Shaw66

Sorry to have offended you. I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, I think I'm correct about modern NFL offenses and all, and yes, they are thoughts I've developed from listening to others and observing how the Bills are being built. Yes, there are some things I read into what Beane says, but I think they are fair and logical. Like Brady also must agree that they don't need a true #1. I don't see how it could be any other way. As I keep saying, I don't know what's going to happen, who the Bills are going to add to the receiver, or what the strategy they Bills will employ on offense. However, my observations suggest to me the things I've said. Again, sorry you're upset about what you seem to think is my unwillingness to own up to something. I'm not trying argue with you. I'm just saying what I see.

I think everything you say here is correct. I've been saying for months that they Bills one or two more marquee players, almost any position. They need a couple of guys (besides Allen) who makes some plays, just once in a while, that no one else makes. And it certainly would be fine with me if he turned out to be a receiver. I have a slightly different take on McDermott and the postseason. I think McBeane have done exactly what they said they were going to do, which is something that they will build a team that continues to get better until it wins a Super Bowl and then stays at that very high level. I think McDermott thinks about it every day, and he plans to build core competencies that become part of the culture. Of course, they aren't done, but they aren't just executing over again what it took for them to get good in the first place. They're building, always focused on their goal. I have great confidence that they'll succeed. Might not, of course, but I don't get the feeling not succeeding is an option for them. The night Hamlin fell to the ground, one of the ESPN talking heads, maybe an hour into trying to cover what was happening, mentioned that this is why pursuing your degree and the whole college experience is important, because you never know when your career might be cut short. A former player said that when he was in college, football was his life. Someone told him that he needed a Plan B. The former player said there is no Plan B, there is only Plan A, and if you have a Plan B, you probably aren't making it. McBeane have no Plan B.

I say this from time to time: My perspective about the Bills is I listen to Beane and McDermott, I watch what they do, and then I try to understand what that tells me about how they're thinking about the game. To the extent I think I figure it out, I then think about whether it makes sense - not whether it's right or wrong, just whether it makes sense. If it makes sense to me, then I'm happy and I wait for the games with an understanding of what it will look like if it works. If it doesn't make sense, than I'm anxious and I'm prepared for mediocre results. I will readily admit that since McBeane arrived, it's pretty much all made sense to me. I think they are executing at a very level a methodology and plans to build a continuously successful team that wins Super Bowls. I think that time is coming.

This is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to talk about the issue that way. All of what you say may be correct. It's all part of the evolution. I will say a couple of things. As to needing a guy who can force a safety or two deep to create the space for the others to work, that's true, but I think what we're seeing is that there are a lot of guys like Shakir, who have excellent underneath skills but with enough speed to get deep when the opening is there. Remember when it used to be amazing if a guy ran 3.4? It seems like every time you turn around there's another guy who's sub 3.4. I think the current operating system for these passing offense is to be so good as to force the safeties down and still good enough to be able to attack deep because the safeties are compromised. Tyreek Hill is the interesting opposite example - a guy who's deep speed is blinding and who will eat you up in the underneath game, if that's you give him. Yes, either philosophy will work, but it seems like underneath guys with enough speed are currently the offenses to beat. I literally don't know anything about any of the guys in the draft, but I think what you say is the big question for scouts and GMs. Is this guy a one-trick pony playing against weaker competition in college, and if he is, can he learn to do the other things we need him to do? You seem to suggest, and I have no reason not to believe it, that at least the big three have what it takes to play however the game dictates. In the case of the Bills, one other thing I've been thinking is that if, as he says, Beane doesn't feel it's necessary to get a stud number one, I think that also means McDermott and Brady don't either. I mean, one might expect that Brady, having been the OC for Justin Jefferson and Ja'Maar Chase, would be all in favor of the stud #1 theory. And one might expect that sometime while he was the interim OC, the three of them (Brady and McBeane) would have discussed that question of current football philosophy. I don't think Brady would have gotten the OC job if he said he needed a stud, unless McBeane agreed. I think the Bills are all-in on an offense that attacks all over the field with five superior, multi-skilled players. Samuel, Shakir, and (I think) an athletic rookie all will take defenses deep but will be nightmares underneath, even Kincaid to some extent. Cook will present similar problems. Knox will provide just enough support on the blocking side and be a receiving threat in his own right. In some ways, they'll be receivers who play like McDermott wrestled - just intensely competitive athletes, all over the field, making every play they can possibly make - catching passes, making runs, blocking, everything.

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead. They lost the Darwinian wars. Football evolves faster than the species do. The game keeps changing. Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on. Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat. People talk about getting Metcalf. Metcalf is a dinosaur. (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.) It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. Let me back off, just a bit. I don't know. I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense. I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit. I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it. What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense. So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.

Thanks. I only listened once, but I think he said when he got to Buffalo, he was coached to run. I don't think he said that's what he was coached to do in the more recent years. For the past few years, he certainly hasn't played like he was told to run if his first or second read wasn't there. He was playing out of the pocket for as long as he could.

