hall of Fame quarterback, and he's about to miss the playoffs altogether. You're right, Elam and Coleman were mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. And you're missing the fundamental point: The Bills do not want to use large resources on receivers. They can get the same production from a receiver by committee approach, and it doesn't cost as much. The Bills are fifth in passer rating and they are 11th in yards per game, which is fine because they are first in rushing yards per game and second in total yards per game. They are fifth in points per game. They wouldn't have won more games if they had Zay Flowers.

People say this, and I get the point, but when you're drafting 30th every year, who's a difference maker is a crap shoot. It's not so much a shift as it to be better at finding the right guys. Elam and now Coleman really hurt. You aren't likely to get a star at 30 or later, but you absolutely can't afford a bust/near bust. Bishop looks like a winner, and Cook was. Kincaid hasn't had the impact people hoped. Beane needs to be better in the first and second round. He's never going to draft away from culture and team players. That's what McDermott wants.

The Bills traded the rights to Justin Jefferson for Diggs, so that's one.

As I said, I think it's by design. Nothing happens by accident with McDermott. Thanks. These are good points. When they got to Buffalo, they said their approach was that the team would get better every season. They were clear that they would not mortgage the future to make a quick run to the Super Bowl, followed by a tear down. That is not what they're trying to do.

I don't think he'd ever admit it, but I'm pretty confident that McDermott has dialed down the intensity of the players for the first three months of the season. I think we're just now starting to see more hitting, tighter coverages, more blitzing. I think he believes, and I agree, that for several of the previous seasons the Bills peaked too early. He doesn't want that to happen any more. He wants to peak in January. I say it particularly about tighter coverages. In October the underneath receivers on in-breaking and out-breaking routes were open a lot. They had big cushions. Compare that to yesterday. Yes, Burrow completed a lot, but playing against as good a pair of wide outs and an excellent TE, the number of plays when the defender was right there, often making a play on a perfectly throw ball, was impressive. It's the same defenders, but they're getting tougher and tougher as the season goes on.

And the argument that the Bills won because of Josh really is a meaningless argument. Eight of ten wins, the Chiefs win because of Mahomes, the Ravens win because of Jackson, the Bengals win because of Jackson. This whole discussion is pretty silly, because the only fans that are having discussions like this are fans of teams that have a star quarterback. All the other fans are having discussions about why their GM doesn't get a quarterback. Of course the Bills win because of Josh. And, as you say, the Bills are winning with this roster philosophy.

This is right on the money. And there's more to it than just that. It's an integrated team-building approach. They don't do anything except by design. Two things happen when you get the right quarterback. One is you win a lot, so you're never in line for premium draft picks. The other is you pay him a fortune, so you never have cap room to buy much premium talent. It's just a given. (The exception is if your QB blossoms early, when you have a two- or three-year window with cap room.) The result is that it's very difficult come up with stud players to add to your roster. You have to get lucky with a Pucua or a Benford. McDermott's and Beane's approach to this problem always has been the same - build depth. That has two benefits. One is that instead of chasing after high-price talent and leaving yourself exposed at some positions, you have guys at every position that you can afford. It also means that your bench players are nearly as good as most of your starters, so when injuries happen, you usually have a guy on your bench who can fill in quite well. It also means that you platoon some positions, particularly the receiver room and the defensive line. That keeps your players fresher throughout the game, and it also means you can survive injuries with guys who have been playing a lot, anyway. Just about all of the Bills receivers have missed time, and so have many of the d linemen. The team moves on without missing them too much, because the replacements are all starter quality. Now, I know a bunch of people reading this are screaming, "That's nonsense. The Bills receivers are terrible, and their dline is a sieve." Well, the Bills are 11th in yards per game passing, 7th in passing touchdowns, and 6th in passer rating, and that's with a team that has one of the top rushing attacks in the league - first in yards per game and second in rushing touchdowns. That means they have a very good passing attack, despite the absence of a high-end receiver. Then people will say, that's because they have Allen. Of course, but if you don't have your QB, we aren't having this question. Sure, the Bills have Allen - he's what makes it possible to save money by having a receiver by committee approach and he's also the reason the Bills have to save money. And yes, the Bills give up a lot of yards rushing, but they're near the top of the league in yards passing allowed and they're 8th in defensive passer rating. The defense is 10th in yards per game and 14th in points per game, not great but not a disaster. So, the total defense is holding up, despite the absence of a stud dlineman. This personnel philosophy is also complementary to the Bills' approach to offense and defense generally, which is that teamwork can produce greater advantages than marginally better talent. They believe that eight talented guys rotating on the dline will produce better results than four guys, one of whom is Watt or a Chris Jones. You can argue with that, but that's what they believe. (And, as noted above, those eight guys rotating almost certainly are better than a team that relies on a Watt or a Jones when that guy is injured and out of the lineup). So, it isn't simply that Beane prioritizes depth because he likes depth. They value depth over a few highly talented players and a bunch of other guys, because it fits better with their payroll, their draft status, and their ability to deal with injuries. And we see it working this season. Depth at receiver is working. Depth at o line has helped. And as much as people whine about it, Beane signing retread depth like White, Poyer, Philips, and Shaq Thompson has helped the Bills get to where they stand now.

Thanks. I hadn't noticed.