I get this argument from time to time. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing. I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you. It is just an academic argument. And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

Yes, I believe. I've never found him to be not believable. This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker. I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing. He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity. He just doesn't. He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs. Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards. That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want. Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1. Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger. As for the cap hit of signing Aiyuk and the potential for failure, sure, he can get injured, but that's a risk every team takes with every high paid guy they sign. The Bills are going to have SOME guys with big contracts. You might not want it be Aiyuk, but there will be some. And those guys might get injured. Aiyuk isn't a higher risk than any of the others. Rousseau may get a big contract soon, and he might get injured. And again, Beane is going to get the pieces he thinks he needs wherever he finds them. He doesn't care, not very much, whether he drafts them or they are free agents. So, I don't think he's getting Aiyuk, and I'm not even saying I would do it if I were he. All I'm saying is that a move to get a star player would not be all that unusual for Beane. He did it for Diggs and he did for Miller. He'll do it again before he's done in Buffalo.

Where do I send my bid?

This definitely sounds like the most probably scenario. I don't see any way Beane will move into the top 10. But he's demonstrated plenty of appetite for moving up two to eight or ten picks to get a guy he really likes. I think it's most likely, because Beane doesn't like sitting around waiting and hoping for his guy. If he has a guy, he'll go get him. However, given what he's said about not needing a true #1, I can also see him sitting tight or even trading back.

Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing. On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong. Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too. One thing about Beane is that he's fearless. He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller. He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger. And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense. A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1. One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield. In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses. Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple. That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel. And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1. He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc. If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him. But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid. That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find. I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions. They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position. Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more. Offenses are multiple. They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field. The 49ers are the best example. Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches. That's what Beane is after.

Since you and Dawg keep saying it, I went back to the presser. Go to 12:30 10 about 13:30. He says, yes, a true #1 is nice. He said, "i'd like to have two." Then he said in their offense a truee 1 isn't necessary, but he also said something like, "hey, if a #1 is available in the draft or somewhere, yes." That's when he starts talking about needing a true one to support Josh early in his career. It's very clear how Beane operates. He's said often that if he can see a way to make the team better, he's going to do it. In the presser he said if a #1 is available, he's interested. It's the same point, and it's not surprising. He didn't say he didn't want a #1. He said in this offense he doesn't need a #1, but he clearly stated that if he can get one, he's interested. It's a completely unremarkable thing to say. His problem is that he doesn't have the draft capital to trade up high enough to get the stud receivers in the draft, so a #1 isn't likely. But as I said, if the Niners aren't going to keep Aiyuk, they might find that the best they can do in a trade is a #1 this year and some other capital thrown in (just like the Diggs deal), Beane DOES have enough capital to do that. As I've said, I'm not predicting it. All I'm saying is that it is among the possibilities as next week unfolds.

I'm not going to go back through the press conference and find, but I think he said it very clearly. It was in the discussion about whether he needed to get a Diggs again, and yes, he said he didn't need to. He said, essentially, what I said a couple weeks ago - that the Bills are comfortable playing with a lot of good receivers without a stud. But as he was saying that, he also said something like, "of course, it's always nice to have one of those guys." I thought it was very clear - if a stud falls our way and he fits into our plans, then, sure, we'll do it. It's just that he doesn't feel the need to do it. He just needs another good contributor. When i was talking about it earlier, I said that one of Shakir and Kincaid and Samuel is going to go over 1000 yards, and all they need is another guy to get 500 or 600. I really think they're thinking that. That additional guy be a first or second round rookie who has the potential to become a #1 or it could be someone else. But, just as an example, if nothing breaks right in the draft, it could be D Hopkins or OBJ. They're going to do something. They need another receiver. The point is he DIDN'T say "we are NOT looking for a #1." He said everyone would like to have one of those studs, but the clear implication was that the Bills don't think they need one. What I said above is that if, and I have no idea whether it could happen, but if what the Niners need in a trade for Aiyuk is affordable to Beane will pursue it. He'd be crazy not to. And I'm not talking about next year's #1 - yes, he was clear, and I agree, that he should trade next year's #1. But this year's 1 and 2 to get a proven, stud receiver who could give the Bills one of the very best receiver groups for the next three years, I think Beane would pull the trigger on something like that. The bottom line is that he and McDermott are building a team. Spending here means they can't spend there. They make decisions like that all the time. They want a receiver. There are a lot of different kinds of receivers available. They're going to make a choice. Remember Beane talking about drafting Edmunds? He said preparing for that draft he went through dozens and dozens of scenarios, but none of the scenarios included getting Allen AND still have a shot at Allen. But it happened. What I'm really saying is that if the 49ers call on draft day with an offer, Beane and McDermott are going to try to figure out how to do it. All options are on the table.

Dawg - My interpretation of what he said about his different from yours. I'm not predicting a move to get one of those guys, but I don't think he suggested he wouldn't do it. As you say, he did say that when he made the deal for Diggs, he was looking for help for Allen, because Brown and Beasley couldn't carry the offense. And yes, he said that he doesn't have to make a move like that now, because Allen has progressed. But he also didn't say, and I don't think he implied, that he wouldn't acquire a receiver by trading a draft pick. He also was clear that he'd like to have a true number 1 guy. He just said that the Bills no longer need the guy to support Allen in that way. Beyond that, it's clear that he intends to add to the receiver room. From that, I think the correct conclusion is that Beane is going to do what he's always done - survey the options and make a decision. Just as he did with Diggs, if the best option is to package his first with other assets to get a proven wide out, he'll do it. He might trade up, he might stick, he might trade down, and he might get his receiver by making a deal. If the 49ers are listening to trade offers, they may be finding that they can't get the compensation they hoped (because of what it will cost for his new team to keep him), they might like the idea of getting a first round pick and moving Aiyuk out of the NFC. If that's the conclusion they're coming to, I don't think Beane said anything today that would preclude his making a move with them.

Makes sense. He is completely clear that he doesn't need a star receiver at number one and that he just needs to add some quality receiving talent. Given that, the trade back makes a lot of sense, because he can get a quality receiver in the second round and pick up a quality player at another position, as well.

That guy is going to be Von Miller.

An interesting way to look at 2024. I didn't study it in depth, but I have these reactions: I actually one of the three key receivers will go over 1000 yards. Could be any of Kincaid, Shakir, or Samuel. I think that would happen on the assumption that the Bills use #28 to get the best receiver available, meaning the receiver who fits the Bills needs the best. That guy doesn't have to produce 1000 yards. All he has to do is produce 500-600. Essentially, I think what can happen in that scenario is that one of the three the Bills currently have will move up to replace Diggs as the 1000-yard guy, and the rookie will move in to replace the 500 yards, more or less, that the guy who's replacing Diggs got last season. Completely plausible in my mind. The longer I've considered this, I think the receiver problem will be solved without drastic measures. Now, I worry more about having two quality safeties and having enough depth at corner.

Beck - Its all just noise. We go looking for news, but there is no news. Then we stuck on somethung that was written to catch our eye. Sometimes its more or less correct, sometimes it isn't, but it's all just noise. Yesterday the Boston Globe said the Bills werent active in free agency because the Pegulas are unhappy with the results they're getting and tightened the purse strings. Huh? Unless it is written by the usual people who follow the Bills, it is just noise.

I dont think Brady agrees with you. At least one of Samuel and Shakir will get a lot of snaps at wideout.

Nice thread, guys. Interesting discussion. I get Dawg's theory, but I'm not yet convinced that Shakir can be that guy. He needs to take another step, and I'm not sure that's happening. I do think there's a a hidden benefit to Diggs' departure along the lines of what Dawg said, which is that the Bills no longer have a receiver who's demanding targets. And he did demand targets. It was quite obvious that the game plan always included early throws to Diggs, and I think those targets were intended to keep him happy, not necessarily to cause the defense to focus on him. My guess is that Shakir is an important piece in what we'll see from Brady's offense. I think we're going to see receivers running slants, crossers, quick outs, the occasional wheel route out of the backfield, and wideouts going deep when the defense leave them in favorable matchups. Shakir can do all of that. Samuel can do all of that. Kincaid more or less does all of that. And I think there's likely to be a rookie out there doing the same things. I think it's going to look like what the Lions and the 49ers did last season with a bunch of receivers who run good routes and who like having the ball in their hands. The receptions will be spread around among a lot of guys. Who's going to lead that group? Well, the Bills have to replace the 1900 receiving yards that Diggs and Davis got last season. Kincaid will get some, maybe 300. The rookie will get 500 (unless the Bills make a major move and get one of the big three in the draft). Shakir and Samuel both had 600 yards last season, and they will get most of the 1100 additional yards that need to be recovered. My money would be on Samuel being the 2024 leading receiver at 1300, with Shakir second around 1000, but I could see it fall the other way.

I understand your logic, but I wouldn't do it. Teams need stud players, and I wouldn't trade one just to have a shot at another.

I agree with Thurm. Giving up those picks has long-term consequences. I wouldn't do it. Plus, I wouldn't build a receiver room around Metcalf.

I'm not sure it's so far-fetched.

Ooh. Thanks. That was among the things I didn't know. So Dion's not a candidate. Who else might attract attention? Spencer Brown? No other lineman. No linebacker. Oliver and Epenesa probably have big cap hits, too. Cook could be a candidate. The reality is that if the Bills wanted to package a player and the first round pick to move way up, it would have to be a good player. There aren't many of those on the roster who aren't either untouchable or carry big cap hits. Well, I don't disagree, but I know that Beane has a knack at surprises. The reason I asked the question was to hear people speculate about how Beane might pull a rabbit out of a hat. If you think it's impossible to get up to the top 10, then I'd be looking for Beane to go after a quality number one who's already in the league.